Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-12-06
A NICE QUESTION
Raised in the ChancerY Court Yester-
day Concerning the Fund OF the
LiquidatiDg Board
Creditors OF the Old City of Memphis
After 1t in Very Hot and Anxious
Haste.

Yesterday a somewhat peculiar suit was
brought in the Chancery Court against the
Taxing District. The question raised ia GER
tainly.an ingenious one, and It's decision Will
be especially interesting 10 lawyers. The
style Of the case il w. F. Taylor "a. the Tax
ing District, ]. R.. Goodwin, John j. Duffy,
and Henry F. Dix, the Union and Planters
Bank of Memphis and the State National
Bank of Memphis. The complainant stats
that on the 9th of March. 1873, he obtained
a judgment against the city Of Memphis be-
fore a justice OF the peace for 1884 81, with
costs; on the 9th OF August, 1878, he obtained
judgment for S917 ~, $40 20, 1906 30,
1906 80 and 1906 SO; on the 18th OF August,
1873, he got judgments for S246 93 and
1916 10. 1t wifi be remembered that on the
31st OF January, 1879, the charter OF the
city OF Memphis was abolished, and shortly
after the
TAXING DIsTRICT WAS CREATED.
The Judgments previously obtained by Tay-
Tor against the old city were revived against
the Taxing District, December l, 1882. Ex-
e~cutions were Issued and returned December
4th, Endorsed n property found" Taylor
claims that there is no way TO enforce his
judgment except by the aid Of the Chancery
Court.
On the 9Th Of April, 1881, the Legislature
passed an act providing for the settlement of
the Indebtedness of the extinct municipality
Of the city OF Memphis. In this act the
provision was made tina the creditors should
put in their claims by December !, 1882, and
they were TO receive thiriy-three and one
third cent? on the dollar. To carry out The
various provisions Of The act, a
L~IoUIDATING BOARD WAS ESTABLISHED
and Messrs. Goodwin, Duffy and Dix were
constituted such board. In order to pay the
interest, ETC., on the new bonds, which were 10
be issued TO those who funded, a tax of fifty
cents on the 500 was levied. This tax, or a
considerable amount of it, was collected by
the county trustee. 1he money received by
this officer exceeded, the complainant thinks,
$4,000. Now the efforts Of the LiquidatiDg
Board were not attended with much success.
Only $4,000 of debts were funded by those
who were willing TO take thirty-three and
oue-third cents on the dollar,
A STARTLING PROPOSITION.
According TO lis own provisions, the act ex-
pired December let, and the board had on
hand the $4,000, minus their salaries The
board has no right to use any part of the
fund arising from this lax Taylor claims
that they hold this amount in trust for the
Taxing-District, and that in equity it be-
longs to the district. Here the nice point
comes in. II the money belongs uncondi-
tioually to the district, then il is subject to a
judgment, and Mr.. Taylor's finger is the first
In the pie.
A IMILA SUIT.
was brought by Pauline Fowler on judgments
for the following sums: 1898, 1917 90, SS44,
1901, SS16, 1927, 1852, S993, 1898, 1902, 1854,
fS43, 1872, 1896, 1858, 1929, $40, 1886, 1898,
1898 and S75S. The total amount of these
judgments is about $4,000, which with Tay-
lor's judgments swells the general total to
S2S,883 so. 1t will be of course argued
against the claims of the compliments
the money was levied for a specific
purpose, and that it cannot be diverted to
any other. The assertion that it belongs to
the Taxing-District ia rather a startling
proposition. In a somewhat similar case in
Kentucky, taxes assessed for a specific pur-
pose, which miscarried, were recovered from
The city of Louisville by the individual tax
payers.
The complainants concluded their bill by
asking that the Court summon Messrs. God
win, Duffy and Dix to tell how much money
hey have on hand, and also sought an in
restraining them from making any
disposition whatever of it, until it should
De decided whether The money could be used
o satisfy the judgment.