64.0 FEDERAL REPOP.ÏEE. �taxes have been paid. Complainaat Y7oodman owns a lialf, and Washburne a quarter interest, �Prior to 1877 the lands were assessed at five dollars per acre; in that year they were assessed at $10. It is alleged in the MU of complaint that no assessment roll was made out until sometime in June, 1877, and that these compJainants "were thereby deprived of the opportunity which the statute gives them as owners of the land to show cause on the third Monday of May and on the two following days, at the supei-- visor's ofBce, why the assessment as to the valuation thereof should be altered. It is admitted that cômplainants did not visit the supervisor's office upon either of the days named, so that if the valuation was excessive, in the opinion of the tax payera, they lost nothing by the supervisor's delay in not oom- pleting the roll until June. �The question was presented whether the superviser has any power to make out bis assessment roll subsequent to the time when it is to be ready for review in May. Whatever view I might take, the supreme court of Michigan, as I understand the ruling in the case of The Alhany a Boston Mining Co. v. Auditor General, 37 Mich. 391, has settled the question against cômplainants. Chief Justice Cooley, p. 397, speaks of the failure of the superviser to have his roll ready as a mere irregularity, and the case holds that upon a purely legal objection a party wiiose land has been assessed cannot come into a court of equity to bave the collection of the tax restrained. The supreme court of the United States, in Staie Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 613, says : "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 court of equity." �According to these decisions, in addition to the alleged illegality of the assessment, cômplainants were bound to have made a clear case for equitable relief before they were entitled to bave the collection of a tax enjoined. �The bill alleges a fraudulently excessive levy, and inequal- ity in the valuations on the roll. Mere excessive valuation does not justify an injunction rostraining the collection of a ����
