Thatcher v. Dusenbury

9 How. Pr. 32

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 proceedings 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.