Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1893-02-23
RAmRoADs VICTORIOUS.
Sheriffs Find For Contempt OF
Court.

Fourth Circult-ln Equity.
Ex parte ID. a. Chamberlain'
Receiver, petitioner, vs. Nc.
Mitchell, Treasurer of Aiken
County, and M. v. Tyler Sheriff OF
Aiken County, in re. Frederick
w. Bound VS.. the South Caro-
lima Railway Company.
Under an, order of this. court,
fled on the 9Th day of December,
1889, in cause within its jurisdic-
ton, Bound vs. South Carolina
Railway Company, ct al, D. d.
Chamberlain, the petitioner, was
appointed receiver Of the South
Carolina Railway Company. By
this order all of the property OF
the railway company came and
remained in the custody OF the
court, protected by injunction,
and was placed in the care and
management of the receiver as the
organ and agent of the court.
: The petition sets forth that the
nossess;on thus confded to him
has been disturbed, and that NV
Tyler, Sheriff of Aiken county,!has
distrained and has taken possession
of a train of fourteen freight cars
in the custody and control of such
receiver. That of these fourteen
cars five belong to the receiver, and
nine belongto roads outside OF thls
State, but for the purposes of inter
commerce were in the care OF the
receiver as such. That eight of then
are laden with merchandise be-
longing to private persons IN 'his
State in the hands of the receiver
as a common carrier.
That the property in the custody
of the court, and in the hand OF 1T
receiver, has been assessed 10
taxation. That this assessment
was illefal and void because of,ex
cessive valuation and discrlmlna
ton That the receiver had rendered
and paid the full sum undouoteoi' :
due on lawful assessment, ant
that there remained unpaid IL
the County of Aiken the sun
of s,1.215.o4 and costs the sait
Tyler,under distraining execu
tion issued by Mac Mitchell, coun
ty Treasurer, had seized anf
detained the personal propert!
aforementioned, worth in th'
aggregate s1o,ooo,a large part OF !
being the property of third person.
in the care of the receiver and il
his custody as a common carrier
The petition .preys the protector
of the court. Upon hearing th'
petition, a rule to show cause wal
Issued and served on the said NV
|9Saeaas ntha Has re tfedff e If
iustifying his action and. has no
released or offered to release any
part Of the property detained
although the copy of the petition
served on him stated facts set forth
above. The bare statement that
property of the value of nearly
$40 900 has been distrained to
pay s1,215.O4, and that much Of it
belongs to third parties in no sense
responsible for the tax even if it
be valid, would imperatively
require the interference by injunc-
tion ON the part of The court having
this property in its custody.
Section 2S0 of the Statutes of
South Carolina authorizes the
sheriff to distrain for non-payment
of taxes sufficient personal property
of the party charged with the tax
to pay the same. This is the limit
of this authority. Of course he
should not be confined to just
enough property t" pay the tax.
But he cannot under cover Of this
distrain upon $4,000 for $125.Q.
Nor under any circumstance can
he distrain the property of persons
other than the taxpayer.
We cannot estape the conclusion
that the purpose of the sheriff
was MOTTO follow the law, and that
his action was the results of
predetermination and intention to
coerce the receiver and this
court into the payment of the
excessive tax, Notwithstanding
and despite the claim that it was
illegal and void.
But the case will not be rested