Nat. Loan v. Jones

Supreme Court of South Carolina December 16, 1915

Nat. Loan v. Jones, 87 S.E. 482 (S.C. 1915)

103 S.C. 80

Fraser, Gage, Gary, Hydrick, Watts

Dissenting Opinion

Mr. Justice Gage,

dissenting. I dissent, but not on constitutional or Federal grounds; I reserve the privilege to state the grounds of my dissent within a reasonable time hereafter.

Mr. Justice Watts, having heard the cases below, took no part in the consideration of the cases on appeal.

Note. — The case has been carried to the United States Supreme Court on writ or error, issued December 29, 1915.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Fraser.

1 These two cases were heard together, the one is for injunction, the other is for mandamus. The one object of the two proceedings is to prevent an alleged unlawful assessment of bank property for taxation and so the unlawful collection of taxes so assessed. Both are extraordinary remedies, neither-is available where there is *83 any other adequate remedy provided. The statutes of this State provide an adequate remedy, i. e., a payment of the disputed tax under protest and a suit for recovery of the tax unlawfully paid. The Constitution of this State gives the power to the Courts to issue writs of injunction and mandamus and the legislature can not take it away, but the legislature can obviate the necessity for the issuance of these writs by providing an adequate remedy at law as it has done in this matter of assessment and collection of taxes.

It is not necessary to state the questions involved as' it is held that there is an adequate remedy at law in which all the questions may be raised in due course and decided.

The funds derived from assessment and collection of taxes form the food supply of a government. The ability of a government to exercise its functions depend upon the collection of taxes and it will not be summarily deprived of its power except in cases of absolute necessity. Many citizens are willing to contribute to the funds of the State and to pay. a tax, although it is not in accord with the forms of law. The policy of the law is to give these citizens an opportunity to do so.

An adequate remedy is provided for those who pay under protest, and the orders of injunction and mandamus are overruled and -the judgments appealed from reversed.

Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Hydrick concur in the opinion of the Court.

Reference

Full Case Name: Nat. Loan and Ex. Bank of Greenwood Et Al. v. Jones Et Al., South Carolina Tax Commission Et Al.; The Peoples National Bank of Greenville v. Same Defendants
Cited By: 8 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Taxation. Illegal. Adequate Remedy at Law. 1. Taxation — Restraining Collection — Inadequacy op Remedy at Law. — An action to enjoin an alleged unlawful assessment of bank property for taxation, and the unlawful collection thereof, would not be entertained, since the statutes provide an adequate remedy by payment of the tax under protest and a suit to recover the tax unlawfully paid. 2. Mandamus — Adequate Remedy at Law — [Taxation.—Mandamus.-to prevent an alleged unlawful assessment of bank property.for taxation, and the unlawful collection thereof, would not be entertained, since the statutes provide an adequate remedy by payment of the tax under protest and a suit to recover the tax unlawfully paid. Footnote.- — -Injunction against enforcement of tax laws as affected by existence of other remedies, see 22 L. R. A. 699' to 709; 8 L. R. A. (N.’S.) 125; 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 807; 3 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1014; 20 16. 964. As to remedy of owner of particular class of property assessed at greater per cent, of value than other property, see note in 34 A. & E Ann Cas. 1914d, 916.