Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/142

 But see on same point Association v. Austin, 46 Cal. 416; Desty, Tax’n, 901, and cases cited.

The rule of non-interference by courts of equity in tax proceedings has been repeatedly recognized and enforced in New York. See cases collected in Susquehanna Bank v. Supervisors, 25 N. Y. 313. In State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, it is said in the head-notes: “While this court does not lay down any absolute rule limiting the powers of a court of equity in restraining the collection of taxes, it declares that it is essential that every case be brought within some of the recognized rules of equity jurisprudence, and: that neither illegality or irregularity in the proceedings, nor error or excess in the valuation, nor the hardship or injustice of the law, provided it be constitutional, nor any grievance which can be remedied by a suit at law, either before or after the payment of a tax, will authorize an injunction against its collection.” And again: “No injunction, preliminary or final, can be granted to stay collection of taxes until it is shown that all the taxes conceded to be due, or which the court can see ought to be paid, or which can be shown to be due by affidavits, have been paid or tendered without demanding a receipt in full.” See, also, Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall 548; Cummings v. Bank, 101 U. S. 153.

Cases may be found holding opinions more or less opposed to the doctrine of the foregoing cases. Upon this subject, Mr. High says: “Upon the other hand, the decisions are neither few in number, nor wanting in respectability, which have inclined to a departure from the doctrine of non-interference in equity with the collection of taxes; and it will be found, as we proceed, that the courts have in many instances extended preventive relief by injunction against the exercise of the taxing power in cages where such relief was unwarranted either upon principle or upon the clear weight of authority.” High, Inj. § 484.

Courts of equity should, in general, extend the strong arm of their preventive power to restrain the collection of a tax or annul tax proceedings only where the property sought to be taxed is exempt from taxation or the tax itself is not war-