The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-05-11
SHELBY COUNTY WINS.
DECISION IN THE EXTEIN NOR.
TON SUIT
A Burden Of $4,000 Removed
History OF the CAso-Landcrdale
County Interested.

The fllllwipg Telegram viii be vel
come tidings to the people OF Shelby
county, the deciti'n le'ea ing them
from a liability of about Sl50,0OO in
volvrd ia tie case, and TWO others
pending in the CdOu.t Count OF the
United States here:
WASHINGTON, May 10, 1856.
r. d. Jordan, Esd, attorney, Memphis,
Tenn:
Judgment in Norton against Shelby
county aft with costs.
JAS. IL. Nick ENNEY, Clerk.
These suits were brought Il enforce
the collection OF lightweight bonds Of
500, each bearing interest at the la'e
OF 6 per cent. per aunum, being the
remainder Of $500, 600 subscribed to
au d issued in aid OF the construction
of the Mississippi River Railroad Com
pspy on the 9th day Of March, 1869,
bv he Bond OF Commissioners Of
Sutloy county uader an act OF the
Leg sa ure OF the State nj Tennessee,
passed February q, 1877.
The Qusrteily Court OF the county,
composed OF the Jutticee Of the Peace,
upon its restoration orretura to power
after the repeal OF said sCt creating
fa'd Board of Co nm issioneIs, levied
taxes to pay certain CT said bonds so
Issue d aud the interest thereon, and
did pay part Of ihs same, voted the
stock OF said railroad company issued
to the county by reason Of said sub
scriptioD, etc, and finally in October,
1871, rat fed the issuance Of said
bonde, as Norton c)ntsnded, by agree
ing 10 substance that ii Norton 6nd
his copattners would finish and com
plete the raj road through Shelby
county, as originally contemplated,
the &C unity would pay the bonds in
question.
The road was built, bu! suit having
been brought in January, 1852, or
shortly prior thereto. on these bonds,
the Quarterly Court Fl ally determined
to resist the payment OF said bonds
sn1 irter's. for the reason, among
o.her thinee, that lhs constitution Of
Tennessee adopted May 5, 1870, in
hibited aud forbade any county Of the
State from giving or lo2niDg is credit
ID and from becoming stakeholder
with others in any company or cor
poralion, except ulon an election
first hel by the qualified voters o
such county. and the a.stn' Ct three
fourihs nj u e votes cast " SAID c &C
tioa. This was never done.
The defense OF the county Of Shelb!
TO these suits, preseI ted in legal form
rested upon the ground THAT tn
subscription a. made and the bond
/" les ued by the Board Of Commission
I" ers Of Shit lby County were not bind
cling aud obligatory on the defendan
county ia auy manner, because III
"eame we're executed by a b-dy G
usurping Corpo official, proceed
"ing under void act Of the Legislature
and, therefore, without authority
"Being an il eeal body, all their act
"were absolutely void and utterly In
"capable OF being ratified or confrme
"by the rightful corporate officlI
upon their return to power for war
"of compliance with the statutes an
constitutional requirements.
So the Supreme Court Of the Unite
s atts bed, releasing the county flol
every dollar, pin pal aud ihteTes
The 1856 WIS argued there for the d
PENDANT by W. B. Gibson, j. A. Taylt
snd r d. Jordan, present County A
tornty, and for plaintiff by David /
Poston and Joseph II. Choste I
Evarts, Chost, 4 Buchanan of Ne
York.
Mr.. Jordan, upon whom as Count
Attorney the main responsibility
the suit has rested since hs wi
elected 10 that position, has GOO
reason to Coogra ulate himself upo
, 30 iavo able a termination Of a ca
which would have been a blow
Shelby hi d it ended ttherwise.
Lsuds rdale County Is alto int
ested, probably to the extent
, s2.0,OC0.