cedent,296 or where the effect of the contract would be a waste, misappropriation or misuse of public funds or property.207 The writ will also clearly issue in those cases where the breaking of a legal contract is threatened,298 or where some act is done by the public corporation, legislative or otherwise, which results in a violation of some contract provision. 209 The last condition most frequently occurs in connection with the passage of ordinances affecting the rights of parties under privileges or franchises theretofore granted to public service companies, which, if carried out or enforced, would materially change the rights of parties or the contract compensation received either from the corporation itself or from private persons to whom the service is rendered.300 none but nonunion men. Alexander v. Johnson, 144 Ind. 82, 41 N. E. 811; State v. City of New Orleans, 50 La. Ann. 880, 24 So. 666; Flynn v. Little Falls Elec. & Water Co., 74 Minn. 180, 77 N. W. 38, 78 N. W. 106; International Trading Stamp Co. v. City of Memphis, 101 Tenn. 181, 47 S. W. 136. 296 Crabtree v. Gibson, 78 Ga. 230; Follmer v. Nuckolls County Com'rs, 6 Neb. 204; Schumm v. Seymour, 24 N. J. Eq. (9 C. E. Green) 143; People v. City of New York, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 35. But see Ricketson v. City of Milwaukee, 105 Wis. 591, 81 N. W. 864, 47 L. R. A. 685. See, also, Union Cemetery Ass'n v. McConnell, 124 N. Y. 88, 26 N. E. 330. 297 Commissioners of Ct. of Perry County v. Medical Soc. of Perry County, 128 Ala. 257, 29 So. 586. Where the contract has been fully performed a bill to enjoin is too late. Fones Hardware Co. v. Erb, 54 Ark. 645, 17 S. W. 7, 13 L. R. A. 353; Carthan v. Lang, 69 Iowa, 384; Beebe v. Sullivan County Sup'rs, 64 Hun, 377, 19 N. Y. Supp. 629; Winkler v. Summers, 51 Hun, 636, 5 N. Y. Supp. 723; Wood v. City of Vic toria, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 573, 46 S. W. 284. But see Moore v. City of Walla Walla, 60 Fed. 961; Farmer v. City of St. Paul, 65 Minn. 176, 67 N. W. 990, 33 L. R. A. 199. 298 Yale College v. Sanger, 62 Fed. 177; City of Rushville v. Rushville Natural Gas Co., 132 Ind. 575, 28 N. E. 853, 15 L. R. A. 321; Inhabitants of Saddle River v. Garfield Water Co. (N. J. Eq.) 32 Atl. 978; Point Pleasant Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Borough of Bayhead, 62 N. J. Eq. 296, 49 Atl. 1108. 299 City of Omaha v. Mageath, 46 Neb. 502, 64 N. W. 1091. See, also, Canal &C. St. R. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 39 La. Ann. 709, 2 So. 388. 300 Old Colony Trust Co. v. City of Atlanta, 83 Fed. 39. Bond holders have sufficient standing in court to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance fixing the rates of fare on street railroads. Los Angeles City Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 88 Fed. 720; Los Angeles City Water Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 103 Fed. 711. See, also, Smith v. Birmingham Water Co., 104 Ala. 315, 16 So. 123. Injunction will lie to restrain a water com § 1135. Taxation. 303 301 The remedy of injunction is also available in connection with the levy or collection of taxes whether general or special. The conditions for relief, as already stated, must clearly exist; 302 mere irregularities are no ground for relief nor mere errors of judg ment.304 The existence of a remedy at law will be considered at bar.305 The writ will be granted where the tax or assessment is absolutely illegal,300 fraudulently excessive; 307 where the party has exercised diligence in seeking equitable relief, and where he pany from shutting off the supply of water for nonpayment of arbitrary rates. 301 City of Chicago v. Nichols, 177 Ill. 97, 52 N. E. 359; Gilmer v. Hill, 22 La. Ann. 465; Tift v. City of Buffalo, 7 N. Y. Supp. 633. See, also, Buddecke v. Ziegenhein, 122 Mo. 239; Oregon & C. R. Co. v. City of Portland, 25 Or. 229, 22 L. R. A. 713; Wilson v. Town of Philippi, 39 W. Va. 75. But see Clee v. Village of Trenton, 108 Mich. 293, 66 N. W. 48; Scudder v. City of New York, 146 N. Y. 245, 40 N. E. 734. See, also, Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) §§ 641 et seq. In § 643 it is said "A government could not calculate with any certainty upon the revenues if the collection of the taxes was subject to be hindered and delayed in every instance in which a taxpayer could make out a prima facie case for interference by injunction." See § 1157, post, with many cases cited. 302 Town of Albertville v. Rains, 107 Ala. 691, 18 So. 255; Blake v. City of Brooklyn, 26 Barb. (N. Y.) 301. See § 1129, ante. 303 Wilson v. City of Auburn, 27 Neb. 435, 43 N. W. 257; Cooley, Taxation (2d Ed.) pp. 750, 775 et seq. 304 LeRoy v. City of New York, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 352. Cooley, 305 Rickords v. City of Hammond, 67 Fed. 380; Picotte v. Watt, 2 Idaho, 1154, 31 Pac. 805; Loesnitz v. Seelinger, 127 Ind. 422, 25 N. E. 1037, 26 N. E. 887; Cason v. Harrison, 135 Ind. 330, 35 N. E. 268; Taylor v. City of Crawfordsville, 155 Ind. 403, 58 N. E. 490. 306 State v. Atkins, 35 Ga. 315; City of Terre Haute v. Mack, 139 Ind. 99, 38 N. E. 468; Everett v. Deal, 148 Ind. 90, 47 N. E. 219; City of Baltimore v. Porter, 18 Md. 284; Touzalin v. City of Omaha, 25 Neb. 817, 41 N. W. 796; Haisch v. City of Seattle, 10 Wash. 435, 38 Pac. 1131; Liebermann v. City of Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 336, 61 N. W. 1112. 307 Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Cole, 75 Ill. 591. "But whenever the board undertakes to go beyond its jurisdiction, or to fix valuations through prejudice or a reckless disregard of duty, in opposition to what must necessarily be the judg ment of all persons of reflection, it is the duty of the courts to interfere and protect taxpayers against the consequences of its acts." Heinroth v. Kochersperger, 173 Ill. 205, 50 N. E. 171. Insufficient allegation. Moss v. Board of Education, 58 Ohio St. 354, 50 N. E. 921. is not estopped by acquiescence in allowing the tax to be expended in the construction of improvements from which he receives a benefit.308 The right to relief is not restricted in these cases to a resident taxpayer,309 and the same rule will apply in all cases where a taxpayer enjoys the right of restraining a public corporation or public official where the circumstances arise or the necessity requires. § 1136. Protection of public property. In many cases a threatened act of public officials or of a public corporation will result in a wrong or an injury to the public interests. A taxpayer under such circumstances is usually given the right of maintaining injunction proceedings to restrain the doing of the act or the exercise of the power. 310 The basis of the writ under such circumstances is based upon the nature and character of a public corporation. It acquires its property ordinarily, through the exercise of the power of taxation; all its funds are derived in this manner. It holds and uses property acquired for public uses and purposes as a trustee for the public. The relation which exists therefore between itself and the public is one of trust. Clearly, therefore, a taxpayer has the right to restrain the illegal use, waste or misappropriation of public funds or of public property,311 donations or gifts to private persons or in aid But see Denise v. Village of Fairport, 11 Misc. 199, 32 N. Y. Supp. 97. 308 Bigelow v. Los Angeles, 85 Cal. 614, 24 Pac. 778; City of Logansport v. Uhl, 99 Ind. 531; Patterson v. Baumer, 43 Iowa, 477; Taber v. City of New Bedford, 135 Mass. 162; Barker v. City of Omaha, 16 Neb. 269; Brown v. Merrick County Com'rs, 18 Neb. 355; Traphagen v. Jersey City, 29 N. J. Eq. (2 Stew.) 206; Tone v. City of Columbus, 39 Ohio St. 281. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) § 657. See second note under § 1130, ante. 309 Goedgen v. Manitowoc County Sup'rs, 2 Biss. 328, Fed. Cas. No. 5,501. See, also, Alexander v. Johnson, 144 Ind. 82, 41 N. E. 811. An owner of property which has been entered for taxation is a taxpayer · and entitled to bring a suit for injunction against the misappropriation of public moneys. 310 See also, §§ 1157 et seq., post. 311 Crampton v. Zabriskie, 101 U. S. 601; Town of Jacksonport v. Watson, 33 Ark. 704; Winn v. Show, 87 Cal. 631, 25 Pac. 968; Webster v. Town of Harwinton, 32 Conn. 131; Peck v. Spencer, 26 Fla. 23, 7 So. 642; Hudson v. City of Marietta, 64 Ga. 286; Lundberg v. Boldenweck, 35 Ill. App. 79. Writ will issue to restrain payment of excessive fees to public official. Sherlock v. Village of Winnetka, 59 Ill. 389; Bradley v. Gilbert, 46. of private persons; 312 the use of moneys or property secured or held for designated purposes for other than the authorized one; Ill. App. 623; City of Chicago v. Nichols, 177 Ill. 97, 52 N. E. 359; Alexander v. Johnson, 144 Ind. 82, 41 N. E. 811. An owner of property which has been entered for taxation is a taxpayer and entitled to bring a suit for injunction against the misappropriation of public funds. Rothrock v. Carr, 55 Ind. 334; Brockman v. City of Creston, 79 Iowa, 587, 44 N. W. 822; Strohm v. Iowa City, 47 Iowa, 42; Hospers v. Wyatt, 63 Iowa, 264; Cascaden v. City of Waterloo, 106 Iowa, 673, 77 N. W. 333; Graham v. Horton, 6 Kan. 343; McFadden v. Dresden, 80 Me. 134, 13 Atl. 275; Peter v. Prettyman, 62 Md. 566; Black v. Ross, 37 Mo. App. 250; Davenport v. Kleinschmidt, 6 Mont. 502, 13 Pac. 249. The fact that a misapplication of moneys will increase the burden of taxation is ground for proceedings by a taxpayer to enjoin threatened action of municipal officers. Solomon v. Fleming, 34 Neb. 40, 51 N. W. 304; Brown v. City of Concord, 56 N. H. 375; West v. City of Utica, 71 Hun, 540, 24 N. Y. Supp. 1075; Zeigler v. Chapin, 126 N. Y. 342, 27 N. E. 471, affirming 59 Hun, 214, 13 N. Y. Supp. 783. Injunction will not issue where it is merely charged that a purchase is to be made at an extravagant, unreasonable price without allegations of fraud or collusion. Bardrick v. Dillon, 7 Okl. 535, 54 Pac. 785. A collection of municipal revenues will not be enjoined on the mere allegation that the authorities will misapply the funds when collected. 313 White V. Multnomah County Com'rs, 13 Or. 317; Delano Land Co's. Appeal, 103 Pa. 347; Fiske v. Hazard, 7 R. I. 438; Austin V. Coggeshall, 12 R. I. 329; Fine v. Stuart (Tenn. Ch. App.) 48 S. W. 371. Bill to enjoin payment of school orders fraudulently issued. Willard v. Comstock, 58 Wis. 565. Fraudulent sale of tax certificates at less than their value may be enjoined. Ebert v. Langlade County, 107 Wis. 569, 83 N. W. 942. Where the payment of bill will work no substantial injury to taxpayers, equity will not interfere. But see Prince v. Crocker, 166 Mass. 347, 44 N. E. 446, 32 L. R. A. 610; Melody v. Goodrich, 67 App. Div. 368, 73 N. Y. Supp. 741. The presumption exists that proper disbursing officers will not illegally pay out public funds. As to unauthorized use of public property see the following: Scofield v. Eighth School Dist., 27 Conn. 499; Hurd v. Walters, 48 Ind. 148; Spencer v. Joint School Dist. No. 6, 15 Kan. 259. Use of school house for private purposes. Inhabitants of Melrose v. Cutter, 159 Mass. 461, 34 N. E. 695. 312 Town of Albertville v. Rains, 107 Ala. 691, 18 So. 255; Terrett v. Town of Sharon, 34 Conn. 105; Merrill v. Town of Plainfield, 45 N. H. 126. 313 Chaffraix v. Board of Liquidation, 11 Fed. 638; Fazende v. City of Houston, 34 Fed. 95. An owner of bonds for the payment of which certain revenues have been appropriated as a sinking fund may enjoin its use for other purposes. 315 the issue of bonds in violation of law 314 or for other than proper purposes, or when their issue would create an indebtedness in excess of that allowed by law. 316 Closely allied to the protection of public property are injunction proceedings originated for the purpose of restraining the removal of a county seat 317 or the con Shields v. City of Savannah, 55 Ga. 150; Courtney v. City of Cherryvale, 7 Kan. App. 391, 51 Pac. 930. Injunction refused. Board of Trustees of Harrodsburg v. Harrodsburg Educational Dist., 9 Ky. L. R. 605, 7 S. W. 312; Underwood v. Wood, 14 Ky. L. R. 129, 19 S. W. 405; Lutes v. Briggs, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 67; Marshall v. Stanley County Com'rs, 89 N. C. 103; Sturmer v. Randolph County Ct., 42 W. Va. 724, 26 S. E. 532, 36 L. R. A. 300. But see Cartersville Water-works Co. v. City of Cartersville, 89 Ga. 689, 16 S. E. 70. 314 Russell v. Tate, 52 Ark. 541, 13 S. W. 130, 7 L. R. A. 180. The same principle applies to an issue of town warrants. Dunbar v. Canyon County Com'rs, 5 Idaho, 407, 49 Pac. 409; State v. Saline County Ct., 51 Mo. 350; Lane v. Schomp, 20 N. J. Eq. (5 C. E. Green) 82; Town of Rochester v. Davis, 44 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 95; Town of Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 294; Avery v. Job, 25 Or. 512, 36 Pac. 293; Cleveland v. City of Spartanburg, 54 S. C. 83, 31 S. E. 871; Caruthers v. Harnett, 67 Tex. 127, 2 S. W. 523; Polly v. Hopkins, 74 Tex. 145, 11 S. W. 1084; Smith v. City of Appleton, 19 Wis. 468; Lawson v. Schnellen, 33 Wis. 288. Spelling, Injunctions (2d Ed.) §§ 699 et seq. But see Fellows v. Walker, 39 Fed. 651; ThomsonHouston Elec. Co. v. City of Newton, 42 Fed. 723; Jones v. City of Little Rock, 25 Ark. 301; Bolton v. City of San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 21 S. W. 64; Hanley v. Randolph County Ct., 50 W. Va. 439, 40 S. E. 389. 315 Blake v. City of Macon, 53 Ga. 172. 316 Reynolds v. City of Waterville, 92 Me. 292, 42 Atl. 553; Wormington v. Pierce, 22 Or. 606, 30 Pac. 450; In re Borough of Millvale, 162 Pa. 374, 29 Atl. 641, 644; Fowler v. City of Superior, 85 Wis. 411, 54 N. W. 800; Webster v. Douglas County, 102 Wis. 181, 77 N. W. 885, 78 N. W. 451. The same rule applies to disbursements in excess of the limit allowed by statute. But see Murphy v. East Portland, 42 Fed. 308; Bardrick v. Dillon, 7 Okl. 535, 54 Pac. 785. 317 Dishon v. Smith, 10 Iowa, 212; Sweatt v. Faville, 23 Iowa, 321; Scott v. Paulen, 15 Kan. 162; Streissguth v. Geid, 67 Minn. 360, 69 N. W. 1097; Scott v. McGuire, 15 Neb. 303. Where the relocation of a county seat has been voted, county officers cannot be enjoined from removing their offices to the place selected for matters affecting the legality of the election. Krieschel v. Snohomish County Com'rs, 12 Wash. 428, 41 Pac. 186; distinguishing Parmeter v. Bourne, 8 Wash. 45, 35 Pac. 586, 757. The illegal removal of a county seat may be enjoined at the instance of a resident taxpayer. |