History
  • No items yet
midpage
Thatcher v. Dusenbury
9 How. Pr. 32
N.Y. Sup. Ct.
1854
Check Treatment
Rockwell, Justice.

The defendants have put in their answer; but from the view that I have taken of the matter, 1 have considered it. entirely unnecessary to advert to its contents. The complaint, in my opinion, does not state a case which authorizes the interposition of this court.

The plaintiff supposes that the court, by virtue of its equity power, is authorized to relieve him, by declaring the proceed*34ings for the assessment and levying of'a tax to be void, and by restraining the collection of such tax.

In this I think he is clearly mistaken. A court of equity has no right to inquire into the proceedings of subordinate tribunals of special or local jurisdiction, with a view to set them aside, if void at law, or for the purpose of staying or restraining such proceedings. Mooers agt. Smedley and others, (6 John. Ch. R. 28;) The Mayor &c. of the City of Brooklyn agt. Meserole, (26 Wend. 132;) Van Doren and others agt. Mayor &c. of New-York, (9 Paige, 388;). Livingston agt. Hollenbeck, (4 Barb. S. C. Rep. 10;) Van Rensselaer agt. Kidd, (Id. 17.)

The motion for an injunction must be denied, with $10 costs.

Case Details

Case Name: Thatcher v. Dusenbury
Court Name: New York Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 15, 1854
Citation: 9 How. Pr. 32
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. Sup. Ct.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.