Summary

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Lipke v. Lederer — Opinion of the Court

We have here, at the worst, the case of a threatened distraint, which it is contended will be wrongful, if made; a case not differing in substance from wrongful distraint by landlords, or other wrongful distraint by tax collectors, and not differing in substance from wrongful attachment. In all these cases, as has long been settled, the owner of the property of which seizure is threatened is not entitled to relief in equity, unless it appears that there is no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of James Clark McReynolds James Clark McReynolds Lipke v. Lederer — Opinion of the Court

And if the contention is that the government's demand is not for a tax at all, but for a fine, and that, therefore, Congress lacks power to confer upon the collector authority to collect it by distraint, still equity should not grant relief, because the bill fails to allege any fact showing that the legal remedy would not be adequate or that there is danger of irreparable injury.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature