Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1868-01-16
Is. 1868.

4 Va A1H1c1 AZ nCANN CAHCLAot W tlit
corporation, who, ia many instances, are
used for eleetioneering purposes, and this
to the knowledge of defendant, Alden, and
by him that there are large amounts Of
outstanding checks, some signed by de-
PENDANT, Alden; that he is not legally the
Mayor, and the checks oug not TO bepaid,
| and that defendant Alden should be en-
joined from Issuing any other checks as
Mayor; the Treasurer enjoined from pays
ing any such checks, and that said cheeks
! be declared void.
The relasor prays, in addition to what
he has already asked for, to be permitted
| to file this bill, especially in his own in
/ terest and that of all others who msy be
made parties, particularly for w. Matt.
Brown, Mayor, and the City Council
proper, if any there be-
| That an attachment issue to secure all
the property belonging TO the city liable
TO be wasted, especially the books, property
and effects in the hands of Alden and
| Sheridan that Alden be enioined from
any further acts as Mayor, or Diminishing
| said suit in the Supreme Court that Sher-
idan be empowered from collecting any
taxes until his bond is made good.
That Stone, Davis and Sparkling be en-
joined from acting as Commissioners or en-
forcing said police force, and Alden and
all others be enjoined from molesting or in
any way attempting TO hinder said W.
| Matt. Brown as such Mayor from assuming
his duties as such, and the Treasurer from
paying any check or draft from or for the
corporation, or for the use of any polices
man, or any check or draft from or on be-
half Of said Alden, as Mayor, and from
paying Cook or Allen, and that their Of
fees, on the 6nal hearing, be declared void;
that an account be taken to ascertain what
! amount of money, property, etc, has been
received by said Metropolitan Police Com
missioners and force, and by the said Allen
and Cook and all others, unlawfully and
improperly, and that the same be refunded.
The reasons given by me at some length
on refusing the former application of w.
Matt. Brown and the old board, to enjoin
defendant Alden and the newly elected
City Council from entering upon their Of
fees, and taking possession of the property
of the city, are applicable to all that por
ten of the bill now presented, which states
as ground for the injunction now asked
for, the right of the former Mayor and
Council to hold on to their offices, and the
illegality of the election of the new
board and the usurpation complained Of.
The whole frame and object Of the bill
now presented, is substantially the same as
the former one, and regarding it as brought
by w. Matt Brown, former Mayor, and the
old Board, to accomplish in the main the
object sought to be accomplished by the
bill already fled, to.wit: That of prevent
ing the present Board from acting as such,
and enabling the former Board to take
charge of the city government. | am in
clined to think that the Introduction of the
State, or the relator who is a taxpayer as
parties complainant, simply presents new
scenery, and does not materially change
the plot in the legal proceeding.
As to the question of the right Of the
defendants Stone, Davis and Sparkling to
act as Metropolitan Police Commissioners,
the bill now presented shows that bill
filed in our court by W. Matt Brown, then
Mayor, and the City Council against said
defendants, raising the question of the con-
stitutionslity of the law under which
they are appointed, and seeking an
Injunction against their acting as such
Commissioners. That the Injunction was
granted, and was made perpetual. That
the defendants, the Commissioners, APP
pealed to the Supreme Court. That the
defendant Alden, as Mayor, had ordered
the Clerk of the Supreme Court 10 dismiss
the suit at the cost of the corporation,
which, however, the bill insists was not
done, meaning thereby, l suppose, that in
point of fact defendant Alden, az Mayor,
could not rightfully dismiss said suit. /
am certainly not called upon, in this
application for an Injunction, to make any
ruling, even so far as the same affects this
application, upon the question as to the
constitutionality of the law under which
said Commissioners were appointed for
that question, so far as the Chancery Court
could settle it, has been adjudicated by the
late Chancellor. The defendants, believing
his decision was erroneous, prosecuted an
appeal to the Supreme Court If the cause,
as the present bill assumes, is still in
the Supreme Court it has passed beyond
the Jurisdiction and control of the Chan
cellor. The complainant in that suit il a
corporation, a legal entity, a person though
an artificial one, has succession, can sue
and be sued in its corporate name, and acts
through its agents and officers; and if tine
suit brought by that corporation while w.
Matt. Brown was Mayor, has been dis
missed by the complainant, that same cora
poration, acting through or by the officers
thereof who are now acting as the succes4
sOrs in Office of Mayor Brown and the other
former officers of that corporation, the
said snit is at an end, and 1 could not en-
join the corporation from doing that which
it has already done.
But if the corporation, the complainant
in that suit, was not authorized to dismiss
its suit in vacation under our statute,
which provides that "suits may be dis
missed in writing out of term time as we'll
as in term and further costs stopped" /
would not enioin the Mayor and City
Council Of Nashville from Diminishing, but
leave the question of whether the suit has
been legally dismissed, to the court in
which the bill assumes il is still pending
/ would not undertake on the present
application to snjoin the complainant in
the injunction suit from going before the
Supreme Court and dismissing its suit upon
the allegation that w. Matt Brown and
Others have an interest in said snit, or 10
endeavor TO prevent the Supreme Court Of
the State of Tennessee from deciding
whether the suit IL or is not pending an
appeal in that high tribunal If that
court decides that the present Mayor and
City Council has not dismissed that snit in
vacation aud had no authority to do 30,
and should hear the appeal and affirm the
decree Of the late Chancellor | will, il
Chancellor and called upon, punish any
violation of the Injunction after such de-
cision, bat shall punish no ont for con-
tempt until that court so decides
As TO the other questions raised on this
application, particularly the question
whether I can or ought to assume
the jurisdiction and right to have
the bonds Of certain officers of
the city, upon the allegations made in the
bill, a. to those whose bonds are alleged
to be insufficient, approved 10y the court,
and enjoin the business of the corporation.
Until this done must cay that the novelty
Of the application has induced ne 90 reflect
upon and examine it to some extent
Where guardian or administrator is pre-
suming to act as such without havinggiven
bond, court of ehancery, upon the appIi-
cation of the proper party, even in the
absence Of a statutory remedy, would grant
an Injunction against his action in receive
ing or discussing the funds Of the ward or
persons bene6cially interested. But where
The Countv j udga or Counfv CO11rt CHARGED