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

suERIrPs FINED FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Charleston Feb. 6-The United States
Curt has decided the railroad tax cases
against the State. Tho United States Mar.
shall has been ordered 10 place the property
in the possession If III, receivers aud The
county sherifs have been fined $500 each
for contempt, and will b, imprisoned until
the fine is paid.
FULL TEXT OF THE DECISION.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERiC,, DIS rict Of
South Carolina, fourt Circuit-Iu Equity
Elk Parte ID. II. Chamberlain, Receiver,
Petitioner, vs.. MacMitchell, Treasurer
of Aiken County, and NJ. v Tyler, Sheriff
of Aiken C"unty-In Re Frederick w.
Bound vs. The South Carolina Railway
Company.
Under an order Of this Court, Fl ell on the
9th day of D. ccmbcr, 1884, in Gauss within
its jurisdiction, Bound vs. South Carolina
Railway Company, ct al, ID. Ii, Chamber
lain, the petitioner, was appeiutcl receiver
of the South Carolina Railway Company.
by rhi. order all the property of the railway
comrany came, and remained in the custody
of the C,nrt, protected by injunction, and
was placed i'm the care and management OF
the icceiver as the organ and agent Of the
Court.
The petition sets forth that the possession
thus confied in him has been DISTURBED,
and that NJ. V. Tyler, sheriff Of Aiken couu-
~ has DIST n ued and has iaken possession
Of n train of fou teen cars in the custody and
control of such receiver. That Of these four
teen cars five belong TO the receiver, and
nine belong to ro,dI outside of thisSState.
but for the purp.ss Of inter-Stats cdfnmesoe
were in the care Of the receiver q such.
That eight Of lIisn arR }61or ~ chan.
sgqs ~ 2s|2 {.,s' '$Sg! SSl9
tody OF tHe Cou' { Htidffds hands Of its
receiver has been assessed for taxation.
That this assessment was il egal an void
because of exec .s;ve valuation and discrm-
inaipn that the receiver had tcuderei and
p id the full sum undoubtedly due on lawful
assessment, AMI that there remaiued unp,il
i'll The county of Aiken the sum of ST. ,2l5 OF,
being the excess which is Illegal and vo;d;
that for this sum Of 81, ,2l5.04 auI COSTS, the
said Tyler, under q distrained execution
issued by MacNlitcheli, county treasurer,
had seized and detained the personal prop
| cry aforementioned, worth in tho aggregate
$4,000, large part Of it being the proro,ty
of third persoms in the care OF the receiver
| aud in his Gust ,dy rs common carrier.
The petition prays the protect n of the
Court.
Upon hearing the pc ition n rule 10 show
cause was issued and served on the said
Nj. V. Taylor, with the usual restraining
| order. No attention or obedience whatever
| WAS paid TO the restraining order. He has
file | his return iustifying his action aud has
not released or offered 10 re ease any art of
the property detained, although the copy of
the petition served on him stated tho facts
| as set forth abive.
The onre statement that property Of the
value Of nearly $1,000 has been distrainsl
to pay Sl,2l5.04, and that much Of il
belongs to third parties in no sense respon-
siblc Tor the lax, even if it be valid would
imparatively require the inter ference by
| injunction on the part Of the Court having
| this property in its Gus ody.
| Seci'n Z3G OF the General Statutes of
South Carolina authorizes the Sheriff, to
dlsirain for non-payment of taxes sufficient
personal property of the rarty charged with
the tax, to 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. But he cannot, under cover of this,
d'strain upon $4,000 for $l,21504. No.
undeI any circums ances can he distrain the
property of persons other than the tax payer.
| We cannot escape the CONCLUSION that the
purpose q ss sas, atSH Has W. A ls.s' :
preletormination and intention to co.rco the
receiver and this Court into the payment OF
the excessive tax notwithstanding and de.
spite OF The claim that it was illegal and
void.
But the case will not be rested on this
ground, There o.n be no doubt that rron.
cry in the hand "f a receiver Of any court
either OF State or of the United States. il
as much bound for the pigment of taxes
State, conn'y and mum cip'e, as any other
property Persons cannot by Coming into
ms Conr" aud for the promotion Of their
Nttytt ..
appointment OF receivers, o5;ain exemption
from the paramount duty of a citizen Fo,
this reason receivers in this district nav nil
just ana lawful taxes without asking or
needing the sa lc'iIn Of the Court, and in
their acc unts such payments ara passed
without quet But on the other hand
receiVers'ar not bound 10 pay tax in theil
judgment unlawful, without the order ,f the
court. And when they consider tbs legality
OF the tax questionable il is their right, their
maHilest duty, to apply to the Court either
for instruction or protection. Especially is
ms the case when the question arises be.
tween the receiVet and lcrsons in the State,
county and municipal government rs L, the
proper construction 10 be given TO The law,
upon which individuals may well differ. and
1t Is his right and manifest duty TO 90 to the
court whose creature he is, for instruction
lie therefore pursued the proper course
when he came IN by this petition.
The research Of counsel on both sides OF
this case has succeeded iu finding five ca .es
iu which the receiver was driven to seek the
protection Of the Court in the matter of fax
alton Al of them of persuasive authority.
None OF them Ut conclusive .authoIi,y.
petition was fi!el by receiver before
JUICE Brewer in Central Railro,d Coa,pan y
VS.. Wabash, 70 Fed Rep, u, praying pro.
tee lou from the payment of tax. il an
peared tina. the only rea' on FIR the applica-
ton was that 1t was iacoaveui.nt to the
receiver TO pay the tax, and that i,s lidity
was In no way questioned, The. petition was
rejected. But the learned iu ip.s shows dis
woa Ha q sas 4eSR RISRsr
This is his language "In levying and col
lecling taxes the State is exercising its SOW
ereign power There should be No in, erfer-
ence with lis collection Of these taxes in its
prescribed and regular melho1s, even by a
Court having property in the possession of