WOODMAN V. ELY. 839 �committed, (Gardner v. Heartt, 3 Denio, 232,) which we do not foUow. �We are no't aware of any decision by the supreme court of Michigan touching the right of a mortgagee to maintain an action for an injury either to the mortgaged premises or to his security. We entertain no doubt that the common law gives a remedy to a mortgagee against one who, by an un- anthorized act, haa so far injured his security as that damage results. The cases in New York, New Jersey, and Wisconsin, where the rights of a mortgagee are the same as in Michigan, are authority for tlîis view. The court, therefore, finds that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendant for the sum of $1,300. It is also found that defendant had no valid license from the mortgagors, as against the mortgagee, to eut and remove timber from the mortgaged land. �The plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the defendant for the sum of $1,300. Judgment will be entered for that amount, with costs. ���WooDMAU and another v. Elt and another. {Gireuit Court, W. D. Michigan, N. D. June 9, 1880.) �Taxation — Collection — Injunction. — A court of equitywill not restrain �the collection of a tax, upon a purely legal objection, where the land haa �been duly assessed. Samb — Valtjatioiî — iNJlriîCTiON. — A court of equity will not restrain tha �collection of a tax upon the ground of excessive valuation. Same — Jdrbdiction. — The criterion of jurisdiction is the amount of the �tax in dispute. �In Equity. Hearing on pleadings and proofs. �S. S. Olds, for complainants. �L. D. Norris, for defendants. �WiTHBT, D. J. Bill to restrain the collection of taxes upon the undivided three-fourths of what are known as canal-land groupa 666, 667, 668 and 669, in Mackinaw county, Michigan, for the year 1877. Upon the other undivided quarter the ����
