Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-03-01

] with this power, was also the authority and
| duty to allow as valid payments on such ad =
| dtlonal tax any sums, with interest, paid By
persons IN satisfaction OF such SPECIAL assess
1 meats illegally levied and collected. To the
mandamus proceedings none OF these COM
plainants were parties, and hence are not
/ estopped by, the Judgment to deny the liabll-
/ lty Of their property. 1t is charged that IN
i pursuance OF the act of 1873, the city took
steps, by ordinance, to issue certificates, and
| to protect those vino had paid frontage tax
/ from further taxation, but IN spite OF this the
/ collectors are claiming to collect again this
1 tax from the compialnants, and they are IN
| stigated thereto by the demands and threats
| OF Brown. For 1876, the city, in conformity
to the judgment Of IL. tins ,; court aH OF
| t3nth wards, and the property which
| had paid the frontage tax assessment. as ex-
l empt; but as it was lmpractlcabe IN making
1 the tax books to exclude this property, which
i WAS taxable for other purposes, the man
| darnus tax was put upon all the property
| without distinction, but the rate was liked so
| high, that the amount TO be realized IN mon
4 ey would cover the amount demanded by the
4 nabdarnus, after Allowing JhOce who had
| paid the frontage assessment to pay the tax
on that particular property IN Brown s re-
| ceipts or paying certificates: Still the tax
| collectors are pressing the collection IN money
| against the exempted property. The bill
| further sets forth that the city is lnsolvent;
| that the tax-collectors, If not lnsoivent, nave
| property of little value, and wholly made
| quate to answer compliments demands.
| That by the laws of Tennessee, taxes are
lien upon property and constitute a cloua
| upon compliments lot, and unless restrained,
| such officer will proceed to sell the property
| for payment of taxes; that the attempt to
| collect said taxes, and especially the actin gs
and doings of Brown, are fraud upon the
| compliments and upon the court; that some
| of the compliments hold the receipts OF
| Brown for the payment OF the front loot as
| sessments, and some the scrip of the city,
| issued In exchange for his receipts. Com
| claimants have rendered and offered to sur
| render a sufficient amount of such receipts
| and scrip to cover their respective taxes. and
desire to epjoin the collection OF all such
| taxes IN money. Compliments pray that the
| city and Its officers be eDjolned from collect
ing from said compliments any part OF the
/ mandamus taxes on their property, described
! in the exhibits to the bill, and that the right
of complainants to satisfy and dis
charge the mandamus tax, levied
| or to be levied, on any Of their lands
| in the city, by the payment of said re-
ceipts or scrip to the amount of the money
| originally paid by each of them on frontage
assessments, be declared and established.
| To this bill Brown interposes a demurrer for
| want of equity upon the ground: First
| That the front foot assessments paid by the
| cOnlDldlQdlGS were voluntary pdyLu anu
! the only remedy the complalnants have tor a
| recovery of the amount SO paid Is against the
| CITY, Second-That the act OF March Is,
| 1873, under which the compliments claim
the right to pay in Brown s receipts or scrip
| issued in exchange therefor, was repealed
before the taxes compainants are seeking to
enioin were levied or ordered by the court to
be levied. Third-That the decree OF the
State court in favor of Bethel and others, en-
Joining the collection of the taxes levied
under the mandate Of this court, was void
for want of Jurisdiction in the State court to
! pronounce the same, and cannot be rehed
! upon as a ground of relief here. Fourth
| That the constitution of Tennessee requires
that all property shall be taxed, and that
taxation shall be equal and uniform, and
that the fact that the tax is required to tie
levied, requires that it be levied upon and
ants as well as others. Fltth-Ihat the
Judgment of March, 1875, decided all the
questions made by the appeal adversely to
the complain lnts, and this court cannot now
make decree Inconsistent Herewith. Sixth
That the taxes compliments here seek to be
relieved from were not levied under the
order of March 2, 1875. but under the ludg-
menr of March 80, 1875, and no right 70 re-
lei from such taxes can be based on the
order Of March 26, 1876. Seventh-That the
compliments have by law no right to set oil
claims due them by the city against the
, date Of this court. Eighth - IF the
compliments have any equity at all,
such equity extends no further than
to the particular piece OF property owned by
any complainant, on which the assessments
by the front foot were in fact paid, and such
equity is in no sense personal or restrictive OF
the personal obligation Of the person who
made the payment, and the bill does moi
show whether or not all the property on W hlch
the taxes sought to be enJoined have beer
: levied is property on which the frontage as,
sessments have been paid. Next, the bll
, shows that some of the property on which
the taxes are sought to be eDJolned was never
assessed for the cost Of the pavement.
Messrs. Mernwetaer and Myers q Sneed
fos cornplainants. Mr.. William Randolph
, for the defendant Brown.
No doubt is entertained of the power o
ihis court to control the execution OF It's pro
cess in such a manner that no local law o.
violated and no injustice be done to any par
, ticular taxpayer. Clearly no power exist
in a State court to make any order or decree
= which shall interfere directly or INDIRECT.
n with this mandamus, and unless the poWe
: Ia vested with us the tax payer Will be RENE
E Giless This was the view taken by the su
n | preme court Of Tennessee In Lea VS.. the cit!
. limited States in the city OF Memphis rs
I brown, No. 500, October term, 1871; AM
v also by Judge Emmons IN Brooks VS.. the cit
Of Memphis, Sd Central Lato Journal, BOT
i where the question of the taxablllfy ct ner
chants capital for these assessments wa
?. fully considered. Not only has this court tn
power to pass upon all questions connecle
g incidentally with the collection OF this TAI
d buS 1t Is our duty to exercise that power. l
70 such a way that no property justly SUBJECT
its burden shall escape that liability, an
"a that those who have honestly PAD toe
, obligations snail, IS far as possible, De pre-
* tected. Acting upon this theory, Inc orGt
r of Marck z, 1875, was made, exemptlpg To
J., | property upon which the assessment ha
n been paid, and no reason Is now perceive
ID | Why that order should not apply to all VII
- of msndamus issued from this court Tor u
n | collection of this tax, whether such Wrl
10 were IssZod before or since the making
Z such. The pss4.ept OF these assessIlsn !
+ having been voluntary, perhaps e would
~ difficdlt to Justify this order upon tSchn-c
IN prIncipies Of law without trenching upon al
20 other maxim-thGt all taxation must
~ uniform. But without touching upon IN
id question, the order was upheld by the 81
b preme court upon the ground that IL VI
IN exactly the order which Brown had asked 10
g. and that he could not be heard to compla
ne of il. The case certainly presented u
in strongest possible equities Ter the exemptlt
On | of the propertv in question. But we are nc
+ | asked to 90 further land that's the man que
h. ton in the easel and exempt not only the pro
eli erty upon which the front foot tax was pa !
tn but all other property OF the owner " .
IS amount of Brown receipts or the city scr
ne still in his hands, SO far az there is balan
an still remaining unapplied to the payHleln;;
il the frontage assessment upon his paved L
cd Ii is armed that the only authority to
rs pose this tax is GeSiyed from the act OF MAJ
IRE Is, 1873, and that, by tbs act, the city "
cd REQUIRED to allow as valid payments any SUI
af SO paid in satisfaction of special assessmen
of 1t will be observed that this act did not
cf ments, for that might have laid the tax op
ost to the charge Of want of uniform
MS. But it sought to bring about the sal
uli result by permitting Browns ~, recel
in to be taken in payment. Inc
1at evidently contemplated that
. should be laid sufficient to cover the ent
wn cost OF the improvement, including
nal amounts already paid by way OF special
vas sessments; in which case, the allowance