The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-03-29
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
Reported Weekly by Jenkin
a. Little, Attorneys ai Law.
FRANK J. ALRIGHT, Assn, Col. ETC.,
VS.. No 1860.

g FRANK J. ALRIGHT, Assn, Col etc.,
It VS.. No 1860.
d STEPHEN DUNCAN, Executor, etc.
u u Appeal from the Chancory Court o
q Adams county, Hon. James G. Leach
Chancellor.
In 1871, the limits of the city of Natche
were, by act of the Legislature, extended
and made to include the farm of appellees
testator, three acres of which were already
in the city limits.
Taxes for city purposes were assessed
and collected for this purpose until the yeal
1876 when the appellant was about to col
lect the tax due for the year 1875 by sale of
the property. Whereupon the appellee
: enjoined the sale and collection, and prayed
for perpetual enjunction, setting forth the
fact that the Legislature had by an act
placed the limits of the city as they origin
ally were before the extension in 1871, and
claiming that the property of appellee was
absolved from all taxes.
Appellant made his answer cross-bill,
and sought to subject the three acres with
in the corporate limits for the taxes due on
the whole tract. The time appointed for
sale by the collector has long since past
The charter of the city of Natchez does not
appoint day for sale but allows it under
regulations of the Mayor and Alderman.
The 18th section of the charter of 1871
makes the taxes from date of assessment
lien on the property, real and personal.
Exceptions were sustained to those para
graphs of the answer which ,controverted
the conclusions or statements of the COM
plainant as to the effect of the legislation
referred to.
The demurrer to the cross-bill was also
sustained, which had the effect of settling
the principles of the case.
Appellant appealed as allowed by Act of |
1875, page 1877
Simrall, CT.
Held.
I. The entire tract of land of appellee's
being within the limits of the city at the
time of the assessment, the change Of the
city limits does not discharge the owner of it
from the debt thereby created. Though
the remedy by distress and sale may be
greatly embarrassed by a change of the
limits yet the owner is not relieved of the
2. The Act of 1876 operated prospective
UT freed the territory excluded from the
corporation from liability to be assessed
!
sell real estate outside the corporate limits
for taxes which had been assessed whilst
included within the limits. The remedy
by sale was cut off, but that left the claim
Of the town unimpaired, and its right to
collect by distress or sale of any other
property which the collector might find in ,
lis jurisdiction.
3. We have held under the general stat
ties for the collection of state and county
axes, that if the sale is not made on the J
lay named in the law no sale can be made
afterwards. But the general rule which has
been applied in this State is that, if the
Court has restrained party from the exer-
Use of legal right and finally adjudges
hat the ground of the injunction was not y.
it will not permit the party /
from losing the benefit of his ,,
light, but will itself, if Justice requires,
i've him proper relief And that it would
ot be pressing the powers and jurisdiction
f the court beyond its recognized lin
Is, to hold if there were no statutory mode !
pen to the city to collect the tax, give eff
cot to the lien by the sale of the three
ores within corporate limits.
Where party has right and there is r.
o remedy in the usual and ordinary pro-
eedure in the law, the court of Chancery
ill relieve.
Reversed and remanded. VI