Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1874-04-11
That United States Supreme
Court Judgment.
What the Washington Law
yers Say.
How the Collection Will be Enforced
Against the City.

In yesterdays LEDGER appeared the
first notification that t. E. Brown & Co t,
Nicolson pavement contractors, had
obtained heavy judgment against the
city before the United States Supreme
Court at Washington. The news came
by letter to Humes & Poston, attorneys,
which letter stated that the judgment
obtained, principal and interest, was
S4l0,6l6 &c, besides costs in all the
courts, which the city was adjudged to
pay. Mr.. Phillips, one of the attorneys
of Brown & Co., writes as follows:
WASHINGTON, April 9. 1874.
DEAR SIR-The court has just an
nounced its decision, declaring the de-
cree below to be correct in all things but
the item for damage in reference to the
sinking fund and the items for collec-
ton and attorneys fees, and directs
decree 10 be entered accordingly. In
haste, yours respectfully,
P. P. PHILLIPS.
The attorneys of the city of Memphis
write as follows:
WASHINGTON, April I, 1874.
W. NJ. Randolph, Esq, Memphis, Tenn;
DEAR SIR-The Supreme Court yes
terday decided this case, striking out
the items for damages for failure to pro-
vide sinking fund, and for attorneys
and collection expenses-$89, S08, $l0,-
900 and $25, 000-in all, $l25, 808, which,
with interest, makes a saving to the city
of about $4,000. The decree is re-
versed, with costs, and the cause re-
manded, with directions to enter de-
cree in conformity with the opinion,
The effect of this is not only to diminish
the amount, but to avoid the proceed
ings that have been undertaken to en-
force the first decree. The purchase of
the water stock becomes void, and the
proceedings by maudamus must also
come to an end. We also throw costs on
the other side. .
Very respectfully,
CARLISLE & MCPHERSON.
These accounts do not differ material
ly, as in the figures and basis set out
above by Carlisle & Mcpherson, Mr..
Randolph calculated the amount Of
judgment which the city will have to pay
to be about four hundred and ten thous'
and dollars, less thirty or forty thousand
dollars received by Brown & Co. The
Emmons mandamus to compel the city
to levy a tax for the payment of the
Judgment becomes nugatory under the
recent decision. The case is remanded
to the United States District Court in
this city, where a decree will be entered
in conformity with the opinion of the
Supreme Court as to the amount due
Brown & Co., and which the city will
have to pay. 1t will be remembered that
the issue between the city and Brown Il
Co. lis clearly stated in the Mayors
message in the following words:
The mandate of the United States
Court is being strictly obeyed. Three
competent clerks are employed in pre-
pairing the tax books, and in the mean
time the collector will receive the Nicol-
son pavement tax when he collects the
tax for other purposes. In round num-
beers the city admits that she owes $780,
900, whilst Messrs. Brown Il Co. claim
$4,000,
Although the claim was reduced about
$4,000, it was no victory for the city.
Another such victory and we are
lost" What next2 When the mandate
of the court is received here a decree
will be entered in accordance, and an
execution will issue for the full amount
against the city, upon which the usual
return No property found" ETC., will
be made, when the court will probably
enter an order to compel the city to
levy tax for the payment of the entire
claim as settled by the Supreme Court
az Washington.