The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-02
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
Land Titles in Observation-Disclosures of the
Cotton Tax in MISUNDERSTANDING of Mu-
nicipul Corporations.
WASHINGTON, Dec. l, 1859.

Cotton Tax in MISUNDERSTANDING of Mn.
nicipal Corporations.
WASHINGTON, Dec. l. 1862
The following cases were argued yesterday
NO. 2s4. Richard H. Ma0oon, PSaintiT Il, Error,
cs. s. II. ScdteS-EfTOT to the circuit Court FOR The
District Of WiscOnstn.-1hls was an action of eject
ment brought by Magoon TO recover portion oil a
section of land lying IN Lafayette county, Wscon-
SIN. The case was twice tried, resulting both times
In favor OF the defendant The proofs involve q
great number and variety OF conveyances, as de-
one Perry, and the questions OF law turn
uses and trusts, title by sherln's deed, service
Of process, distinction between actions legal and
case here is based upon exceptions taken 70 rs rnI
ings below, and the questions presented are mainly
OF fact the action is intended as test OF title OF
neghporing Ian Is resting on similar state OF facts.
Messrs. Synde, Cotnren and Magoon for plalntfs in
error; Senator Carpenter Tor defendant
No. 295. Jttttus HOrathdts and Alexander Kuhn cs.
Martin KedrY, collector, Gc.-Appeat from the Cir
cut court J0r me District Wf Mississippi
action is brought to restrain the defendant from
proceeding to enforce the collection OF the internal
revenue tax assessed on cotton, which the respon-
dent threatens TO collect BY distract Of the complain
ants goods, and which, they aege, Is not due. The
Injunction prayed for was granted, out subsequently
dissolved aad the bill dismissed. The tax was i'm
July, 1865, as amended by the process Of
section ! OF the act of March, 1867, both
nal Revenue act ss Tne % i 6a
this Is not case which court OF general equity
jurisdiction VIII take cognizance Of; and that ali
the parties being citizens OF Mississippi the court
has no jurisdiction, and the bill must be dismissed.
Submitted by the Attorney General on printed briefs,
no one appearing for the appellants.
No. 1884, The United States eL. rel. Thomas Butts,
F2dtntiGtn Error Us. The Mayor, DC, or Muscdtste,
ana Nos: 2ss ana 2ss-k,ror rom ne District or
Io,ca.-These cases are considered together, they
present precisely the same questions. In the first
case Butts, the reator recovered judgment against
the city OF Muscatlne for $4,000 10, and eXecu-
ton was issued and returned unsatslied. An
alternative writ of mandaInus was issued TO
compel the levy and collection OF tax
to pay the Judgment. The return set out
that the city required all the taxes 1t could levy
under the laws creating the corporation for the pur
poses OF Its government The relator demurred, and
the demurrer was overrulcd and that ruling Is
assigned as error. The argument is that the city
VIII not be allowed to contract debts which 1t pro-
hiblted from paying, aud that peremptory manda-
mus should issue directing the levyng OF tax suf
ncent to pay the Judgment. This is one OF the old
cases from the West, involving the liability OF mu-
nlcpal corporations bonds issued by them In aid
OF public enterprises. In several other cases pre-
viously decided by this court the mandamus has
been ordered. Cases argued by James Grant for
relat0r. NO one opposed.