Amy v. Taxing District of Shelby
Decision Date | 13 April 1885 |
Citation | 5 S.Ct. 895,114 U.S. 387,29 L.Ed. 172 |
Parties | AMY, and another, Partners, etc., and others v. TAXING DISTRICT OF SHELBY Co. and others |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Wm. M. Randolph, for plaintiffs in error.
Minor Merriwether and S. P. Walker, for defendants in error.
This is a writ of error to the supreme court of Tennessee. By an act of the legislature of the state of Tennessee, approved January 29, 1879, the charter of the city of Memphis was repealed; and by another act, approved the same day, the territory which had constituted the city was created a taxing district, and the property of the city, and all debts due to it, and all uncollected taxes were vested in the state.
On March 13th, of the same year, another statute, familiarly called 'Chapter 92,' directed the appointment of an officer for each of the corporations, whose charter was repealed by the earlier statute, to be called the 'Receiver of Back Taxes,' who was to be under the control of a court of chancery in the collection and paying out of the taxes so collected by him. Section 2 of this act directs that 'he shall distinguish in making such payments the respective sources from which the moneys paid in are derived, showing what is collected from taxes for general purposes, and what for taxes for special purposes, designating the particular or special purpose, so that the same may be kept separate in the state treasury, in order that the treasurer may pay the same according to any lien, priority, or equity, if any, which may be declared by the chancery court, touching any of said funds, in favor of any creditor or class of creditors.' Another section authorized the receiver of back taxes to file a bill in chancery, in the name of the state, in behalf of all cr ditors, against all delinquent tax-payers, for the ascertainment and enforcement of the rights of the parties in regard to these back taxes unpaid. Such a bill was filed, and important proceedings have been had under it.
A bill was pending, however, in the circuit court of the United States before the bill authorized by this statute was filed, which sought to enforce the collection of taxes by certain parties, to which the receiver of back taxes was afterwards made a defendant, and under that bill a decree was rendered which treated the main provisions of this state legislation as void. On appeal from that decree this court reversed it, and announced certain principles which upheld the validity of the legislation of the state, but maintained the power of courts of the United States to enforce against the receiver and in his hands any decree or judgment by mandamus for levying and collecting taxes which had been made by such court prior to the beginning of this legislation. The case, a report of which contains the history of this legislation and the statutes above referred to, is that of Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472. Section 5 of the act last mentioned provided with some particularity for the receipt by the back tax collector, in payment of these back taxes, of certain classes of outstanding indebtedness of the city of Memphis, and fixed the rate, not always the same, at which they might be received, chiefly at the rate of 50 cents on payment of taxes for each dollar of indebtedness. The collection of these taxes and their distribution continued under the supervision of the court of chancery in the suit already mentioned, and many orders and decrees on the subject were made. The state in the mean time passed statutes which authorized the taxing district to compromise the indebtedness of the city of Memphis, by taking up its old obligations and issuing bonds of the taxing district at the rate of 50 cents of the latter for one dollar of the former. The two statutes on this subject, which are supposed to violate the constitution of the United States, were passed March 23, 1883. One of these acts, (chapter 170 of the acts of that year,) authorizes all municipal corporations and taxing districts to compromise and settle their debts, and to issue the bonds and coupons of taxing districts at the rate of 50 per cent. of the principal and past due interest; and a section of the act is as follows:
The other statute passed the same day is an act modifying the provision of chapter 92, March 13, 1879, as to what shall be received in payment of back taxes, and the rate at which the various items of debt should be received....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howard v. State, 8 Div. 464.
... ... of legislative control ( Henry Amy et al. v. Taxing ... District of Shelby County (Tenn.) 114 U.S. 387, 5 S.Ct ... 895, 898, 29 L.Ed. 172; Scott ... ...
-
State ex rel. Murphy v. Cherry
... ... Appeal ... from Craighead Circuit Court, Jonesboro District"; Neil ... Killough, Judge; affirmed ... ... Judgment affirmed ... \xC2" ... remedy of enforcement. Amy v. Taxing Dist. of ... Shelby County, 114 U.S. 387, 5 S.Ct. 895, 29 L.Ed. 172 ... ...
-
Straus v. Ketchen
... ... DISTRICTS-ASSESSMENTS-BONDS-PAYMENT-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ... 1 ... Drainage district is "local improvement district" ... within local improvement district code, notwithstanding ... with the bonds of the district. ( Amy v. Taxing District ... of Shelby County, 114 U.S. 387, 5 S.Ct. 895, 29 L.Ed ... Homer ... E ... ...
-
Union Bank v. Commissioners of Town of Oxford
...consideration, and will be enforced." 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 477; Inhabitants of Baileyville v. Lowell, 20 Me. 178; Amy v. Taxing Dist., 114 U.S. 387, 5 S.Ct. 895. In our case there were mutual considerations which, it seem, would have given vitality to the contract, and made it cenforceable ......