Thatcher v. Dusenbury

New York Supreme Court

Thatcher v. Dusenbury

9 How. Pr. 32

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 9 How. Pr. 32 (Thatcher v. Dusenbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thatcher v. Dusenbury, 9 How. Pr. 32 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Rockwell, Justice.

The defendants have put in their answer; but from the view that I have taken of the matter, 1 have considered it. entirely unnecessary to advert to its contents. The complaint, in my opinion, does not state a case which authorizes the interposition of this court.

The plaintiff supposes that the court, by virtue of its equity power, is authorized to relieve him, by declaring the proceed[34]*34ings for the assessment and levying of'a tax to be void, and by restraining the collection of such tax.

In this I think he is clearly mistaken. A court of equity has no right to inquire into the proceedings of subordinate tribunals of special or local jurisdiction, with a view to set them aside, if void at law, or for the purpose of staying or restraining such proceedings. Mooers agt. Smedley and others, (6 John. Ch. R. 28;) The Mayor &c. of the City of Brooklyn agt. Meserole, (26 Wend. 132;) Van Doren and others agt. Mayor &c. of New-York, (9 Paige, 388;). Livingston agt. Hollenbeck, (4 Barb. S. C. Rep. 10;) Van Rensselaer agt. Kidd, (Id. 17.)

The motion for an injunction must be denied, with $10 costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Rockwell, Justice.

The defendants have put in their answer; but from the view that I have taken of the matter, 1 have considered it. entirely unnecessary to advert to its contents. The complaint, in my opinion, does not state a case which authorizes the interposition of this court.

The plaintiff supposes that the court, by virtue of its equity power, is authorized to relieve him, by declaring the proceed[34]*34ings for the assessment and levying of'a tax to be void, and by restraining the collection of such tax.

In this I think he is clearly mistaken. A court of equity has no right to inquire into the proceedings of subordinate tribunals of special or local jurisdiction, with a view to set them aside, if void at law, or for the purpose of staying or restraining such proceedings. Mooers agt. Smedley and others, (6 John. Ch. R. 28;) The Mayor &c. of the City of Brooklyn agt. Meserole, (26 Wend. 132;) Van Doren and others agt. Mayor &c. of New-York, (9 Paige, 388;). Livingston agt. Hollenbeck, (4 Barb. S. C. Rep. 10;) Van Rensselaer agt. Kidd, (Id. 17.)

The motion for an injunction must be denied, with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 How. Pr. 32, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thatcher-v-dusenbury-nysupct-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack