Wilkerson v. Walters

• Decision Date: 01 January 1874
• Citation: 1 Idaho 564
• Parties: M. B. Wilkerson Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. L. R. Walters Et Al., Defendants.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

1 Idaho 564

M. B. Wilkerson Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. L. R. Walters Et Al., Defendants.

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 1, 1874

EQUITY-MULTIPLICITY OF SUITS.-The doctrine of the interposition of a court of equity to prevent a multiplicity of suits cannot be maintained where there is simply a multitude of individuals plaintiffs, whose several interests are not dependent upon one another.

EQUITY-REMEDY AT LAW.-Equity will not relieve where the parties have had a plain and speedy remedy at law, which, by their own negligence, they have not availed themselves of.

ACTION to enjoin the collection of judgments for taxes. Certified by the District Court of the Second Judicial District, Ada County.

Huston & Gray, for the Plaintiffs. Prickett & Hasbrouck and F. E Ensign, for the Defendants.

WHITSON J.,

delivered the opinion.

HOLLISTER J., concurred. NOGGLE, C. J., dissented.

This case is presented to us upon a petition for a rehearing, and no opinion having been written at the time of, nor

since the decision of the case, we propose to give our views upon the whole case upon this application: 1. As to avoiding a multiplicity of suits. 2. As to the remedy at law.

The doctrine of the interposition of a court of equity to prevent a multiplicity of suits cannot be maintained where there is simply a multitude of individuals whose several interests are not depending upon one another. It can make no difference to Wilkerson in this case, whether the other plaintiffs are obliged to pay this tax or not, and vice versa. There is no community of interest between them, and the question presents itself only as to whether there is any danger of a multiplicity of suits as against each of these plaintiffs. Clearly there is none, as the act of the legislature of 1872 and 1873 places them without doubt in this county, and the cause which led to the conflict between the counties in making the assessments is not likely to again occur.

Again the parties having once had an opportunity to contest the collection of these taxes in a court of law, and having failed to do so, are in no condition to ask the interposition of a court of equity when the remedy at law was ample and complete. The plaintiffs might have defended against the collection of these taxes under the thirty-ninth section of the revenue act, and might even now have the judgment against them reopened and set up the defense provided by the fourth subdivision...