Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1893-11-16
BEFORE THE CHANCELLOR.
Inception of the Dougherty Surety
Suit for Permanent Injunction.

OF the Levy Court with the Sureties OF
Ex-Tax Collector Dougherty for the
Sum of s16,353 of Tax Money. h.
The great contest in the court Of
chancery for the securing by the Levy
Court Of the sum of $16,353.43 due by
ex-Tax Collector John j. Dougherty Of
Wilmington, was commenced before
Chancellor Wolcott Thursday morning.
Senator Gray, Colonel Nields and
Harry Emmons appeared for the de-
fence of their clients, the Dougherty
sureties, against whom the Levy Court
are proceeding, as the collector is with
out means. For the Levy Court E. G.
Bradford and Lewis g. Vandegrift ap-
peared.
Almost all the sureties were present
in court and also some of the Levy
Court commissioners Among others
present was Robert White, attorney of
Georgetown.
Mr.. Bradford asked the Chancellor
that certain amendments shown in three
| similar attidavits which he held made
severally by John w. Jolls, r. Il. Buck
| ingham and Andrew Il. Eliason, mem
bers of the late Levy Court Of New
Castle county, be placed in evidence.
! The atfidavits were to the effect that the
Levy Court did duly inquire into the
matter OF the petition presented by the
Dougherty sureties, when the latter
asked that the ex-tax collector be relieved
OF further collection responsibilities,
and also that the court did duly decline
to concede the sureties' request. Other
assertions in the affidavit were to the
effect of Dougherty's receiving certain
tax moneys which had already been by
him returned and so allowed by the
court us delinquent. The liability of
the sureties was stated as $16,353. 43
with interest due from June 1891.
The admission of the three affidavits
was acceded to by the defendants coun-
sci.
Colonel Nields opened for the defence
His position was in the direction of
asking that the injunction on the Levy
Court be made perpetual. He prefaced
his remarks to the Chancellor with u
reference to the ample security accorded
the Levy Court by the suretles. In
addition they are worth many times the
value Of the amount in dispute.
If his request be refused, the refusal
would work irreparable injury to the
defendants. The sheriff has levied on
|
junction would be their ruin in a bust.
ness sense.
Colonel Nields reviewed the story of
Dougherty's course, his advertising over
his own name that he would not collect
any more taxes, sc.
Colonel Nields asked for the iniunc-
ton upon the broad grounds under the
laws OF the State pertaining to the rights
of sureties on collectors bonds that tue
sureties are secured the right of peti.
tioning the Levy Court when loss has
occurred or danger of loss is appre-
hended.
The sureties of John j. Dougherty
did petition the Levy Court on May
goth, 1891, setting forth that Dougherty
was defaulter to a certain amount and
asked that the matter contained in the
petition be inquired into, Dougherty
removed, and q new collectorappointed.
All the court did was to indefinitely
postpone consideration of the petition,
SO far as the records say.
And John j, Dougherty, by reason of
this action by the Levy Court, which
was based on tho advice of the court
attorney, refused further to act as col
lector He subsequently, resumed the
collection of taxes.
The position of the Levy Court is, it
understood, under the law that at a
certain time fixed by law the amount of
the duplicates, less such allowances as
are made by the court, should be In the
treasury of New Castle County. Other
wise the surety is responsible in the
amount that the collector has failed to
pass in.
Under the law different divisions of
them calling for certain percentage of
the collections are indicated, and if the
tax collections are not realized at these
times the sureties are liable. In this
Dougherty failed and the county asks
for the sum of 16,353.43 with interest
from June, 1891, from the sureties of the
collector.
Lewis c. vandegrift opened the case in
the afternoon.
Mr. Vandegrift introduced a case in
point in which United States tax collectors
surety are liable notwithstanding any
laches on the part of the government in
receiving periodical payments in whatever
way such may have to be made under the
statute by the tax collector.
After March the liability of the sureties
was fixed. The chancellor here interjected
the question bearing on the point that sup
pose the Levy Court refuse to perform an
act by which the sureties would be freed
from tho danger such as is indicated in
their prayer.
MIR. Bradford replied that the position of
his colleague and himself still Is that the
liability is fixed.
Mr.Vandegrift then continued indicating
that the Levy Court had fully inquired
into the circumstances called up by the
sureties' petitions of May 18th and 2lst,
which Informed the Levy Court of their
danger should Dougherty continue collect
ing.
Chancellor Wolcott-"Do YOU mean to
say that the Levy Court did inquire and
investigate the books and find no danger?'
Counsel replied to the effect that they
did look into the books. But it was dis
cretiOnary with the commissioners whether
they would or would not accede to the
petition.
The Chancellor asked whether counsel
maintained that the creditor is not to listen
to the debtors request.
Mr.. VandegrifJ-'Even though there
may have been danger of loss shown, still
the Levy Court had the discretion.
1.-THE commissioners had certain clearly
defined duties and responsibilities to the
people of New. Castle county at that
moment. The fact is they were called on
for money from every direction. If they
had granted that petition it would mean
postponement of their right to execute the
bond. 1t would have extended the time"
Mr.. Vandegrift continued to the effect
that the commissioners may well have
considered that they had inquired far
enoughtinto the petitioners assertions and
have come to the conclusion that they
could not extend the time. Counsel
thought the Legislature intended that the
discretionary power should rest with the
Levy Court. And now the situation is