Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1876-05-15
MERCHANTS, CAPITAL.

beueae n1SmA4seO Ter want OF 1uf-
fsd1etiOn In the Case, by Circuit
Judge q. W. HeiskelI.
In the case of the Merchants vs.. F. G.
Sehaper etal, it being the case wherein
the merchants resisted the collection of
81 cents on the 800 Of merchants CAPT
tai, as decreed by Judge Brown Of the
United States Court, to pay a Nicolson
pavement tax. The merchants took the
case into the Circuit Court of Shelby
county on writs of certiorari and super
sedeas. The case was deliberately ar
pled By counsel in the presence of
Judge Heiskell and United States Cir
cult Judge Emmons.
This morning Judge Heiskell deliv-
cred a lengthy opinion, in which he held
as fellows:
The Merchants vs.. F. G. Schaper ct al;
I. L. Brown, by a mandsmus proceed
| ing, obtained from the Circuit Court Of
/ the United States an order to the city
government Of Memphis to proceed to
levy and collect a tax Of ffty.four cents
on the 500 worth of taxable property
OF the merchants, according to the re-
turns Of their property on file in the
City Tax-Collector' office.
Let it be observed that this judgment
Of the Federal Court ordered the levy to
be made upon property as already listed
and returned" Observe again that this
property-merchauts capital-had not
been taxed as had the other property OF
the city to pay Browns judgment. BY
this proceeding of certiorsri petitioners
seek to bring before the court and have
qusshed the distress warrants Issued BY
the City Tax Collector, in obedience to
this mandamus proceeding. The ques.
ton that meets the 'court in limine is
that of jurisdiction. If this question is
against petitioners, it is decisive Of the
case, and therefore should be first de
termined. Position Of defendants is
that another court has taken jurisdiction
of this matter, and therefore this court
cannot interfere.
To this petitioners reply; This court
is not interfering with Federal jurisdic,
ton or process; it is only exerting its lie,
climate revisory jurisdiction over an
inferior State tribunal to qussh a void
proceeding in the hands OF a State off
csr. But how is this court to qussh thi:
proceediBg-upon what ground2 UpoI
no other than BY determining that these
warrants are wrongly issued; that is, the.
1 the Federal Court erred in its judgmen.
in Issuing them. For if these distress
warrants are void, it is because, as petit
TONERS insist, they are levied upon prop
erty not subject TO tleir levy. This il
what the Federal Court determined: l
e determined that this property the prop
p erty levied on-is sutjsct to this levy; it
Judgment was to levy upon this property
. so that it follows necessarily that if thi
court determines the warrants void, i
:. %pronounces upon the correctness of tn
Federal Court judgment.
Now, if that judgment is erroneous
how can this court or any other, excep
s the Federal Courts, determine that que:
tion2 Certainly the judgment Of tina
h court is not void. The most that ca.
/. be said of it is, that it is erroneous an
Z should be reversed. But this is not
u revising court. And if it we're TO de
9 termine the question adversely to tn
o correctness OF hat judgment, wis
would be the result. Only this-th
Federal Court would enforce its mai
o date by proceedings of contempt agaiEi
the city officers it not against these p
titioners themselves; and if this cou.
20 enforced its judgments we would hav
> an unseemly conflict Of jurisdiction j
~ a system which should, and indeed, d
most always has worked harmoniouslJ
1t must not be overlooked here thG
the question involved is not whether thi
court will come in conflict with the Fec
% eral Court. 1t is whether it will com
: in conflict with any court of competeI
u jurisdiction which has obtained jurisdiC
De ton of a cause. The rule is that juri.
X diction once obtained is retained unit
the judgments of the court have bee
fully executed, subject only to appeal q
the injunction process of q court {
chsncery on ONE grounds Of equitahl
interference, neither OF which jurisdi,
tons this court possesses in this cas-
The question would be the same if
were q certiorari to a sister State tribl
nal to bring up ONE process issued i
obedience to o judgment of a chsGcer
n court in a like case with the one at ba
1t would be the same if this conrt ha
= jurisdiction Of this cause and the Federi
courts were to attempt an interference
under like circumstances. But thos
~ courts have always scrupulously receI
re nized the principle of non.interferenc
with the Jurisdiction of State tribunal
in such cases as the enc at bar, an
propriety, policy and principle deman
ID Of State courts a like observance of i
rs II is needless to express an opinion upo
: the merits Of this controversy, as tn
e disposes of the case. The court has 4
jurisdiction, and to attempt to take j
n would be an ungracious, unwarrante,
K as we'll as q futile act. Let the supe
sedeas be discharged and the petite
dismissed. G. W. HEIsKELL,