Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-02-28

G. =. Y 4
CIRCUIT CoURT.-McDonald admins
tratrix, vs.. Morrison, remittisvr entered of
S150.-Beazely VS.. Overton, dismissed
Leickhardt vs.. Seiferle, judgment for S4S7.-
81. 7e 1900
The court adjourned till Tuesday next.
MAGISTRATES CoURTs.-In Justice.
Cassetty's Court Jack Whyte, charged with
larceny, was honorably discharged and the
prosecutor was taxed with costs. John.
Myers, charged with malicious mischief,
was discharged on payment of costs. :.
SUPREME CoURT.-The Merchants tax
question was argued yesterday by Attorney
General Heiske1 for the State and Mr..
Jones for the Merchants, it was concluded.
The section of the court before which this
cause has appeared, will take up the
Davidson county criminal docket to-day.
The other wing of the court is still engaged
on the aury equity docket.
Owing to the large number of our sub
scribers interested in the Humphreys coun-
| ty railroad subscription suit decided last
week, we present the following additional
! points set forth in the decisionofthe Supreme
| court. Justices of Humphreys county, VS.
| j. II. McAdoo ct ais, bill of review. Pre-
| yious to the late War, the county of Hum
phreys subscribed $4,000 stock to the
Nashville and Northwestern Railroad Com
pany, payable in three annual installments
In 1860 an assessment of taxes was made
| by the County court to meet the first in
stallment which was collected and paid
over. The said railroad company suspend
| ed during the war and the second INSTALL
ment, which was assessed in 1857 was, with
the exception Of about $400, collected
and paid over. .at
| The company became embarrassed and
| failed to meet disabilities. j. 81. McAdoo,
the defendant in error, sued out his attach
meut and injunction against the road and
said county, attaching the amount due on
the second and third installments. The
| county appealed and answered, admitting its
Indebtedness. In February, 1864, decree
was entered against the county for the ba-
lance of the subscription with the interest
thereon. The Justices of the county filed
bill of review against the county and al
| lowing interest. The Chancellor reversed
so much of the decree, as gave interest on
the subscription from which the attaching
creditors appealed.
| The Supreme Court reversed the decree
against the county, holding that the county
could not be held liable by decree of Chan
Gerry Court; that it acted under statutory
provisions; that it was the duly of the
County Court to make the assessments. If
they refused, writ of mandamus was the
proper remedy. The County Court could
not be held liable for interest, as they had
no power to levy an assessment greater
than the amount subscribed. That
when the assessment was made, it was
the duty of the railroad tax collector to col
lect the taxes and pay them over to the
railroad company. That Chancery Court
had the right, when the fund belonging to
the road was attached, to control the dispo-
sition of it, but that no decree could be
rendered against the county.
The Court ordered the cost to be paid
out of the assessment. The cause was ar
| gued by Shackelford & Helms and H. G..
Lockhart for Humphreys & Co., and by D.
| Campbell and HIM. McAdoo for the attach
ing creditors.