Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1876-02-28
FEDERAL COURT,
Important Opinions Announced by
Judge Brown this HOrning.

8aNAO aAAo AONnAn
10 the case OF Wilson, Aston & Co. VS..
the city Of Memphis, suit on coupons,
the demurrer of plaintiffs to pleas of de
fendant sustained. Judge Brown held
that the city was liable for it's contracts
A corporation had the right to sell it's
bonds at whatever it can get for them,
but the city should pay the interest on
these bonds.
In the T. E. Brown NicolsoR pave.
ment mandamus case VS.. the city Of
Memphis, Judge Brown held: When a
mandam1s from the courts orders the
levy sf a tax the city is not bound to
levy a special tax in each case or make
a new assessment in each case. All
that is required Of o city is to place the
mount Of the judgments in mandaIhus
cases in the next assessment roll of the
city, to lay off a tax and collect the same
like other taxes. This is a sufficient
compliance with the law, but the city
should have made a full return to the
writ Of mandamus. If a city had to levy
a tax on each mapdamus issued endless
confusion would result, but such is not
necessary; to levy a tax and collect il
when all other taxes are collected is all
that is necessary. In December, 1867,
the Ninth and Tenth wards we're added
to the city of Memphis, and such wards
we're by agreement exempt from liabili,
ty on contracts entered into by the city
prior to that time. The debt of 7. E.
Brown & Co was created when the con,
tract with the city for paving wal made
by them in 1867.
The contract was complete at that
time and the obligation incurred, al.
though the work was not commenced
until 1868 This contract between
Brown & Co. aud the city was made
prior to the admission Of the Ninth and
Tenth Wards, and they are net liable for
this Nicolson pavement tax, as neither
Of the wards received the benei, of a
loot Of this pavement. The State Courts
so decided in favor Of the Ninth and
Tenth Wards, and that decision was
clearly correct.
Are the owners of lots butting on said
Nicolsou pavement liable2 The Supreme
Cour, Of Tennessee held that the ordi
nance making owners Of lots fronting or
this pavement liable for the cost OF the
pavement was unconstitutional, and thai
he city as q corporation was liable fol
The pavement. Upon this decision being
made, T. E, Brown 4 Co. applied to THU
Court for relief 10 equity. Many of thes,
property-holders paid their pavement
TAX. It being voluntary, it cannot be
recovered back, but certainly thes,
Oroperty-bolders are entitled TO relief
20 the city should 20 on and exhaust the
other property of the city before the
property of said owners, who paid il
many Instances ten times more thar
heir pro rata, can be touched. They ar,
entitled 10 be exOnorated from any LA
oility or tax in this case, they having
now paid much more than their pro
portion. The city must make further
return as to the levy Of tax, if demanded
by the plaintiffs, aud the tax should b.
collected on the next assessment roll
This Court cannot order q levy Of III,
tax Immediately, as this result is an i'm
possibility. | see no want Of good faitI
on the part of the city in l~evying anc
collecting this tax, and l 80 hold in thi
case.
Judge Brown announced that Cour
would adjourn to Wednesday next, wher
the cases Of Caldwell VS. Southern Elk
press Company, and the maritime cas-
Of the collision with the steamer Whit
would be taken up. The jury we're dis
charged until 9 o'clock Wednesda,
morning Motions will also be heard Oh
Wednesday, but no new cases will b
called for trial, as Court will adjourn o.
that day to Court in course.