Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-02-22

EDITORS APPEAL-In your issue of yester-
day II is stated that the county trustee (r Fleece)
by the advice OF his attorney Judge T. ". Brown
has concluded not TO turn over funds to Bakers re-
ceiver never gave such advice nor did Mr.. Fleece
order OF the United States court. Mr. Fleece was
called on to turn over certain fund. OF this was
inform d by him late in the evening of yesterday.
Considering that the matter deserved some Ietiec-
ton, directed him not 10 do so until had cOnsid
cred the demand. Re did as diLected; Inc affair
received patient consideration Neither the pressure
CT the United States official or the counsel backing
him at all hurried the final conclusion II is aut1
cent TO say, that neither allow my clients or my
self to be at all crowded by officials either State 1r
Federal. Whatever Is done under my direction In
the business OF the receveTshp Will be done after
deberatlon, without fear, favor or malice" No
bullying will answer. 1t Is just as we'll for all inter
ested to make note of this T. W. BROWN.
a Legal ReYiew of Bakers Conduct.
EDITORS APPEAL Your able editorial
upon the rulings fudge Baxter In the matter Of
ctys receiver deserves more than passing notice:
II certainly meets with the hearty Endorsement OF
every Intelligent member of the bar. But as the cit
zens are not generally posted on questions Of law,
especially such as discussed IL tie foregoing
matter, Will, with your permission, insert few
lines explanatory of the position OF the Memphis
lawyers upon the question. Now, to start with, IL
is now and has ever been the established practice In
the Federal courts, also in our state courts never 10
allow receiver simply upon the pdrte application
of anyone Notice is universally required, in order,
you will TO allow the opposite party to exam
inc the complaint and file his elections. Any ether
rule indeed would work great wrong in most cases,
for the office of -uSeiver Is 10 take control Of and
use according to his own judgment, the effects.
Indefinite period of time. To appoint n receiver In
any case without notice, upon mere statement OF
lot of fool lawyers. would shock the legal mind of
any lawyer. as well as the conscience of any honor
able judge. Ii would be the next thing to giving
Judgment In ca Sc Without summons and issuing
execution to be levied on a mans goods and he
turned in the street. The appointment or receiver,
therefore, is now, and always has been delicate
matter exercised only upon strong case and a
fair hearing; a different rule would De perversion
of every principle of equity and justice The merest
tyro in the law the reason of the rule, the
See section S of the revised statutes of the United
States where the rule is made imperative upon the
violated this just and cardinal principle OF the law,
In the appointment of Mr.. Thomas ]. Latham as re-
cever OF the assets OF the detunct corporation OF
Memphis and vesting him with scope OF power
alarming in IFS character? Ianswer he hds-and
now proceed 10 prove my assertion Under and by
virtue or thei law creating our new city govern
ment, embraced in act No. =. of our general as
semoly of 1879 find that all the assets of the de-
funct corporation of Memphis are turned to and
the title vested in the state The State Is in other
words, made the receiver and the control and future
disposition of the property given to It, II Will be
cOntreveTted by any one that so long as law upon
the statute books remains unrepealed 1t remains the
law and all rights vested Hereunder not to be
impaired Invested, save by proper tribunal upon
an issue properly made, and as / have previously
stated, upon reasonable notice" Such act may be
declared unconstitutional; but parties acquiring
rights Hereunder must be before the court before
valid decree can be- made. dvesting such rights.
The State of Tennessee was not before Judge Baxter
BigeloW and General HeiskelI ex encouragement
for the State at large that this important fact had
been overlooked, and that no decree could be made
until this important step had been taken. The sound
ness of this proposition was SefevideDtto every law
yerlin attest, but the anSwerswaS: II have right
to consider the provision of the charter transferring
this property to the state unconstitutional and so
decioe. Your legislature has gone to Nashville,
7githO any representation of the bondhOlderS, and
passed this law taking away this property. desire
TO administer the law In as purity and VIII therefore
take possession of these assets and give them TO
receiver, to be dealt with the court may fit
He is asked to withhold his opinion until the State
could come in with her answer. by her attorney and
contest the constitutionaity OF the question. She
had constitutional right to this privilege; but IL
denied, and Latham is made receiver and put In
actual possession and control OF the property. Yes,
hundreds of thousands of dollars of property taken
from party and placed in the hands of anOtht T.
without notice or the privilege of being heard.
challenge Mr.. Randolph, the mplainants attorney
to produce single case in the United States else
where, that apprOXlmates to this one; indeed it is
without precedent, and cannot be sustained by a
higher tribunal unless by perjury or corruption.