Conners' Appeal
| Decision Date | 07 May 1883 |
| Citation | 103 Pa. 356 |
| Parties | Appeal of Conners, et al. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before MERCUR, C. J., GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT, GREEN and CLARK, JJ.
APPEAL from a decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill county: Of January Term 1883, No. 371.
James B. Reilly (with him James F. Grady and Charles W. Wells), for the appellants.—Where the proper authorities, in the lawful exercise of their discretion, levy a tax, a court of equity has no power to restrain the collection of such tax merely upon the ground that the tax was in excess of the amount required for the purpose for which it was intended: Wharton v. School Directors, 6 Wr. 358; Iron City Bank v. Pittsburgh, 1 Wr. 340; Truesdell's Appeal, 8 Smith 148; Moore v. School Directors, 9 Id. 232.
William B. Wells, for the appellees, cited German School District v. Sangston, 24 P. F. S. 454; St. Clair School Board's Appeal, Id. 256-7.
Although legislative authority be given to impose a tax for a certain purpose, yet if the tax levied be clearly in excess of the sum required for that purpose, its collection may be enjoined: St. Clair School Board's Appeal, 24 P. F. Smith 252. When the tax is levied without authority of law the right to enjoin against its collection is undoubted. Here the attempt was to levy and collect a building tax in one year, for the purpose of using a portion thus collected to pay a deficit in the general fund for the preceding year. It is settled that the building tax of a school district cannot be diverted to ordinary school purposes: German Township School District v. Sangston, Id. 454. The court was clearly right in enjoining the collection of so much of the tax levied for building purposes, as was not needed or intended to be used therefor. When levied as a building tax it must be used in good faith for that purpose alone. Although in form, it may be levied for that purpose, yet, if in fact, there is no expectation or intention of so using the greater portion thereof, such excess is without authority of law. The rights of tax payers cannot thus be set at nought, and their property be taken from them.
Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellants.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phipps v. School Dist. of Pittsburgh, 7043.
... ... Before BIDDLE, JONES, and BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judges ... JONES, Circuit Judge ... This appeal calls in question the action of the district court in declining to take jurisdiction of the plaintiffs' suit which sought to enjoin the School ... 401, 31 A. 1077; Robert Arthur School District et al., v. Polk Borough School District et al., 164 Pa. 410, 30 A. 299; Appeal of Conners et al., 103 Pa. 356; St. Clair School Board's Appeal, 74 Pa. 252; Miller et al. v. Gorman & Preston, 38 Pa. 309; and Commonwealth ex rel. Rawle et ... ...
- Fairley v. City of Duluth
-
Fairley v. City of Duluth
... ... ... [150 ... Minn. 376] DIBELL, J ... The ... defendants appeal from an order overruling their demurrer to ... the complaint and from an order granting a temporary ... injunction ... The ... 131 Iowa 605, 109 N.W. 212; Overall v. Ruenzi, 67 ... Mo. 203; St. Louis R. Co. v. Apperson, 97 Mo. 300, ... 10 S.W. 478; Appeal of Conners, 103 Pa. 356; Hoy v ... Kuhn, 295 Ill. 33, 128 N.E. 829; Turkey Knob Coal ... Co. v. Hallanan, 84 W.Va. 402, 99 S.E. 849 ... ...
-
Appeal of Van Nort
...always been held that "when the tax is levied without authority of law, the right to enjoin against its collection is undoubted:" Conners' App., 103 Pa. 356; St. Sch. B's App., 74 Pa. 252. 3. When the right of the plaintiff is doubtful, or when he has an adequate remedy at law, injunction w......