Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-05-21
THE MEMPHIS BONDS
Decisions by Judge Hammond which
Make the Taxing-District Liable for
the Debts of the Old City
In Certain Contingeneies-If the Taxing
District LeFees Break Flood OF
Mandamuses viii Pour In.

Judge Hammond Yesterday delivered Jour
opinions in the United States Court worthy
OF note. In two of the cases he decided that
the Taxing-District Is the successor OF the
old city, and this virtually makes the present
government liable for the old debts. The
following are the cases in which the opinions
were rendered:
OLD CITY's SUCCESSOR.
Grantland Is. City of Memphis: Grant
land sued out a scire faeids against the Tax
ing-District for Judgment Tor $3.50 he had
received. The Tsxing-District demurred TO
the soire facias upon the ground that they had
no assets of the city OF Memphis in their
hands liable to execution, the assets being
administered in the Chancery Court in the
hands of a receiver. The demurrer was
overruled on the ground that the Taxing
District was the successor OF the city OF
Memphis, being composed of the same in
habitants aud territory; and that the PLAIN
tiff in the Judgment had right to revive 1t
against the Taxing-District as successor,
| in order to
SUBJECT ANY PROPERTY
| of the municipality that might be hereafter
| liable for the debt, and in arder TO entitle
| him to an execution mandamus il the Legis-
| Iature should at any time devolve upon the
| new municipality the duty oil paying the
! Judgment by taxation. The fact that an
ground for withholding sentence.
The case of p. c. Bethel Us. the Taxing
District, judgment for SIS, 900, was revived in
the same way aud upon the same grounds.
THE EFFECT oF-IT. VIE
1.-THE question occurs right here il, under
| this decision, the Taxing-District would not
| be held liable and he compelled to pay these
| judgments should the government indorse or
accept the act passed by the Legislature which
has lust adjourned, devolving upon it the
| sett' ement,- the debt OF the old city OF
Memphis at fifty cents on the dollar. The
Taxing District Council had better 60 slow.
EDS APPEAL
THE GREENLAw CASE.
Amanda Logan vs.. W. B. Greenlaw and others:
This was a bill filed by nonresident
creditor of the firm of w. b. Greenlaw &
Co. TO settle the partnership and subject the
firm assets consisting Of large quantities OF
real estate i'll the city of Memphis, 10 the
payment of the firm debts. Pleas were filed
alleging that two suits were already pending
in the Chancery Court of Shelby county, one
by the late w. i. Greenlaw against his de-
ceased partner ]. o. Greenl aw; and the
other by the late r. e. Brinkley against the
heirs OF J. o. Greenlaw, IN both of which
the plaintiff in this bill had filed petitions
asking the same relief she asks by this bill;
and in one of these suits the court had ap-
pointed receiver IN whose hanOs the prop
erly was now held, by reason of which facts
it = was contended that the Fedora
Court had no jurisdiction. The court
cvsrruied the pleas ON the ground that for
mer suit, pending in another court OF lnde
pendent jurisdiction, is no defense to bill
of the same purpose; and that the Federal
Court could proceed TO settle the right OF thu
parties as far as it could DO SO without inter
fering with the possession of the State cour
receiver, and that no conflict could neces
sarily arise which would defeat the jurisdic
ton, the plaintiff having only one satisfac
ton in whichever court she received it.
FOR THE LAWYERS.
C.E. German u.s. Stewart, Gwynne & Co
This was a suit for damages for wrongful,
suing out an attachment and motion for 1
new trial. The legal point decided was tina
under the Teunessee attachment laws tn
defendant was entitled to recover his aetna
! damages ii the plaintiff failed to sustain hi
suit without reference to the common Law
rule that notice and want OF probable caus
must be shown, which has no application
| under the statute.