Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-02-01
s2,OOO,OOO
In Dispute Between the BondhOIders and
the Legal Representatives Of the
City Of Memphis.
A Statement Of the Causes Of Action
A Good Case, that Cannot be
Surrendered.

There is now pending before the United
States Supreme Court a suit Involving the
validity of more than s., 600 900 of the debt
of The city Of Memphis. Messrs. J. Z. and
W. c. Heiskell and s. w. Walker, the law
yers for the "defunct municipality" have
great faith in the justice OF this suit, and
are confident thar they will win 1t,
since there are many decisions OF
the highest court IN the land in their
favor. 1t was mooted yesterday as one
of the terms OF settlement OF the old debt
that this suit should be withdrawn, and thai
iuquiry should not be made after the cou-
pons on which judgments have been OBJ
taiued, and which are said not TO be on file
in the courts, nor to nave been Cancelled by
Mai. Meriwether, the receiver OF the city;
that everything in the form Of Indebtedness,
good, bad and indifferent should be
funded without demurrer. To this, it is
almost needless 10 say, the people
of the Taxing-District will never give
their consent. Whatever equities they
have they will press. Ii stold as good story
that N an once asked another who occupied
room 10 hotel Just over his, and who liked
the floor every night for hours in a frenzied
sort of way, what induced him 10 do So,
to which the walker responded that
a NOE Of his was 10 fall due the next day
and he did see his way to meeting it, where
upon his interloeutor advised him TO go 10
bed and let the other fellow walk a while.
The people OF the Taxing District have
been doing the walking for many years. II
is now the turn of the bondholders.
The facts of the $1,000, 600 suit, briefly
| stated, are As follows: Nine hundred thou
sand dollars of the so called paving bonds
| Issued in 1866 under the act Of 1860 are
believed to be illegal, 100000 OF them
because the act limited the city 10
the issuance of only $500, 900, and all OF them
because an election was held in only four
of the eight wards Of the city. The Supreme
Court has repeatedly declared that the in'
nocent holder for value can rely upon The
recitals OF his bond showing compliance
with the law in their issue. In these bond;
there is no recital of a compliance with any
| law, and therefore the holders took them
with all the risks.
| Again, the act of the Sd of December
1867, authoriz d the city, on vote Of Iht
people, TO issue ST 100000 in bonds to func
all its then outst snding Indebtedness. Under
that act the Board OF Mayor and Aldermen
| au' horized the issue and submitted thei
act TO the people, which was done, anC
ST, 143,0 900 was Issued. The Supreme Cour
has already declared that all in excess o
the 81 ,O00, 900 is void, and Judge Heiskell
and his associates attack tue remaining
100000 on the grounds Of the invalidit,
of the election, which wss held by the ser
geant-at arms and not by the sheriff.
Again. In 1860 another ordinance a
passed by the Board of Mayor aud Alder
men authorizing the issue of 100000 o
funding bonds under the act of December
1857. Fsrriogton & Howell, through Este
& Elicit, sued out an injunction TO restrair
| this issna NON he prouud that the bond
we're not to be issued to fund, but TO pa,
current exp>nses. Under that ordinance
eighty mine bonds Of $1,000 each were issuec
before the Supreme Court perpetuated tn;
injunction granted by the lower conrt.
Maj. Meriwether, We understand, has tn
numbers Of all these bonds, which, with III
past-due coupons, make total OF more tina
$4,000 600 which The people ought not to pa
until the Supreme Court says they must. 9c'