Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-02-12
%HERCHAETS' CAPITAL TAX.
The United States Supreme Court
Afirms the Decision in the
Brown Mandamas
Case Against
the City.
Full History Of the Great Lawsuit, Ia
Which Our Citizens arc In.
terested - The Con.
tempt Case.

NMRe O1SNs
Yesterday Messrs. Randolph, Ham.
mond & Wassell received a Telegram from
Washington stating that the Supreme
Court of the United States had affirmed
the decision Of the Circuit Court Of West
Tennessee in the Nicolson pavement
cases of I. E. Brown VS.. the city of Mem
phis. By this decision the merchants Of
Memphis are held liable for the payment
OF the maudamus tax in favor of said
Brown, and that said mandamus was
properly issued. The case relative to
the front foot assessment and the liza.
bility Of property in the Ninth and
Tenth wards for the satisfaction or pay.
meut OF this ~mandamus tax has not yet
been decided. AS this decision is of
great importance to the people of Men,
phis, we give here
history OF HI SUIT,
SO that our readers may properly under.
stand tie nature, extent and bearing of
the case. AS far back as March l6, 1875,
the United States Circuit Court, in
obedience TO the mandate of the United
States Supreme Court, entered a judg.
ment against the city in favor of Brown
for 1922, 1873 Al, that being the amount
due after deducting all payments made
up to that time. March 30, 1875, the
Circuit Court pronounced another judg.
ment requiring the city to proceed every
year for the ensuing three years-l875,
1876 and 1877, respectively, at the same
time, and 80 on, and 10 the same manner
that other city taxes were assessed and
levied and collected, to assess, levy and
collect upon all the taxable property
OF the city a tax, in addition to oil
other tax allowed by law, payable in
lawful money, sufficient in amount,
after making due allowance for de-
linquencies, insolvencies and defaults.
to realize SIPS, 900 for the years 1875
and 1876 respectively, and 90 much
Of tho said sun for the remaining year
1877 as might be necessary to salty the
balance Of the decree of March 16, 1875,
including interest and cost not satisfied
by the taxes collected and paid over dur
ing the two preceding years. The city
hes levied q tax which, it is said, was
adequate to pay the tax Of $l25, 900, aud
also levied a tax said to be adequate for
the payment of a like amount in 1876.
UT TO PRESENT TINE
the city has paid over out of these aud
all previous levies enough to reduce the
principal aud interest Of the decree to
about $500, eco. The city has failed, not
~withstanding the above amounts Of judg-
ments remaining due, to levy a tax IS
commanded by the decree of the court,
March 30, 1875. Brown through his at
torney, Colonel VIM NJ. Randolph, made
an effort 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
advisement Of Judge,Trigg. In this case
Colonel William Randolph is attorney
for Brown and Judge Walker for the city
of Memphis.
TAI on MzROHATs CAPITAL.
From the original judgment in the
above case arose two law suits, though
neither las any connection with the mo.
ton for attachment for contempt. City
Attorney Walker sued out a writ of error
to the judgmen: requiring the levy OF the
tax of Sl25, 900 for 1875. 1925, 900 for
1876 and the balance for 1877, the obi &c:
being to secure a decision that the city
has no power at all to levy a tax to pay
q judgment. By some means or mistake
when toe merchants capital was taxed in
1875 the I. e. Brown mandamus tax was
not collected for that time. When T. f
Brown sscertainsd this fact he went be
fore the United States Circuit Court
here, and upon HE affidavit judgment
was rendered that the merchants capital
tax, like other property, was liable to
taxation and to the payment OF this tax.
From tina: judgment the city, probably
for the benefit OF the merchants, sued
out a writ of error to the United States
Supreme Court to have it determined
that merchants capital is not liable for
tax.
The Supreme Court yesterday affirmed
this judgment, holding hat merchants
capital is liable for the tax, and that the
city must proceed to levy, collect and
pay over the same. This decision places
the retiring members OF the late city
council in an awkward situation. In.
less the present council levy the required
tax, it may be that the members Of the
previous council are in contempt of court
and personally liable.
VaIentinesI Valentines!
Billy Lieben's News Stand,
2364 Main street. l42
IN the LEDGER JOB Office can be found