The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, 1893-02-24
RAILROADS VICTORIOUS.

wv iBc ID phih'
FULL TENT or TIE DECISION.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMER;C,, Ds rict Of
Soath Caro- ira, Iourt Circui'-Ia Equity
FIX Parte ID. II. Chamberla' Receiver,
Petitioner, IS. Mac Mitchell. Treasurer
of Aiken County, and VI. Tyler, Sheriff
of Aiken CDunty-in Re Frederick W.
Bolnd Va. The South Carolina Railway
Company.
Under an o, der Of this Court. Fl cl on the
9TH day of b ccmbcr, 1882, in :, caus. within
its jurisdiction, b Iund vs. South Carolina
Hallway Company, ct al, ID. II. Chamber
lain, the petitioner, was appeintc receiver
Of the South Carolina Railway Company.
By ;hi, order all The property of the railway
comrany came, and remained in the custol ly
of the Cpnrt. protected By injunction, and
was placed in the care aud management O (
the eceiyer as the organ and agent of the
Court.
The petition sets fo'th that the POSSESSION
thus contied in him has been di.tur,e |,
and that NJ. '. Tyler, sheriff IF Aiken coun-
~ has Il st Il uCd and has taken possession
Of train of fourteen cars in the custody and
cOrtrO OF such receiver. That Of these four
teen cars five belong to the re:civer, and
nine belong TO rordI outside of this State,
but for the purp' 5 s Of inter-Stats conmeyoe
were in the care Of the receiver ass sucSs
That eight of them are laden rith mAkahaq-
1 ~ bel2P y ID the Gus
tody OF me Court nbdsf6~ f1'e hands of it,
receiver has been assessed for t'xaion.
Tha' this assessment WAS il egai AMI void
because Of excessive valuation and discrim-
ina IN; th,t the rec liver had tcuhcrc l and
p i'll the full sum undoubtedly due on lawful
| assessment. AMI that there remained uup iii
III The county of Aiken the sum of ST ,2lj OF,
being the excess which is He al and vod
that tor this sum OF 81 2ij.0l auI costs, the
said Tyler. under distraiued execution
! issued by MacNitch-tl, county treasurer,
| had seized AMI detained the personal prop
| cry aforementioned, worth in the aggregate
$4,000, large part Of it being the proic'ty
| of third pcrsO"s III the care OF the receiver
| aud IN his Gust dy rs common carrier.
The petition prays the protect II of the
| Court.
Upon hearing the pc iricn. n rulc to show
| cause was issued and served on the said
| NJ. V. Taylor, with the usual restraining
| order. NJ attention or obedience whatever
WAS p,id to the res raining order. lie has
fe his return iustif'ng his action aud hls
not released or "ttsrcd 10 rc'eaSe any art of
the property detained al: hyugh the copy Of
the petition served on hi;n stated the facts
rs set forth ab ivc.
The bare statement that proi erty Of the
value If neatly $1,000 has teen distrains Il
to pay Sl2l5.Ni, and that much Of it
belongs to third parties in no senSc rcspon-
siblc tor the tax, even if il be valid, would
implrativyly require the inter ference by
injuncti n on the para of the Court having
ibis property III it, Gus oiy.
Sec'rn 230 OF the General Statutes of
South Carolina authorizes the Shrritf5 to
dl,train Tor non-ptymcnt of taxes sufficient
- ,h~ a "a,
| the tax, 10 ray the SINE. This is the limit
of his authority. OF course he should not
be confined to just enough property to pay
| the tax. Bui he cannot, under cover OF this
d'strain upon $4,000 for Sl,2l5Oi. No.
unicr any circumS anccs can he distraiu the
| property Of lcrSons other than the tax payer
| We cannot escape the Conc.us on that the
purpose Of the shS II JM MaS waS nS To- o Ls
pre- determination and Intention to CO rco the
receiver and this Court into the payment of
the excess We TAX n"tw twihstanding and de-
spi'e Of the CAIN that it WAS Illegal aud
| void.
| But the case will not be rested on this
| ground. There c.n he 40 doubt that Prop
| cry IN the haHd "f = receiver Of any court
| either Of Il SIa'c or of the United St,tes, is
rs much bound for the piymcnt of taxes,
| State, com'y and mun cip'c, MS any ether
property Persons cannot by ming into
ih Conr,, and for the prom1tion of their
Interests, applying fJr and obt ,niug the
| appointment OF rccclscrs, o5.an II exemption
from the paramount duty Of n citiz.n. For
| tins reason receivers III this district pay all
| Just AMI lawful taxes without asking or
needing the 81 ic'i m of the Court, and in
their ace UNITS such payments ars passed
| without que ton. But on the other hand
| receivers not bAuu, 4 n nn , in, ,l,,;,.
| Judgment unlawful, without the order Of tho
cour. And when they consider tn. legality
| OF the tax questionable II IS their right their
ma Hest duty, TO apply 10 the Cougt either
! ior Instruct IN o. protection. Especially is
tbs the case whGu the question arises he.
| tween the rvcciVCc AMI CisOns in the State
county and municipal government as t. The
| proper con. truction TO he given 10 The law.
| upon which individuals may well differ. and
| II Is his right ami manifest duty 10 gn 20 the
| court whose creature lie is, for instruction
| lie therefore pursued the proper course
| when he cauc IN by this petition
The research Of counsel on both sides Of
| this Gaze has succeeded III finding ii yr ca -cs
- winch The receiver was driven TO seek the
| protection # the Court in the matter of tax
! alton AL of tEcm of persuasive authority
| None Ot them Vt conclusive ,auIhoii.y
| y petition was h'cl bS Il receiver before
Judge Brewer III Central R,iirond Company
vs.. Wabash 20 Fed. Rep, II, praying pro.
tec lou from the payment Of tax. 1t APP
| peared thai the only rca. Oh fr the applica-
| uoa was that 1t was inco ivcai.nt to tic
| receiver to pry The tax, and lhu; is lidty
was III no way questioned. The petition was
rejected. But the learned iu igs shows dis
linctly his opin on that u on proper showing
he would have entertained the pc iuvl.
This is his language In lcvying and col
leciing taxes the State is exercising its sov-
crcgn = 'wcr There should be NJ Inrerfer-
| cucc wIIh is co lection Of these taxes in its
prescribed ard regular me hOls, even by a
| ConIt having property in the possession of
It's receiver, uu cSS it IS first charged that the
taxes are i'll some way ilcsll or excessive "
y bill WAS filed in Hewitt VS. New York
and O>wcgo Nj inud Railroad, - BI"trh
oo2, by .'vyrs To test the lega!ir, Of tho
lax. IL was heard by Mr.. Ju.tice EI1rh.
'"r'i, who cnt"rialnc the Question. ,isrrS.cl
It IN Il i,mn aud tinc c)rare. .piniou. and Sus-
famed the e.,lIty If the tax The same
receivers came before him again j., Stevens
vs.. la i al tDnPany, !" - nIoh lui. and
as"+ iS &c; iIGH the slL.c iai LCcaUsc of