Statement of the Case.

valuation of railroad property for the purposes of taxation, refused to approve the plaintiff's return, and proceeded, among other things, to assess the plaintiff with 6.53 miles of main track and 6.53 miles of second track in the county of Brooke, which assessment and valuation covered the entire length of its railroad in the State of West Virginia, including so much of the bridge as lay within the State; and, in addition thereto, valued and assessed the bridge, as a separate structure, at the sum of $200,000, placing the tax upon the bridge at $3060, and the auditor proceeded to assess the plaintiff with this sum of $3060; thereby assessing it with the entire length of the bridge in West Virginia as a part of its railway in the State, and also assessing it with the bridge as a separate structure, thus taxing the plaintiff a second time for that part of its bridge which lay in West Virginia; whereas the bridge should only have been assessed as so many feet of the railway.

The bill further alleged that neither the board of public works, nor any member thereof, nor the auditor, informed the plaintiff of the valuation which had been placed upon its property by the board for taxation, nor of the taxes which had been assessed thereon by the auditor; that on September 28, 1894, the plaintiff, not having been informed of the action. of the board or of the auditor, addressed through its chief engineer a letter to the auditor, inquiring what action had been taken by the board of public works and the auditor with regard to the assessment of taxes on its property for 1894; that the letter was not answered, nor was any information in regard to the taxes given to the plaintiff until January 19, 1895, when it received from the auditor a statement showing that the board of public works had placed a separate and additional valuation of $200,000 upon the bridge for the purposes of taxation, and that the auditor had proceeded to assess and charge the plaintiff with the sum of $3060 as a tax for 1894 upon that valuation; and that on January 19, 1895, the auditor demanded of the plaintiff payment of that sum, and the plaintiff refused to pay it, but paid to the auditor the rest of the taxes assessed, amounting to the sum of $4187, upon a valua

Statement of the Case.

tion of $310,830, which included the plaintiff's railroad in the county of Hancock.

The bill further alleged that "on the-day of 1895" the auditor added ten per cent to the sum of $3060, to pay the expense of collection, and certified that sum, with the ten per cent added, to the sheriff of Brooke County for collection; and that the sheriff "since said date" had demanded payment of the sum of $3060 and the ten per cent additional, and was threatening to collect them by legal process, and would thus inflict irreparable injury upon the plaintiff, unless prevented by the interposition of a court of competent jurisdiction.

The plaintiff further alleged that the bridge constituted a part of its line of railway, and had no separate earning capacity, and no greater earning capacity than any other equal number of feet of its line of railway, and was used exclusively by it in transporting freight and passengers across the Ohio River to and from the States of West Virginia and Ohio; and that it was advised and believed that the bridge was an instrument of interstate commerce, and was not, as a separate structure from its line of railway, a proper subject for taxation by the State of West Virginia in the manner above set forth.

The bill then charged that the tax upon the bridge was illegal and unjust, and constituted a cloud upon the title to the bridge, and that by reason of that clause of the Constitution of the United States, which gives Congress control over interstate commerce, the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia was clothed with authority and jurisdiction to restrain and to prevent the assessment and collection of this illegal and unjust tax; and prayed for an injunction against its assessment and collection, and for further relief.

The bill was sworn to March 18, 1895; and was filed March 25, 1895, together with an affidavit to the effect that, since the bill was sworn to, the sheriff had levied upon one of the plaintiff's freight engines for the purpose of enforcing the collection of the tax upon the bridge. Upon the filing of the bill, a temporary injunction was granted as prayed for.

A general demurrer to the bill was afterwards filed and

Opinion of the Court.

sustained, the injunction dissolved, and the bill dismissed. The plaintiff appealed to this court, under the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, § 5. 26 Stat. 828.

Mr. J. Dunbar and Mr. J. B. Sommerville for appellant.

Mr. Edgar P. Rucker, attorney general of the State of West Virginia, Mr. T. S. Riley and Mr. Thayer Melvin for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The collection of taxes assessed under the authority of a State is not to be restrained by writ of injunction from a court of the United States, unless it clearly appears, not only that the tax is illegal, but that the owner of the property taxed has no adequate remedy by the ordinary processes of the law, and that there are special circumstances bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction. Dows v. Chicago, 11 Wall. 108; Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, 15 Wall. 547; State Railroad Tax cases, 92 U. S. 575; Union Pacific Railway v. Cheyenne, 113 U. S. 516; Milwaukee v. Kæffler, 116 U. S. 219; Shelton v. Platt, 139 U. S. 591.

