District Judge; J.Dhelarid in· controversy is not within the limitsM an Indianres8rv'ation. The complainant in good faith it, and filed hi:.theproper United States district land oftice:an'application to 'enter said land under the hom$tead law, and':Jms since reiltdedupon:and'cultivated thesame,and made valuable improvements thereon; fand.!s now prepared to make proof of full eomlpliance with the reqtiirementsof 'said law, so as to become entitled :to a patent. The 1 'government, however, after receiving said· homestead application, has' ,included said land in allotments made ·tothe Indian defendants hereip, in fulfillment' of a treaty stipuUttiQD. Jilade with Chief Moses· and other Indians of the Colville and Columbia Indian reservations,Mld canceled the homestead ingmade by ther'complainant;:andthe defendant Bubb,as Indian agent, 1!i01VpropolBelJand intends to ejecttheplaintiff from said premises :by'force, and has given notice to that effect. The rights of the complainant and ·of the Indian defendants; respectively, to the land described in theeomplainti have been thesubjeet of a contest in the upon a final hearing of that matter, the secretaryof,the interior has inadea decision adverse· to the plaintiff, purstlantto which his homestea<[: filing was canceled, as aforesaid. Thec.omplainant contends that said decision is erroneous, by reason of unfaivhel3s: in the proceedbigs'and of misconstruction of the law. Manifestly, the plaintiff's contention is in good faith. Until a judicial:'determination of tbe questioDS of law affecting the same, his claim to .the :land in controversy, cannot be extinguished. If he has a superior right in law; irreparable injury will be done by dispossess.mg ·him. ,: It is no '. part of the function pertaining to the office of an Indian agent to forcibly' eject persons from'premises not within the boundaries of an Indian reservation. If the Indians are entitled to possession, they shouldrnake application for judicial pro. to the laws, of the land. This cess to enforce their rights court will not, at the' present' stage of the case, express any opinion as to the validity of the plaintiff's claim to the land. Being the owner and in possession of valuable improvements which he has it is the duty of the court to protect his posses· placed upon the sion uutil the final hearing upon the merits. Injuticfi<lD granted.
PUGET$OUND NAT. BANK SEATTLE v. KING COUNTY et aI. (Circuit Court, D. Washington, N. D. June 18, 1894.) No. 141.
COLLECTOON; OF TAXES-'-REPEAL OF STATUTE-SAVING Cr,AUSE.
'l'heteJ;leal, by L<lj.ws Wash. 1893,.PP, 323-385, of all previous acts providing for assessmePl and did not affect pending proceedIng$ for collection pf personal property taxes a county treasurer under Rwurrant annexed to an assessment roll,issued to him pursuant to statute In force at the date thereOf, as' 75 of the act continues In force such warrants, previously Issued, as to talLes due and unpaid.
This waS a suit by the Puget Sound National Bank of Seattle against King county and others for an injunction to restrain the col·,
PUGET -SOUND-NAT. BANK
lection of taxes upon fhestock of the complainant under an assesSment against the bank, as agent for its shareholders, for year 1891. A demurrer to the bill was overruled (57 Fed. 433), and au answer was filed. Complainant' filed exceptions to the answer. Carr & Preston and J. B. Howe, for complainant. John F. Miller and S. H. Piles, for defendants. HANFORD, District Judge. A demurrer to the complainant's bill having been overruled in accordance with the opinion heretofore rendered in this case (57 Fed. 433), the defendant has denying the equities of the bill, and also setting forth in detail the assessment and levy of the taxes sought to be collected, and the issuance of a warrant to the county treasurer, annexed to the as· sessment roll, in which the complai)1ant is assessed upon its stock as agent for its several shareholders. To said answer the complain· has filed exceptions for alleged insufficiency. Since the commencement of this suit the legislature of the state has enacted an entirely new revenue law, covering the entire sub· ject of assessments and procedure for the collection of taxes for state and county purposes, which enactment contains a section repealing all previous acts of the legislature of the territory or state of Washington providing for the assessment and collection of taxes. Wash. 1893, PPI 323-385. In the argument upon the exceptions the sole contention has been that by the repeal of the law under which the tax was levied all authority to enforce payment has been withdrawn, and in proof of the complete annihilation of the former revenue laws and of all proceedings ilependent thereon counsel have cited Thurston Co. v. Scammell, 7 Wash. 94, 34 Pac. 470, in which decision the supreme court of this state declares that the repeal of an act upon which a pending action is founded is a com· plete bar to all further proceedings. Said decision was made in a suit for the collection of taxes upon real estate, which suit was authorized by a statute. The supreme court was not called upon to consider the effect of said act of 1893 upon pending proceedings for the collection of personal property taxes by a county treasurer under a warrant annexed to an assessment roll requiring him to col· 'lect the personal property taxes by distraint. It is true, as can· tended by counsel, that the repeal of a tax law would affect 'ings for the collection of taxes by seizure and sale of property in the same manner as pending suits authorized by the statute if the repeal were unconditional and without a saving clause; and in their argument counsel for the complainant have assumed that the act of 1893 is without a saving clause. This I find to be erroneous. At the time this statute was the treasurer of King county had in his possession, annexed to an assessment roll for the year 1891, ,an unexecuted warrant directed to him as such county treasurer, directing the collection from the complainant of the taxes which are the subject-matter of this suit, which warrant was issued pursuant to statuteS in force at the date thereof. 1 Hill's Code, §§1038 -1040, 1092-1096. All the vitality and force of said warrant is
pl'eservedand continued by the seventy·fifth section of the act ol1893, which reads as follows:
The power and duty to levy and collect any tax due and unpaid In and devolve upon the. county treasurer and his successors in office after liis return to the county auditor, and until the tax is paid; and the warrant attached to the assessment roll shall continue in force and confer authority upon the treasurer to whom the same was issued, and upon his successors In office, to collect any tax due and un.collected thereon. This section shall apply to all assessment rolls the warrants thereto attached, which issued upon which taxes may be due and unpaid, as well bave as those issued."
FIRST NAT. BANK OF WALLA WALLA v. HUNGATE. (Oircuit Oourt, D. Washington, S. D. June 18, 1894:.)
TAXATION OF NATIONAL BANK STOCK-COLLECTION FilOM BANK.
On an .assessment of bank stock under 1 Hill's Code Wash. §§ 1038-1040, making banks agents for their respective shareholders, and authorizing the cOllection from each bank of taxes on its stock assessed against it as such agent, if the statute is not complledwith by charging the bank on the aslil!lSsment roll, and it is not even referred to by its proper corporate ;name in the assessments against its shareholders, the warrant to the collector· CQnfers no authority to seize the property of the bank for the purpose ot enforcing payment of taxes charged against shareholders. Failure to exhaust the means of redress afforded by the laws of Washington .for equalization of assessments does not preclude a national bank from obtaining relief, in a federal court In the state, against the coHectionfrom it of taxes on its stock, on the ground of unjust discrimination in the valuation of such stock. v. King Co., 23 Pac. 409, 1 Wash. st. 46, followed.
SAME-UNJUST DISCRIMINATION-RELIEF IN EQUITY.
SAME-TENDER OJ' TAX.
Failure of such bank to make and keep good a tender of so much of the tax as was justly due does not bar such rellef, where nothing is due from the bank, there being no assessment against it, and where the county officers have declared that they will not accept less than the whole amount levied.
This was a suit by the First National Bank of Walla Walla against H. H. Hungate, as treasurer of Walla Walla county, for an injunction to restrain the collection from complainant of taxes, for the year 1892, upon bank stock assessed against the individual shareholders of the complainant Defendant demurred to complainant's amended bill. B. L. & J. L. Sharpstein, for complainant Miles Poindexrer, for defendant. HANFO;RD, District Judge. The amended bill of complaint shows that for the year 1892 the assessor of Walla Walla county assessed the individual shareholders of the complaining bank separatelyfor a certain number of shares of First National Bank stock, and unjustly discriminated against said shareholders by valuing their shares at 300 per cent of the face value, which is considerably