Daily tobacco leaf-chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1890-1895, 1890-11-18
COUNTY FINANCES.
The Chancellor's Opinion in the
Merritt Tyler Case.
The Bill Dismissed at the Cost Of Com
plainant- An Appeal to the
Supreme Court.

Supreme Court.
Judge Seay has rendered the fol-
lowing opinion in the Merritt-Tyler
case in regard to Montgomery county
finances:
This cause having been by COM.
plainant specially set for hearing on
bill and answer, it was SO heard
thereon this day before the chancel-
Tor when it appeared to the court that
defendant Isl the Judge of the County
Court and Criminal Court of Mont
gomery county, and complainant is a
taxpayer of said county suing in his
own behalf as. such and in behalf Of
the other taxpayers Of said county
and that the relief asked for in the
bill is as follows:
First. That the defendant be en-
joined from paying himself any sum
from any source other than the
50, 500 salary as prescribed by the Act
of The General Assembly of Tennes-
see of July 6, 1870, and the Acts
amendatory thereof.
Second. That he be enjoined from
paying himself any amount as com
pensation for services as financial
agent of Montgomery county by vir-
tue of the Resolution passed by the
Quarterly Court of said County at its
October term 1886, a copy Of which is
set out in the bill.
Sd. That he be enioined from
paying anything out of the taxes col
lected by said County for railroad
purposes except the bonds issued TO
said Railroad Company, or those
funded in place thereof and the cou-
pons thereon as they mature.
The only evidence in the record is
that afforded by the answer, in the
facts therein set up, and after due
consideration the Court is of opinion
and judges as follows;
LIST. That the defendant Is not by
law restricted to the sum of $4,000, as
Complainant has alleged but that in
addition thereto he is entitled to re-
ceive for his services as financial
agent of the County such compensa
ton as the County Court may order
as provided by the Code (M. d VI
sec. 4495-and that Complainant is
not entitled to the relief asked for in
this respect.
I'd. That the County Court OF Mont
gomery County had the power by
law to make the order at its October
term 1886 which is complained of, the
defendant being entitled to receive
composition on account of servi-
ces as financial agent, and that it does
not appear from this record that any
wrong or injury is about to be in
flicted or is being inflicted upon COM
plainant as taxpayer and the other
taxpayers Of the county by reason OF
the fact that said compensation is
fixed by said order at three per cent.
commission on the Railroad fund,
and that complainant is not entitled
to the injunction asked for on this
behalf.
Sd. That inasmuch as the bill
does not ask to call the defendant to
account for any of the alleged misap
preparation of said railroad funds
specifically complained of as having
been already made whether any OF
all of them so charged were illegal
or not has not, been put in issue and
is not an issue herein. The relief
asked for is to enjoin defendant from
appropriating or applying any OF
said fund in the future to anything
except railroad bonds and coupons.
To entitle complainant to this, he
must make it appear that defendant
will, or is about in some way. to mis-
apply or inappropriate SAID fund,
or that it is his purpose or intention
so to do. The bill does allege pur-
pose on part of defendant to pay
himself hereafter in accordance with
the order of the County court at its
October term, 1886, but that question
has already been passed on. The ans
wer discloses no purpose or intention
on part OF the defendant to improp-
erly divert said fund or that he will
or is about so to do. The answer dis
claims any such right or purpose on
hls part. Until it is made to appear
that he is about to or is attempting to
unlawfully apply or appropriate said
fund the bill, conceding that as finan-
cial agent it is Defendants duty as
such TO receive and disburse it, it
would be neither proper nor necessary
to enioin him from so doing, and
this court has no power to interpose
by Injunction until proper case is
established. The record falling to
establish such a state of facts ii fol
lows that complainant is not entitled
to the decree for Injunction for this
effect, asked for in his bill.
Upon the whole case the complain
ant having failed to establish his
right to the relief asked for in his
bill, it is accordingly adjudged and
decreed by the court that the bill be
dismissed, the Injunction heretofore
granted be discharged and that the
desendent recover of complaint and
his sureties for coseH. N. Leech and
t. l.. Yancey the costs of the cause
for which execution will issue as at
law.
From this decree complainant
prays an appeal to the next term of
the Supreme court at Nashville,
which is granted upon compliments
4 4 u