Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-12-09

the assessment 10 be made. The Peoples
Bank loaned to the board money, but not
at usurlous rates of interest that they
have ordered the Finance Committee to
raise the money to pay judgments rendered
upon paper, not of their contracting, and
that they have not paid any money upon
paper issued By them. They did (the for
mer board obtain of the Legislature. thu
power to issue bonds to the amount of
100000; that 500, 900 Of the bonds were
disposed of by the board of 1867, and in
pursuance of the act au horizing the issu-
ance, and appropriated to the indebtedness
of the city.
The bonds we're honestly disposed Of
and the proceeds applied 70 the payment of
the debts. Ii is wholly false the presen.
Finance Committee ever refused to explain
their proceedings. No application has
ever been made to them. The last admins
tration had most thorough and searching
Investigation of its finances; they deny all
secrecy in the transactions of their Affairs;
they deny that they have ever sold any
checks at usuriqps rates of interest, or sold
any at all; they have been compelled to
raise money to hypothecate checks they
insist Court of Chaneery has no iurisdic.
ton over a corporation, and deny the right
to appoint Receiver, or issue an iniunc-
ton. II was duly sworn to by all the de-
PENDANTS.
have thus set out the material allees-
tons ofthe bill, and the substance of the
answer Of the defendants thereto; the re-
lators in the bill number about 500 eitizsns
of the city Of Nashville, persons of charsc-
ter and influence among their fellow-eiti-
zsns
The case is one of great public interest,
Involving, as it does, the rights of the citi-
zens to obtain redress, aud restrain the
corporation from the exercise facts which
they believe not warranted By the charter
which has been granted for the govern
msnt Of the city.
The case has been argued with great
zeal and ability by the counsel on both
sides, and | hope and trust that good re-
suits will follow from the very able expo
sitions that have b, ca given olilhe relative
rights of the parties.
The first question presented at the thres-
hold: Has the Court of Chancery jurisdic.
ton and, if so, can the bill OF the REALTORS
be sustained without the assent of the STATE
given through the Attorney General =?
Many cases have been read, and cited by
the defendants, to show Court of Chance
ry has no Jurisdiction over municipal cor.
porations; it is insisted il is delegated
sOVereigaty-an arm of the State govern
ment, over which the court can exercise no
jurisdiction; that they are not embraced
within the provisions of chapter of the
Code. 70 this doctrine cannot assent. A
municipal corporation is created by the
Legislature; by its charter it becomes an
artificial being, and is vested, TO pre-
scribed extent, with certain local powers
TO regulate its local concerns according to its
will. Il has the right to exercise ali the
powers delegated BY the charter. This in-
s.rument is the fundamental law, and, so
long as the officers conhne themselves, ia
their actions, to the powers conferred, they
cannot be disturbed in the exercise of the
rights granted; but, like natural persona.
for violation of the laws, or an exercise of
the powers not granted by the charter, they
are amenable to the courts Of the country.
The officers of corporation are not trustees
in a technical sense, but they can be held
liable as such for any malfeasanee, or mis-
feasance, in the discharge Of the duties inn
posed.
1t is unnecessary, in the view the court
has taken of the question, to examine aud
comment upon the authorities cited. The
jurisdiction of the court is, am Of opin-
ion, conferred by the provisions Of chapter
eight Of the Code of Tennessss. By Sec
lion 3,4O9, an action lies under the pro-
visions OF this chapter, in the name of the
State sgsinst the person offending in the
following cases: Where any person un-
lawfully holds or exercises any public
Office or franchise within this State, or any
Office in any corporation, created by laws
Of this State; where any public othcer has
done, or suffered to be done, any act
which works a forfeiture of his otfiB.
By snb-sectious FIVE and six of the section
referred TO, where powers are exercised
not conferred by law, or where they fail to
exercise powers conferred by law, and es-
sentiaI to the corporate existence. BY
section 8, 40, to compel the officers to the
faithful performance Of their duties By
section SAIL, the jurisdiction is conferred
upon the Circuit or Chancery Court,
where the corporation holds its meetings.
Ry section 3,4l2, the suit is to be brought
bv the Attorney General, for the district
or county when directed by the General
Assembly, or by the Governor and Attor-
new General Of the State coneurring.
Section 3,413 provides thot it is also
brought on the information Of any
person. upon such person giving
security for costs Of the proceedings,
to be approved by the Clerk of the
c1urt in which the bill ia fled. By sec
ton 3.4l4, when suit is brought at the re
lation of an individual, it shall be so
stated in the bill and proceedings and such
individual il responsible for costs, etc.
Upon construction of these statutes, il
is manifest. that the Legislature intended
to give the Chancery Court concurrent ju-
risdiction with the Circuit Court over all
corporatious. The writ Of quo IOdrTuRto not
being in force in this State, this remedy
| bas been Instituted in lieu. The Attorney
| General of a district can bring the writ
when directed to do SO by the Legislature,
| or Attorney General and Governor concur
inc. but unless directed to do so, he cln
| not. L. is manifest from the plain reading
| of the statute, when brought on the reia-
ton of any private individual, hls assent
ia not necessary. The individual may
| bring il upon giving the security for the
costs Ii must be stated in the bill that 1t
il brought upon the relation Of private
| individual. The act gives to the citizen
the right to use the name Of the State,
when he has been agrieved, and restraints
! the Attorney General of the district from
uaipg the name of the State, without the
sanction Of the officer required by the
statute.
I can see nothing in this contrary to
sound public policy. The courts are the
iudges oflhe right to sue, and will protect
the interests of the State and rights of par
ties. The principles of the common Law
recurring information, when filed, to be
signed by the officers of the Crown, weie
not intended by the Legislature, TO be
| adopted, except 50 far as provided By the
statute in section 34l2, referred to.
| am of opinion, therefore, the parties
have the right to sue without the assent of
the Attorney General of the district, and
that the bill has q status in court.
The REALTORS having the right to file the
bill, it becomes necessary to examine II, IL
object and purpose, and see if the proper
parties are before the court, agains! whom
a decree can be rendered, and the relic
prayed for be granted. This Is prelimi-
nary application to remove the defendants
as the Mayor, Aldermen and CommoI
, CouDcilmeu, from the offices they now hold
, aud to grant an injunction, and appoint
Receiver for the corporation assets. Thi
charges of this bill are of a most grave anc
, serious character, presented rs they are b.
, | 500 substantial citizens of the city, and !
demands the earnest consideration OF tbs
court. If the defendants have been guilt.
t of malfeasance, or misfeasauce in the dis
t charge of the duties imposed upon them
redress should be granted if the prope