porations operating in outlying and sparsely settled districts do not furnish a sufficient number of cars, or that there is any necessity in such districts for overcrowding, or that overcrowding cars is permitted, or that any prosecution has been begun or threatened against any other person or corporation, or that any other person or corporation has suffered or will suffer any hardship or makes any complaint. whatever of the ordinance or its provisions. The case is not at all like one where a license is required for carrying on an occupation or business, where the inference is that those engaged in the occupation or business will be required to procure the license and pay the fee therefor. The bill sets up conditions respecting these complainants and their business which could have no application to any other party, and it is clear that the controversy is between the two complainants and the defendant. There is nothing in the bill to justify the assertion that they represent a class, and the bill shows that the supposed class is not numerous.

Under the rule that equity will sometimes intervene to prevent a multiplicity of suits, it was held in City of Chicago v. Collins, 175 Ill. 445, that 373 complainants, suing in behalf of themselves and between 200,000 and 300,000 other similarly situated, could maintain a bill to enjoin the enforcement of an ordinance requiring an annual license fee. That was a case where a license was required and a fee exacted from the complainants and all others who made use of means of travel in the city of Chicago. They were all similarly situated. The case of Wilkie v. City of Chicago, 188 Ill. 444, was a similar one. In that case 78 complainants filed a bill in behalf of themselves and 900 or more others from whom the city of Chicago exacted a license fee for pursuing their occupation. Another case where it was held that a court of equity might properly interfere was Spiegler v. City of Chicago, 216 Ill. 114, where complainants, on behalf of themselves and 3000 or 4000 other persons engaged in the same business as themselves, joined in a bill to prevent the enforcement of an ordinance licensing and regulating that business. In all of those cases there. was actual application of the ordinance to numerous persons, all of whom were in like situations. In the case of German Alliance Ins. Co. v. VanCleave, 191 Ill. 410, 42 corporations, who were complainants, filed a bill to enjoin the defendant from paying over to the State Treasurer moneys collected from them as a tax. It would have re

quired at least forty-two suits to accomplish the purpose of the bill and the facts and law in each case would have been exactly the same. It was held that the case was a proper one for the exercise of equitable powers. In the case of North American Ins. Co. v. Yates, 214 I11. 272, a bill was filed by the insurance superintendent against twenty companies and thirty-three individuals to enjoin them from transacting the business of fire insurance without complying with the law. It was held that in such a case equity might interfere. Plainly, there is no similarity between those cases and this case in which two complainants, operating in different parts of the city and furnishing practically all the street railway service for the city of Chicago, claim the right to maintain a suit in equity to settle the question of the validity of this ordinance for the reason that there are other persons and corporations. operating lines of street railway in outlying districts, where perhaps the difficulty is not so much to prevent overcrowding cars as to fill them with passengers. So far as appears from the bill, the only real dispute is between the two complainants and the defendant, and the rights and interests of numerous parties are not involved.

The decree of the circuit court is reversed and the bill dismissed. Bill dismissed.

WILKIE v. CITY OF CHICAGO.

(Supreme Court of Illinois, 1900, 188 Ill. 444, 58 N. E. 1004.) CARTWRIGHT, J. The first question raised is whether the circuit court had jurisdiction, as a court of equity, over the subject matter of the bill. That jurisdiction was invoked upon the following facts averred in the bill and admitted by the demurrer. The seventynine complainants are master plumbers in the city of Chicago, and sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. There are in the city of Chicago nine hundred or more master plumbers, whose interests in the questions involved are identical and each of whom is liable to prosecution under the provisions which are alleged to be void. The city has made demands upon complainants to take out licenses under said section, and threatened them with arrest if

such licenses are not procured. If they continue to engage in their avocation the city will put its threat into execution and they will be arrested for violation of the ordinance. Each prosecution would involve the same right claimed by the city against each of them. The city would not be civilly liable nor held responsible for damages to complainants. The authorities of the city making arrests are not financially responsible or able to respond in damages. If the master plumbers should pay the license fee and bring suits to recover it, there would be required nine hundred or more suits to recover money illegally obtained. Complainants are threatened with arrest as often as they enter any premises for the purpose of plying their trade, and their business would thereby be practically destroyed.

The mere allegation that an ordinance is illegal will not confer jurisdiction upon a court of equity to restrain its enforcement, but the averments of the bill bring this case within the rule recognized in City of Chicago v. Collins, 175 Ill. 445. The complainants are entitled to join in a suit in equity for the purpose of avoiding a multiplicity of suits and having the controversy settled in one hearing.

