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

the officer or cooperation o make d-ht,
not for corporation purposes, Thisa the
tar payers would be liable to pay. 10 -uch
case, the court would have . right 20 IA
terfsre b. injonc ion, and restrain is from
the exercise of al illegal act.
The allegation in the bill that q tax OF
twenty-one mills on the dollar has been
assessed, and the properly charged at
higher rates, and this was done for TIE
fraudulent purpose Of creating costs and
tends to the cobfiscation Of the property Of
the eitisens, il q grave and serious charge;
bat this tax was not levied by the pFeseat
bDsed, though they are eadeavoring 70 coli
lee, it, and carry out the action of the for
mer board. 49,.
The right to levy q tax Is vested By the
Legislature in the charter, 20 the discre-
lion Of 4he Mayor and Aldermen; and he
court caBaot, and ought NOT, 70 eyafrOl. tisst
discretion, u9less it msaifestly aPPeassd %
the court that the money required 20 be
raised wag not for eorperation purposes,
but for tls c-rrupt ends Of the officers levy
y g tax.
From all that appears to the court the
Corporation il largely-ia- dsbi, and uoless
the money Ia raised, the ,luabIe prOpsrty-
Owned By the corporation, which il used.
will be sacrificed, and, if the Mayor and
Aldermen should fail and rufuse 10 raise
the money and pay of the debts for which
the corporation is liable, and permit a Gale
of the property, add permit il to pass into
the hands of third Persons-shus placing
the city at the mercy OF those over. shOIn
they havs no roDtrol-they would be
guilty Of misfezsa0cs in Office. If any
property has been assessed at a higher
value than Its actual worth, and the Mayo
aud Aldermen, upoa proper application,
should refuse to correct the assessment
and il wss manifest % the court that il
vas recklsssly or Willfully or corrupgly
done, the individual whose property vas
80 assessed would have his rsnsdy-but &c
can not be inquired into in general kill Of
this character.
The board that made the assessment fs
not before the court nor is the corpora
ton of Nashville.
rhess views are sustained by the follox-
ing suLhorities: 81 Humphreys Z47; b
Humphreys, 547; 10 Yergsr, 1856; 8h
Yerger, 26S; 9Th Humphreys 4l4-515;
Oh Humphreys 252; Angel and Amss N
CorpJr4t.Ons, section 316; COEan's repOrs
page ia Pages reports, 500; GeOria's r..
ports, l9. volums, page Al i; and StOry's
Equity Pleadings.
Other questions have been discus sed, bat
in tie view takeu, the proper parties not
being before the court, il is unnecessary TO
express aay opinion on them.
The court regrets the case was not prop
erly presented by the bill, that there might
have been full expression Of the views Of
the court upon the questions involved, bur
aadsr the rules governing court, ths de-
e,sioa Of question not before the court, y
not authoritative or binding.
Tue courts are always open for redress
Of injuries, but where the citizen seeks re-
dress, be must present his elaim3 according
20 the FIRMS Of law that govern and cSa-
troll the courts Thess rules Of Law are
bind ug ia the courts, and 70 violate these
would disturb and break up the harmony
Of The system, and produce endless cOafu-
sion. Tha Statute Pssseribes rules for
amendment, where the bill is defsc-
tive, and they are usually allowed. In
this case, the court called the attention OF
the counsel Of the cOmplainants, Is the
difficulties 10 the mind OF the court, for
want of proper parties. No amendment vas
asked for during the investigation. After
the hearing of the cause, and while the
court was considering the questions involv-
ed, application was made to amend, in the
absence of the counsel for the defendants,
and the court declined to allow the amend
ments to be made, for the reason that four
DAYS had already been occupied 10 the dis
cussion, the parties who we're made defend
ants would have a right to be heard and
re-argument Of the case would be necessary,
and had not time to rshear the argument
of the cause.
II the parties can present proper case,
the statute provides ample remedy for
amendments to be made, and they can be
made hereafter, under the rules Of Law gov
erning such cases. THIS 10 simply an aP-
plication for an Injunction and Receiver,
not determining the rights of the parties,
which will be settled upon final hearing.
L am of opinion that The comPlainants
are not entitled to the injunction or Re
Ceiver as prayed for, and the application
il therefore refused.
The complainanIs have leave to amend
their bill by making proper parties.
SHACKLEFORD, Chancellor.