Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-07-24

Of them Immediately put into the market, and
even paid hack into the treasury for dues to the
city before the original debt was due, and this
Win tne consent OF the committee. II not the
majority Of the council. Corporations have two
| ways OF raising mOney-ordinarily. the one is
~ taxation, the other By applying 10 the Le-
FSlsatare for the privilege Of issuing bonds; and
&c nlI Inle PATTY that seeks to raise money By
any other means Is acting outside of the charter
I'M aouslng their trust. do not think a cor
Ro oIe. mas the absolute power of raising
| aoiey IKE an individual. nor can q corporation
contraer to pay usury, and mo answer that
| enese transacucns were not usurious. il no suf
neieht answer. IL should disclose the facts and
let the court see whether they involved tsurv
OF not 80 OK the transactions with the Peoples
BANK; Inc snswer says the Corporation Dor
roWef Oh the bank SIS Oo9, and issued checks
! sold these checks, applied sufficient Of tho
| proceeds TO pay Its debts and interest and
credited the balance to the corporation. IL
! shOald state all the facts-at what they were
| sold. how much were applied to the debt and in
terest, aad how much was credited to the cor
poratiOn, so that the court could determine the
character Of the transaction. Allen, in his
printed report, says in justification Of this mode
of raising money: Everybody knows that no
individual, even in good credit. can go
ceeding legal iaterest.S lie nowhere
asserts that he got it at less, and beyond 1t Is
usury. And the answer says on the subject Of
usury. that the scheme adopted was 70 AVOID AVOID
usury, in a case in WHICH more than per cent.
was given or taken7 The answer further says
that the plea Of usury was never made IN court.
for the reason that, if successful IN H. Il would
have alarmed the Lenders. and they would have
loaned no more. The answer dISclOseS tho
further fact that these checks have boen sue't on
IN the Federal Court, and the cases resisted ~
able counsel, but with signal failure in each
case. If it be Grus that the collection OF these
check cannot be resisted when sued upon by
present holders. then the question Of their iSsu,
snes becomes of vast moment TO the city and
citizens.
Ine answer further says that each member Of
the city government has the requisite freehold
interest. On this point the answer is detective
IL should have pointed out the muniments. IN
order to meet this allegation fuly-shOuld have
shown title deeds. either oy exhloitins the,n'
or By reference to the registrars books. OF the
question Of the property justification OF mem
bers, il is said no said qualification exists. The
charter says. among other things. hvery AZ
removing from. or ceasing TO posse. freehold
estate in his ward. shall thereby vacate his
office" and the freehold estate of the Mayor
shall he worth at least i've hundred dollars,
and If he should cease to be at any time after
his election such freehOlder. he shall thereby
yacate his office. Nov, il neither Of such OH
GERS should posses, such freehold interest.
at the time Of his or their election. he
would be holding public Office or
franchise within this State or an office IN
corporation created by the laws Of this state,
unla~fGlly." So, If owning il ut the time OF
his election, he should subsequently, dispose Of
it. this would also be doing an act which BY
d
said this law is repealed by the act of March.
q. 1860, which set declares at the next annual
election the voters who are IN favor Of extend
ing the term OF city officers from one TO two
years. shall pat the words Term Of officers fer
two years" GA their tickets, and If a majority
so vote, theu and thereafter the charter snail DO
so amended and said election shall be held &c
cOrdingly; and thereafter the quail hca-iOns Tor
Mayer Aldermen and COuncilmen shall be cIti-
zenship and residence for two whole years next
preesdIIg the election, and DO other. The citizens
"a Naf.a tat rrsN
amendment, aud this failure TO adopt the pro
posed amendment, left the old Law unrepealed.
Ii is argued, to make judicial determination
Of this question IN this preliminary mOiion'
would be to decide the rights Of all parties, be-
fore final hearing. and to determine ca ttNthe
one Of the most serious questions OF the SUIT.
and the mischief resulting theretrom Wouldibe
irreparable The defendants would have saved
all inquiry into these statutes by hing
nth these answers their deeds Their taliur 70
do so is to be taken against them. 10 proceed
ing in the name ofthe State TO Gust an Oticerwh
unla Rfully holds an office. II would DO proper
case 60 hold hin in allegiance until the matter
could be determined; ROt 50, when there was
contest between two persons, ~ TO who was
entitled, especially if the answer Of the deien-
dant was not full, clear and explicit upon the
fact of alleged disqualification If II be true
that a majority of the city officers are disquAil
fed from holding their respective othces. no ono
doubts that they should be stopped as soon -
the fact is made apparent; for 10 allow them 10
go on would be to have laws passed, money
appropriated. contrasts buAcL1n Aieug
levi and collected, all of doubtful le.
gality. and done, too. without that legal
responsibility which attaches TO q 10
zaIly qua fled officer. In this case p0th
the State aud the citizens Of the town are be-
fore the court; the former has the right to quGS-
tIOa the title to Offices Of persons holding the
same; the latter to have the officers called up
on for management Of the property entrusted
&c them. Both in their respective rights are
entitled to the benefit Of extraordinary process;
the latter has this right. in all probability, IN
dependent of the code.
The bill is answered. The answer Is not SUI
fcient even in an ordinary case 70 dissolve an
Injunction if had been properly granted m mo
first instance but the argument Tor diSsolu
tion rests more upon the merits and equity OF
the bill than the strength aud merits OF tho m,
swer. The merits of the bill have been passed
upon BY Chancellor Smith. some Of the CUES
tiOls of law which he must have determined
are doubtful. The same questions are again
presented to me without change of pleading, 70
review his action. My own inclinations areto
construe remedial laws with great liberality.
EkST Chancellor.