215 F. 67 | 8th Cir. | 1914
“An injunction may be granted to enjoin the illegal levy of any tax, charge, or assessment, or the collection of any illegal tax, charge, or assessment, or any proceedings to enforce the same; and any number of persons whose property is affected by a tax or assessment so levied may unite in the petition filed to obtain such injunction.” Section 242, vol. 2, Wilson’s Statutes of Oklahoma of 1903.
If this section would authorize a suit in the state court, then the plaintiff, being a citizen of Missouri, could maintain the action in the United States Court. Cummings v. Merchants’ National Bank, 101 U. S. 153, 25 L. Ed. 903.
The question, therefore, is whether this action could be maintained in any of the courts of Oklahoma.
In Wilson v. Wiggins et al., 7 Okl. 517, 525, 54 Pac. 716, 718, the court says: . '
“The rule denying the right to interfere by injunction to restrain the collection of a tax, unless the case is brought within some acknowledged head of equity jurisprudence, is one of public policy. This court has repeatedly held that section 4143 of the Statutes of Oklahoma of 1893 (being the same as section 242 of volume 2 of Wilson’s Statutes of Oklahoma of 1903), providing that injunction may be granted to enjoin the illegal levy of any tax, charge, or assessment, or the collection of any illegal tax, charge, or assessment, or of any proceeding to enforce the same, did not substantially enlarge the general powers of a court of equity, and did not create any new remedy; and that such remedy may not be invoked in every case where a tax has been irregularly assessed or levied, nor may it be invoked in any case without the party invoking it bringing himself within the general principles of equitable relief, in addition to establishing the illegality complained of. Wallace v. Bullen, 6 Okl. 17, 52 Pac. 954; Sweet v. Boyd, 6 Okl. 699, 52 Pac. 939.”
We find that the Supreme Court of Oklahoma has uniformly held, where the question was considered by it that such an action would not lie, and there being no allegation in the bill of complaint of any distinct, grounds of equitable jurisdiction, the action of the district court in dismissing the bill was correct; and it is affirmed.