51S FEDERAL ItEPOBTEB. �3. StATUTOET PnOHrBITTOif. �Section 10 of the act of congress of March 2, 1867, (14 St. at Large, 475,) »mendatory of section 19 of the act of congress of July 13, 1866, (14 St. at Large, 152,) contains a provisioa additional to the provisions of the latter statute, as follows : "And no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collec- tion of a tax shall be maintained in any court." Id. �4. RiGHTS PkEBERVED TINDBIl STATUTB. �Section 34 of the act of congre.s.'i of March 2, 1867, provides as follows : " This act shall not be construed to aliect any act done, right accrued, or penalty incurred under former acts. " Hdd, that under this section all rights are saverl ; but that the right to a remedy is merely a remedy which congress could take away without affeoting any " right accrued." �In Equity. �Enoch L. Faucher, for plaintiff. �Edivard B. Hill, Asst. Dist. Atty., for defendants. �Blatchfobd, C. J. The defendant Stivers ia the collector of the internai revenue of the United States for the eleventh collection dis- trict in the state of New York, residing at Middletown, Orange county, New York ; the defendant Corwin is his deputy collector, residing at Newburgh, in said county; and the defendant Blake is the collector of the internai revenue of the United States for the third collection district in the state of New York, residing in the city of New York. AU of the defendants and the plaintiff are citizens of the state of New York. Tke plaintiff resides in the town of Cornwall, Orange county, New York, and is the widow of Thomas Kensett, late of Baltimore, Maryland, deceased. Before her intermarriage with Kensett she was the wife of Marquis T>. L. Sharkey, from whom she obtained a decree of di- vorce a vinculo matrimonii on the first of June, 1870, in the supreme court of the state of New York, which decree is in force. She was born in December, 1843, and was married to Sharkey in April, 1864. Sharkey at some time commenced some business arrangements with the firms hereinafter mentioned, or one of them, engaged in the tobacco trade in the city of New York. She never knew the particu- lars of such arrangements except that one day Sharkey told her that he hadinvestedinher name, in the tobacco business, $15,000, because as there were judgments against him he could not, with safety, use his own name, and he compelled her by threats to sign a paper, .January 1, 1866, which he said was a special partnership paper of the firm of Alexander Eoss & Go. If Sharkey ever made such investment it was of bis own money, and not from any money belonging to her. She had no separate estate, and she did not sign said paper freely, nor willingly assent to such use of her name, nor has she ever had anything to do ��� �
