which he justly and legally owes.” And see cases there cited. See, also, Parsons v. Childs, 36 Iowa 108, and Snell v. City of Fort Dodge, 45 Iowa, 564. Harrison v. Haas, 25 Ind. 281, and Roseberry v. Huff, 27 Ind. 12, are strong cases requiring the payment of all just taxes as a condition precedent to any relief at the hands of a court of equity. In the former case, it is said a court of equity “will not so much as lift a finger to remove a cloud while a moral obligation remains undisturbed.”
In Frost v. Flick, 1 Dak. 131, the supreme court of the territory of Dakota gave full and emphatic endorsement to the rule of equitable non-interference except in cases where the tax is illegal or unauthorized, or where the property is exempt from taxation, or where fraud has been practiced by the taxing officers.
Clarke v. Ganz, 21 Minn. 387, was an action brought to restrain the collection of a tax on personal property on the ground that it had been illegally assessed. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained. The supreme court declined to consider the question of the legality or illegality of the assessment, holding that, under the equitable rule as laid down in High, Inj., which they quote and approve, equity could not interfere in either case. The court further say: “In some of the states, exceptions have been allowed to this rule. There is so much diversity in the decisons allowing these exceptions that it is hardly profitable to discuss them, especially as none of them have any principle of equity jurisprudence to sustain them.” In that case, too, it was alleged that the collector was about to sell plaintiffs’ property, “thereby subjecting the plaintiffs to great injury, costs, and expense, and involving them in expensive and vexatious litigation and a multiplicity of suits, in order to keep control of their property, and prevent an unjust sacrifice thereof.” Say the court: “This quoted part of the complaint does not state any traversable facts, but only an inference or prediction as to what will be the consequences of the threatened levy. If such statements will make a case for injunction, it can be made in every case.” The corresponding allegations in this case are of exactly the game nature, and are fully disposed of by the Minnesota case.
