424c FEDEBAli BSPOBTEB. �refused to do so when the case made resta solely on the ille- gality of the tax. As is ruled in Dows v. City qf Chicago, 1 1 Wall. 108, "there must exist in addition special circum- stances, bringing the case under some recognized head of equity jurisdiction, such as that the enforcement of the tax would lead to a multipllcity of suits or produce irreparable injury," etc., etc. Upon this consideration the stockholders would not be entitled to an injunction. But there is another ground upon which such relief would be refused them. In dealing with the rights of parties to resist taxation, courts of equity proceed upon considerations quite unknown to courts of law, and hold not only that it must appear the tax is one unlawfuUy imposed, but also one that justice and good con- science do not require the party to pay. �An illustration in point is, found in Mitchell y. Com'rs of Leavenworth, 91 U. S. 206, where a complainant had con- verted his cash or deposit into United States notes before the day of listing taxes, in order to escape taxation, and being taxed, notwithstanding, the court held that although the tax was illegal, it would not, while sitting as a court of equity, use its extraordinary powers to assist him in a scheme to escape taxation, and dismissed the bill. In the present case I am unable to doubt that the stockholders understood that the assessors intended to assess their stock,, and had made an ruformal assessment roll for that purpose. The statute required the complainant to deliver a list for the use of the assessors, and required the assessors to assess the share- holders in the ward where the bank was located ; and it is not alleged in the bill or affidavits that a single stookholder was ignorant that he was assessed, or was in any way misled because the assessment was indioated upon a list and not upon the common roll. In short, it is not claimed that any shareholder was actually prejudiced by the failure of the assessors to conform to the strict requirements of the statute. Purthermore, it is stated in defendant's affidavits that the mode adopted by the assessors of keeping a separate list for the assessment of bank shareholders was publicly known, ��� �
