Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-01-15

against mayor rIppln n the general
council Of the city Of Memphis, tefore
Judge Trigg, of the United States Cir
cult Court, eliOits unusual interest. The
motion for attachment for contempt has
already been argued and the question is
now under advisement by Judge Trigg.
In order to understand the status of this
ease and the alleged reason for the mo-
ton we give the following
HISTORY OF THE SUIT:
March l6, 1875, the United States Cir
cult Court, in obedience to the mandate
of the United States Supreme Court, en-
tered a judgment against the city in IA
vor of Brown for 1922. lSS.47, that being
the amount due after %deducting all pay.
ments made up to that time. March 30,
1875. the Circuit Court pronounced an
other Judgment requiring the city to
proceed every year for the ensuing three
yesrs-l8T5, 1876 and 1871 respectively,
at the same time, and SO on, and in the
same manner that other city taxes
we're assessed and levied and collect.
ed, to assess, levy and collect upon all
the taxable property Of the city q
tax, in addition to all other tax allowed
by law, payable in lawful money, sufi.
cient 10 amount after making due allow
snce for delinquencies, insolvencies and
defaults, to realize $l25, 900 for the year
1875 and 1876 respectively, and so much
Of the said sum for the remaining year
1877 as might be necessary to satisfy the
balance of the decree of March Is, 1875,
including interest and cost not satisfied
by the taxes collected and paid over dur.
ing the two preceding years. The city
has levied q tax which, it is said, was
adequate to pay the tax Of SIPS, 900. and
and also levied a tax said to be adequate
for the payment Of a like amount in
1876. Up to the present time the city
has paid over out Of these and oil pre-
vious levies enough to reduce the princi-
pal and interest of the decree to about
$500, 900. The city has failed,
Notwithstanding the above amounts Of
judgments remaining due, to levy a tax
as commanded by the decree Of the
court, March 30, 1875. The attempt now
is to compel this levy as required by
judgment. The failure to levy for 1877
caused the motion for attachment for
contempt, and this is now under adj
visement. 10 this case Colonel William
Randolph IS attorney for Brown and
Judge Walker for the city OF Memphis.
"a on MERCHANTS CAPITAL
From the original judgment in the
above case arises two law suits, though
neither has any connection with the mo-
ton for attachment for contempt. City
Attorney Walker sued out a writ Of error
to the judgment requiring the levy of the
tax of $l25, 900 for 1875, $l25, 900 for
1876. aud the balance for 1877, the object
being to secure a decision that the city
has no power at all to levy a tax to pay
a judgment. BY some means or mistake,
when the merchants capital was taxed in
1875, the I. Z. Brown nandamus tax was
not collected for thst time. When T. E.
Brown ascertsined this fact he went be.
fore the United States Circuit Court here,
and upon his affidavit judgment wsG
rendered that the merchants capital
tax, like other property, was liable Il
taxation and to the payment Of this tax
From that judgment the city, probably
for the benefit Of the merchants, has sued
ont n writ Of error TO the United State
Supreme Court to have it determined
that merchants capital is not liable fol
tax. This cast is now pending in Ii,
Supreme Court.
THE SECOND LAWSUIT
arising from the case just mentione,
may be understood from the follewinI
statement; Divers parties paid th.
NNio0isou pavement assessment Dy IN
front foot When Judge Henry B
Brown, Of Detroit, Michigan, was hold
ing the United States Court here /.
March, 1874, the matter was brought be
fore him. Judge Brown decided tha
these parties we're not liable TO pay th
decree Of 7. Z. Brown. At th.
same lime the people owning Pre-
perry in the Ninth and Tent
wards claimed en- exemption fro1
this tax. levied to pay ID
tax imposed by the decree 10 favor Q
said Brown, said tax being created pre-
vious to the creation end admission o
said wards 10 the city. Judge Brown de
eided 10 favor Of these co~mplainants
Since then T. Il. Brown, through hi
' aitOrnav CoIonnl k., s,a.