L. & N. B. 00. V. GAINES, 281 �construction, and that it is our duty, so far as we can legiti- mately, to protect the rights secured by the contracts. �But can we do this by injunction? The tax demanded is due, in part, to the state, and by the act of Match 21, 1873, it is provided "that in all cases in which an officer charged by law with the collection of revenue due the state shall in- etitute any proceeding, or take any steps, for the collection of the same, alleged or claimed to be due by said officer from any citizen, the party against whom the proceeding or step ia taken shall, if he conceives the same unjust or illegal, or against any Btatute or clause of the constitution of the state, pay the same under protest, and upon his making such pa;y- ment the officer or collecter shall pay such revenue into the state treasury, giving notice at the time of paymeat to the comptroUer that the same was paid under protest, and the party paying said revenue may, at any time within 30 daya after making said payment, and not longer thereaf ter, sue the said officer having coUected said sum for the recovery thereof, and the saîne may be tried in any court having jurisdiction of the amount.and parties; and if it ia determined that the same was wrongfully collected as not being due, * • for any reason going to the merits of the same, the court trying the case may certify of record that the same was wrongfully paid and ought to be refunded, and thereupon the comp- troUer shall issue his warrant for the same, which shall be paid in preference to other claims on the treasury." The act then declares "that there shall be no other remedy" for the wrongful demand and collection of the public revenues, and inhibits the issuance of injunetions, supersedeas, prohibitions, and all other proeesa designed to hinder or delay the col« lection thereof. �Now, without stopping to inquire or decide how far this act can lawfully restrain this court from interfering to enjoin the collection of taxes imposed by legislation on property not previously exempted from taxation, we bave no hesitation in holding that it ought not to be construed, in a case like this, to paralyze the powers of this court as they existed prior to its enactment. To give to it such force would be to permit ����
