¶1We are of the opinion that the injunction should be allowed. Plaintiffs by its allegations and proof bring the case under the well settled rule of equity that where the board acts from mere caprice or arbitrarily, a court of equity may grant relief. A court of equity would not interfere on a mere question of evidence, or the weight of evidence; all such matters are for the board to determine, and its action must be final as far as relief by injunction by a court of equity. But when the court acts without evidence, or arbitrarily, or from mere caprice, a court of equity can, and should, grant relief. In the case before us, the only evidence was that of Joseph Rawson, and the action of the board on the evidence was not only not in accord with the evidence, but so manifestly contrary to it that it is charitable to say that it is purely arbitrary, and such power was not intended to be exercised by the board.
7 Ohio Cir. Dec. 256
Rawson v. Schott
Decided March 15, 1897
Hamilton Circuit Court · decided 1897-03-15
The suit was to enjoin the collection of taxes on additions of $35,760 and $20,000 made to the plaintiffs’ tax return for the year 1892, under the Rawlings Daw, section 2742, R. S., by the board of review sitting as a board of equalization. The hearing below was on demurrer to the petition, which was sustained by Judge Sayler in an opinion holding the law constitutional.
Decided 1897-03-15