Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-12-27
MUNICIPAL
A Strong Array Of Doctrines and Deois-
Ions as to Powers, Liahlll-
ties, Etc.

property of the inhabitants is liable
for the corporate debts, may at this
time be,ofinterest to your readers:
First. As to legislative power over
municipal corporations Municipal
corporations are always subject to the
control of the legislature for the pur-
pose of amendment, modification or
entire repeal, 5 Heisk r., p. 527; 5
Hum. R., p. al; 3 Head r., p. 317;
Cooley's Con. Linn, p. 1872. As the
legislature may create, so it may mod
ify or destroy, as public exigency re-
quires or recommends, or the public
may best be subserved. Angel 4 Ames
on corporations, section 81.
Second-Can the private property
of the inhabitants be made subject to
the creditors Of the corporation, and
if so, in what manner, and under what
circumstances
In his work on corporations, Judge
Dillon says:
Outside ofthe New England States
"the creditors of a municipal corpor-
"ation cannot resort, for the purpose
"of making their debts, to the private
property of the inhabitants. 2 Dill
lon on corporations, section 446; note
to section CSC; note 2 to section 762;
see also % Miss. r., p. 434; AZ Pa. st.
r., p. 48Z.
Che only way to make the private
property of the inhabitants liable to
the creditors Of the corporation is by
~mandamus to coerce the proper cor
porate officers to levy and collect taxes
from such property for the benefit Of
the corporate creditors. Rees VS..
Waterfowl, 10 Wallace U. 5. r., p.
107; Heine VS.. The Levee Commission
ers, Id. ,p.655. This is the authoritative
doctrine ~emanating from the Supreme
Court of the United States. Seven of
the nine judges united in so laying it
down. 1t is now what may be called
the settled law.
1t is, therefore, necessary to enable
the creditor Of the corporation to
reach the private property of the cor
poration First-That the corpora
ton should be in existence. Second
That it should have power to lay
taxes on the private property Of the
inhabitants for payment of the corpo-
rate creditors. Third-Corporate Off
GERS charged with the duty, and au-
thorized by law to lay such taxes.
The Federal courts have no power
to declare a lien against the private
property Of the inhabitants and en-
force it for the benefit Of the creditors
of the corporation. This question was
presented for decision, and decided in
the negative, in the two cases cited
above from 10 Wallace R., PIP. lO7
655.
Mr.. Justice Miller, in the opinion
in Heine's case against the leyee com.
missioneTs, says: 4" 1t is too clear fol
argument that taxes not assessed ar,
no liens. and that the obligation {,
assess is not a lien on the property OF
which they ought to be assessed
See p. SO.
In Heines case, there was a law
which authorized the leyee commits
soners to impose 2 tax on the private
property Of the inhabitants In thu
eTee district for the payment of hi
corporate bonds. The levee commits
moners refused 70 make the levy. II
order 10 make 1t certain that Heinz
should not use them as the machinerl
for the writ Of mandamus in layinl
taxes they resigned The corporation
8y this act became practically dead
Thereupon, H~einefled billin equity
alleging that al the private propertl
In the leTee district was liable for hi
bonds. He prayed that a lien nigh.
be declared aud. the private propet.
Of the inhabitants sold for the salts
faction of his bonds.
In delivering the opinion Of th.
court on the case thus presented, Mr.
Justice Miller used this strong Ian
guage, VIZ. There does not appea
to be any authority founded on tn.
recognized principles Of a court 0
equity on which this bill can be sus
tanned. If sustained at all, it must b
. on the very broad ground that becaus
the plaintiff finds himself unable t.
J collect his debt by proceedings at Law
it is the duty Of a court Of equity t
devise some mode BY which it can b
: done. 1t is, however, the ~experienc
e Of every day, and Of all men. tina
. debts are created which are neye
paid, though the creditor has exhaust
ed all the resources Of the law. 1t ]
a misfortune which, in the imperfec
ton Of human nature, admits Of n
redress. The holder Of the corpora
2 ton bond must, in common with othe
men, submit to this calamity when tn
law affords no relief. 10 Wallace, /
&C.,"
n Again he says: "The power we ar
here asked to exercise is the yer
delicate one Of taxation. + +
8 The power must be derived from tn
legislature Of the State. SO far as tn
present case is concerned the State ha
'e delegated the power to the leyee CON
d %missioners. If that body has cease
d to exist, the remedy is in the legisla
ture, either to assess the tax by speci;
! statute, or TO vest the power in SON
other tribunal. 1t certainly is Nc
vested, as in the exercise of an orig
nal jurisdiction, in any Federal cour
Id. PIP. $50, 66l.
a Its, Of course, conced the lel
~islature may make provision forthetay
a alton necessary to enable the corp,
o rate creditor to collect his debt frol
the private propertyo Of the inhabitan
Of the corporation. 1t could do th
! in a~bolishing one local governmer
~ and establishing another. But If