GERMAN ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. v. VAN CLEAVE.

(Supreme Court of Illinois, 1901, 191 Ill. 410, 61 N. E. 94.)

CARTWRIGHT, J. Appellants, forty-two corporations organized under the laws of other States and countries, doing fire insurance. business in this State, filed their bill in this case in the circuit court of Sangamon county against appellees, the insurance superintendent and treasurer of this State, to compel said insurance superintendent to refund a tax of two per cent paid by complainants, under protest, upon unearned and returned premiums for the year 1900, and to enjoin him from paying over to the State Treasurer the tax so collected and from collecting the same in the future, and to enjoin the State Treasurer from receiving said tax. A temporary injunction was granted, which was dissolved upon a motion, treated as a demurrer, for want of equity upon the face of the bill. Complainants elected to abide by their bill, and the court dismissed it at their costs.

The matter in controversy is the proper construction of the act approved April 19, 1899, entitled "An act providing for a tax on

gross premium receipts of insurance companies and associations other than life." (Hurd's Stat. 1899, p. 1042.) That act provides that every insurance company of the class to which complainants belong "shall at the time of making the annual statements as required by law, pay to the insurance superintendent as taxes, two per cent of the gross amount of premiums received by it for business done in this State, including all insurance upon property situated in this State, during the preceding calendar year," and payment of said taxes is made a condition precedent to doing business in this State. There is a proviso for a deduction of so much of the tax as shall be paid to cities and villages having an organized fire department, but the proviso neither increases nor diminishes the tax and does not affect the question involved. The annual statement referred to is a statement required by law of the condition of the company on the last day of the preceding calendar year, showing its capital stock, assets and liabilities, as well as income and expenditures of the preceding year.

The facts alleged in the bill and admitted for the purpose of the motion are as follows: The complainants severally made their annual statements for the year 1899 to the insurance superintendent on or about February 1, 1900, and stated therein the gross amount of premiums received for business done in this State during the year 1899, according to their understanding of the law. In stating such amount they omitted the premiums returned by them to parties insured, upon cancellation of insurance policies, in compliance with the terms of such policies. They paid over to the insurance superintendent as taxes two per cent of the amounts so reported and received their annual certificates of authority to transact business in this State. Each policy of insurance which was cancelled and the unearned premium returned, provided, when issued, that it might be cancelled at any time, at the request of the insured or the option of the insurer, on five days' notice, and the policy should become void and the risk ended on the day of cancellation and the unearned premium be returned. This was the usual course of business of all fire insurance companies in the State. The amount returned was fixed by the policy and was based upon the amount of premium earned up to the time of cancellation. The money returned was the unearned premium for the period after the policy was cancelled and ceased to be in force. The insurance superintendent made demands on complainants to pay a tax of two

per cent of said unearned premiums which had been returned upon the cancellation of policies, and threatened to enforce the penalties provided by the statute and to revoke the authority of the companies to do business in the State unless his demands were complied with. The complainants then paid, under protest, the several amounts so demanded, which are severally stated in the bill, and amount in the aggregate to $15,984.87.

Under the constitution the State can never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity, and it is argued in support of the decree that the bill cannot be maintained because the insurance superintendent is an officer of the State, and therefore the suit is against the State. It is not denied that the State may specify any terms or conditions it pleases on which corporations of other States and foreign countries shall be permitted to transact business in this State. The legislature have fixed one of the conditions in this statute, and the only question involved in the suit is, what is the proper construction of the act? The State is not a defendant by name, and the suit does not relate to property owned by the State or which has ever reached its treasury. There is no attempt to recover money from the State. and the question involved is whether the State has authorized, by law, the insurance superintendent to exact the tax. A suit against him is not different, in any respect, from a suit against any other collector of taxes, and a party is not precluded from questioning the unauthorized act of a tax collector or other officer merely because the money collected will eventually reach the State.

It is next insisted that the decree is right because each of the complainants has an adequate remedy at law, by suit against the insurance. superintendent to recover the amount wrongfully collected from it. At least forty-two suits would be necessary to accomplish the purpose and to give to each complainant its legal remedy, and the question involved in each case would be exactly the same. While the demand is separate in each case, the rights of the parties depend upon the same facts. Complete relief may be furnished by a decree determining the single question applicable to all and in which all are interested. The case is a proper one for an application of equitable powers.