Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-07-07
THE Personal RESPONSIBILITY
OF COUNTY JUDGES.

Some important points have been de-
cided by the United States Circuit
Court at Springfield, H., in what are
known as the Macoupin bond cases,
which have a general interest for their
bearing on the personal responsibilities
of a County Judge to the creditors of
his county. The first point settled by
the court is that, after Judgment
against a county and the service of a
writ of mandamus commanding the
supervisors Tor judges 70 levy tax to
pay the Judgment, the supervisors or
judges are personally liable to the
creditor for failing to make the levy;
the creditor may bring an action
against them and recover the
debt from them, if they have
property. Second, it is decided
that any creditor of a county
having an ascertained claim against it,
may demand payment, and if there be
no money in the treasury, may dCmand
of the County Jadge or Judges that
they include his claim in the next
county levy, and if they refuse to do
this they are liable in their individual
capacity to the creditor. They are not
individually liable, however, unless the
creditor has demanded payment, or the
levy Of tax to pay his claim. The
court also grantedan injunction against
the County Treasurer prohibiting him
from paying out to the township treas
urers money in his hands, the object
being to retain the money in the county
treasurer's hands where it can be de-
manded by the bondholders.
We know not whether this new and
important definition of the personal
liabilities Of County Judges is likely to
be sustained by the United States Su-
preme Conrt, but believe that its re-
cent rulings have been IN that direc-
ton. Itlooks, however, ike straining
the law 70 say that individuals compos-
ing the County Court are personally
responsible to acreditor for refusing or
neglecting to include his claim in the
county levy. Under this decision, in
all cases where counties resist payment
of a debt, and the County Judges, in
complying with the wishes of the peo-
pie, refuse to levy a tax to pay the
debt, the Judges make themselves liza
bic, personally, to the creditor for such
failure, and he may institute pOOceed-
ings to recover from them the amount
Of his claim. In Tennessee. the mag
istrates composing the County Courts
would be similarly liable.
As to the result toward which these
and all other pending decisions in
county bond cases In Illinois, Missouri,
Iowa and other Western States are
tending, the st. Louis Republican is
convinced that the bonds will have to
be paid at last. There would seem to
be no escape from this conclusion.
Our neighbor county of Wilson has,
by the way, Just taken a very wise
course where principles identical with
those above set forth we're involved. |
Instead OF leaping blindly into Iitiga-
ton with the holders Of her Tennessee |
and Pacific railroad bonds, she EN-
ployed able counsel to consider the law
and facts bearing upon their issuance, |
with instructions to report what action
should be taken. This report was sub
mitted to the court at the regular July
term, last Monday, as stated in a special
dispatch to the UNION AND AMERICAN
of yesterday, and was to the effect that
there could be no question as to the
validity Of the bonds. Acting upon
this advice, the court promptly ordered
the levy of a tax sufficient TO pay the
matured interest, thus prudently avoid
ing the expense Of a protracted contest
in the courts, with the absolute GER
tainty Of final defeat.