The complaint in this cause does not contain sufficient averments to constitute a proper case for the equitable interposition of the Court, and to warrant the issuance of an injunction to restrain the respondent, the tax collector of Santa Clara County, because the complaint fails to show that appellant would, by collection of the tax, be irreparably injured, or that it would be subjected to a multiplicity of suits thereby, or that the collection of the tax would necessarily cast a cloud upon the property involved. These are grounds calling for equitable interference upon general principles, andwe submit that upon either of these general heads of equity jurisdiction the complaint is insufficient. The whole of the allegations of the complaint are directed to the proposition alone that the tax is illegal and void, and no especial circumstances are shown of irreparable injury, or that a multiplicity of suits would follow the collection of the tax. (Dows v. City of Chicago, 11 Wallace, U.S. S. C., 108, and authorities cited; Savings and Loan Society v. Austin , 46 Cal. 415.)
But the complaint was filed February 4th, 1873, after the Code took effect, and it is therefore unnecessary to discuss the question as to whether the taxes in question were or were not legally assessed. Section 3423, Civil Code, subdivisions four and nine, stating when injunctions will not be issued or allowed by a Court of equity, are as follows:
" To prevent the execution of a public statute by officers " of the law for the public benefit.
" Where relief equally efficacious can be obtained by any " other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach " of trust."
In either of these cases an injunction will not issue. The complaint itself shows that respondent is the Tax Collectorof Santa Clara County; that he is the proper law officer executing a " public statute," to wit: the general revenue laws of the State of California, for the public benefit. If, as is sought in this case, an injunction will be sustained by merely averring that a tax is illegal, because description of property is imperfect, etc., the machinery of government may be stopped and its wheels locked, the treasury depleted at the caprice or whims of an individual whose duty it is as an integral part of that government and machinery, to bear his part of its burdens and obligations. * * * Evidently to prevent such a state of affairs, section 3423 of the Civil Code was enacted.
If the tax as assessed is illegal and void, as insisted by appellant, he had an ample remedy at law--could have paid the tax under protest, and recovered it back by a suit at law against respondent. This, we believe, is the " relief equally efficacious," referred to in ninth paragraph of section 3423 of Civil Code.
JUDGES: Rhodes, J.
OPINION
RHODES, Judge
It was held in Savings and Loan Society v. Austin , 46 Cal. 415, and the other tax cases decided at the October term, 1873, and in Houghton v. Austin , 47 Cal. 646, that an injunction was not the proper remedy in those actions. Upon the authority of those cases, the order dissolving the injunction is affirmed.
Remittitur forthwith.