In Dows v. Chicago, a citizen of the State of New York, owning shares in a national bank organized and doing business in the city of Chicago, filed a bill in equity, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois, to restrain the collection of a tax assessed by the city of Chicago upon his shares in the bank, alleging, among other things, that the tax was illegal and void, because the tax was not uniform and equal with taxes on other property as required by the constitution of the State, and because the shares were taxable only at the domicil of the owner and therefore were not property within the jurisdiction of the State of Illinois. This court, speaking by Mr. Justice Field, without considering the validity of the objections to the tax, held that the bill could not be maintained, saying: "Assuming the tax to

Opinion of the Court.

be illegal and void, we do not think any ground is presented by the bill, justifying the interposition of a court of equity to enjoin its collection. The illegality of the tax and the threatened sale of the shares for its payment constitute of themselves alone no ground for such interposition. There must be some special circumstances attending a threatened injury of this kind, distinguishing it from a common trespass, and bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction, before the preventive remedy of injunction can be invoked. It is upon taxation that the several States chiefly rely to obtain the means to carry on their respective governments, and it is of the utmost importance to all of them that the modes adopted to enforce the taxes levied should be interfered with as little as possible. Any delay in the proceedings of the officers, upon whom the duty is devolved of collecting the taxes, may derange the operations of the government, and thereby cause serious detriment to the public. No court of equity will, therefore, allow its injunction to issue to restrain their action, except where it may be necessary to protect the rights of the citizen whose property is taxed, and he has no adequate remedy by the ordinary processes of the law." Wall. 109, 110. "The party of whom an illegal tax is collected has ordinarily ample remedy, either by action against the officer making the collection or the body to whom the tax is paid. Here such remedy existed. If the tax was illegal, the plaintiff protesting against its enforcement might have had his action, after it was paid, against the officer or the city to recover back the money, or he might have prosecuted either for his damages. No irreparable injury would have followed to him from its collection. Nor would he have been compelled to resort to a multiplicity of suits to determine his rights. His entire claim might have been embraced in a single action." 11 Wall. 112.

11

In the State Railroad Tax cases, this court, in a careful and thorough opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Miller, stated that "it has been repeatedly decided that neither the mere illegality of the tax complained of, nor its injustice nor irregularity, of themselves, give the right to an injunction in a

Opinion of the Court.

court of equity;" referred to section 3224 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court;" and said that "though this was intended to apply alone to taxes levied by the United States, it shows the sense of Congress of the evils to be feared if courts of justice could, in any case, interfere with the process of collecting the taxes on which the government depends for its continued existence." The court then quoted from Dows v. Chicago, and Hannewinkle v. Georgetown, above cited, and proceeded as follows: "We do not propose to lay down in these cases any absolute limitation of the powers of a court of equity in restraining the collection of illegal taxes. But we may say that, in addition to illegality, hardship or irregularity, the case must be brought within some of the recognized foundations of equitable jurisdiction; and that mere errors or excess in valuation, or hardship or injustice of the law, or any grievance which can be remedied by a suit at law, either before or after payment of taxes, will not justify a court of equity to interpose by injunction to stay collection of a tax. One of the reasons why a court should not thus interfere, as it would in any transaction between individuals, is that it has no power to apportion the tax or to make a new assessment, or to direct another to be made by the proper officers of the State. These officers, and the manner in which they shall exercise their functions, are wholly beyond the power of the court when so acting. The levy of taxes is not a judicial function. Its exercise, by the constitutions of all the States, and by the theory of our English origin, is exclusively legislative. A court of equity is, therefore, hampered in the exercise of its jurisdiction by the necessity of enjoining the tax complained of, in whole or in part, without any power of doing complete justice by making, or causing to be made, a new assessment on any principle it may decide to be the right one. In this manner, it may, by enjoining the levy, enable the complainant to escape wholly the tax for the period of time complained of, though it be obvious that he ought to pay a tax if imposed in the proper manner." 92 U. S. 613-615.