Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/464

450 BBDBBAL BBfOBIiEB. > �because another point was also presented and decided, requiring the same deoree. ,Sm4--if:'St<irk, 2 Baw'y. 639; iaffirmed, 94 U, S. 488. The latter might af weJi be called a clietum as the former. Indeed, sinee it was necessary to dismiss the bill on the poiBt of equity.juj-is- diction alone, withouf iegard to the 'other pointa presented, the opiuions oii" the other points, if any, were dicta. �The court says: , " But ther^.j^ apother principle of equitable jurisprudence whjch forbids in the?e ca^es. the iiiterference of a, court of chancery in favor of eomplainants. It iAfthat; uni-iiersal rutei which requires that hewho seeks equity at thehands of the court must flrst do equity. ;. �"The defendants in all these cases are the clerks and-treasurers of the eouiities^— the clerk who makes out the tax list and the treasurer who collecta tfae taxes.. These taxes are both the state arid county taxes. It isclear, from the statero^tSjPf the bill^, and.frofli.what wehaye already said, that there lavist be in eyery county jnentioned a eonsidera^l^le amount of real estate and Personal croperty coming within the character of local tangible property, and subjedted to tajcation on precisely the same principleS, and ho other, that all other persOnarahd real estate -within the county is taxed. It is equally clear thatth«iroad-^bed within each county is liflble to be taxed at the sara*» rate that other property lis., taxed. Why have not eomplainants paid this tax? In reference to th^ latter, it is said that they rosist the rule by which the value of their road-bed in each county is ascertained, and therefoxe resist the tax? But, surely, it should pay tax fyy sortie, rule. If the rule adopted gives tpo large a valuation in some countiea, it must be too s mail in others. "What right have they to resist the tax in the latter case? And in the former, is the wh'ole tax void because the assessment is too large? Should they pay noth- ing, and eacape wiolly, because they have been assessed too high? ihese questions apswer themselves. Before eomplainants seek the aid of the court to be relieved of the excessive tax, thoy shoald pay what is due. Before they ask equitable relief, they should do that justice which is necessary to enable the court to hear them. i . �" It is a profitable thing for corjporations or individuals, whose taxes are very large, to obtaiu a prelimiTiary injunction as to all their taxes, contest the case through several years' litigation.and when in the end it is found that but a small part of the tax should be permanently eujoined, submit to pay the bal- ance. This is not equity. It is in direct violation of the first principles of equity jurisdietion. It is not suEcient to say in the bill that they are re;uiy and willing to pay whatever may be f bund due. They must flrst pay what is conceded to be due, or what can be seen to bedue on the face of the bill, or be Shown by afiidavits, whether conceded ior not, before the preliminary injunction should be granted. The state isnot tobe thus tied up as to that about which there is no contest, by lumpiiig it with that which is really contested. If the proper officer refuses to receive a part of the tax, it must be tendered, and ten- dered without the condition annexed of a receipt in full for all the taxes assessed. �" We are satisfied that an observance of this principle would prevent the ��� �