Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-31
TAXING-DISTRICT
In the United States COurts-Mr, jus.
tiee Matthews Again Decides
that the
Council Cannot be Compelled by Man.
damuses TO Levy Taxes to Pay
Old City Debts.

Yesterday was busy day in the United
States Court. Six cases in which the Taxing
District was an interested party were under
consideration at various times. The suit for
100000 OF Nicolson paving bonds was
heard, but no decree given, the judges (Asso-
ciate-Justice Matthews and Judge Hammond)
taking the matter under advisement. Louden
& Co. rs. J. r. Flippin, as security for the
city on 5000 debt, also occupied the atten-
ton of the court for a short time. The
other four cases involved two important
points to the District-whether the United
States Court can issue mandamuses to compel
the Taxing-Distrtct to levy taxes to pay
judgments against it, and whether the Tax
ing-District can be held liable for the old
ciiy's debts. The cases came up on agree
ment of counsel, in order to get all the ques-
tions before the Supreme Court of the United
States as soon as possible. We give below
the decree in one Of the cases involving the
right 10 mandamus:
B. W. Window the Taxing District of Shelby
County:
This cause, coming on to be heard on the
demurrer of the defendant to the petition
and alternative writ of mandsmus of plain
tiff for peremptory writ Of mandamus, and
the matters of demurrer being considered by
the court, it is ordered and adiudged thst
the demurrer be sustained and the peremp-
tory writ OF mandamus be denied, and that
the defendant, as hence without day, and
recover the costs by the defendant in this be-
half expended. And thereupon the plain
tiff in open court presents writ of error,
which has been duly allowed by the Hon.
Stanley Matthews, associate Justice OF the
Supreme Court of the United States, and
tenders his bond, according to law, for the
execution of such writ of error with good
and sufficient security, which has been ap-
proved by the said associate Justice; and
thereupon the defendants in error, in open
court, acknowledge service of the summons
in error, and agree 10 appear in the Supreme
Court of the United States on the first day
of the next term thereof and defend such
error.
Similar proceedings were bad in the case
of G. p. Bethel against the Taxing District
The liability of the Taxing District for the
old city's debts was brought up in the shape
of the case of Patrick McNicholl Us. the
Taxing District. The court decided that
plaintiff McNicholl was entitled to recover
from the Taxing District, on judgment, bonds
and coupons, the sum of S79,56S "a. The
Taxing Districts attorneys presented writ
of error, giving proper security for its prose-
cution before the United States Supreme
Court.
The case of Norton against the District
took the same course as that of McNichoD.
Mr.. w. NJ. Randolph was counsel for
Wisdom and McNicholl, and Myers & Sueed
for Bethel and Norton. The District was
in all the cases by J. 3. and C.
W. Heiskell and Judge S. P. Walker.
Judging from the orders in these cases. one
would conclude that the court had decided
that the Taxing District is responsible for
the old city's debts, but that the Legislative
Council cannot be compelled by mandamus
to levy taxes to pay them. No special i'm
portance is attached to these DEGREES, as the
whole proceedings were a mere matter of
form 10 carry the matter to the United States
Supreme Court. There was more anxiety TO
see Judge Matthews than TO hear anything
pertaining to the cases.