State ex rel. Attorney General v. Colored Tennessee Industrial School

• Decision Date: 30 April 1921
• Citation: 231 S.W. 544
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v. COLORED TENNESSEE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 544

231 S.W. 544

STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL v.COLORED TENNESSEE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 30, 1921.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Davidson County; John T. Lillyett, Chancellor.

Suit by the State, on the relation of the Attorney General, against the Colored Tennessee Industrial School, in which Bedford Taylor intervened.Decree for complainant, and intervener appeals.Reversed and remanded for rehearing.

W. C. Cherry, of Nashville, Sp. Counsel, for the State.

R. S. West, Sadler & Goodman and J. C. Napier, all of Nashville, opposed.

GREEN, J.

The bill in this case was filed by the state, on the relation of the Attorney General, to dissolve the Colored Tennessee Industrial School, purporting to be a corporation, and to recover from it certain property in its possession, alleged to have been obtained from the state upon false representations.A receiver was appointed for the defendant corporation upon the filing of the bill.

The corporation and certain individual defendants answered.

According to decrees rendered in the cause, proof appears to have been heard by the Chancellor.A final decree was passed dissolving the corporation, and ratifying the action of the receiver, who had taken possession of its property and turned it over to the state, or rather to various institutions of the state.

Prior to the appointment of said receiver one Bedford Taylor brought two suits against this corporation, one before a magistrate and one in the circuit court.After the receiver was appointed, Taylor applied for permission to prosecute said suits against the receiver; but such permission does not appear to have been granted him by the chancellor.Nevertheless said suits were prosecuted to judgment in the circuit court of Davidson county; no defense being made to either of them.

After obtaining these judgments against the corporation, Bedford Taylor filed a petition in the chancery court, setting up such judgments, and by decree of the chancellor they seem to have been allowed as a claim against the corporation.

Aside from the assets of the corporation taken over by the receiver and turned over to the state, there was a balance of $2,000 in the hands of the treasurer of the state, remaining out of an appropriation of $10,000 made by the Legislature for the benefit of this institution.

It appears from the record before us that litigation was had over the validity of this $10,000 appropriation, and that said appropriation was held valid by this court; but that the court directed it to be expended under the supervision of three commissioners appointed by this court.

Taylor insisted in his petition that he was entitled to have a pro rata payment of his indebtedness out of the assets of the corporation which the receiver took over and later passed on to the state.Taylor also claimed that he was entitled to reach this $2,000 remaining unexpended in the hands of the state treasurer.

The chancellor held that the state was entitled to recover the assets of the corporation which the receiver found as representing the fund obtained from the state upon false pretenses, and he also held that the balance of the fund with the state treasurer was only to be expended at the discretion of the commissioners, and was not liable to any debts of the corporation.

The decrees in the case recite, as said before, that these conclusions of the chancellor were reached upon the record before him and upon proof, including the former decree of this court appointing the commissioners to expend the state appropriation and defining their powers.

Taylor has appealed to this court, acting under the provisions of chapter 35 of the Acts of 1903.He gave notice as to what portion of the record below he desired to have sent up and this notice was duly served upon adverse parties.They paid no attention to it, and the transcript before us contains only those portions of the record designated by Taylor.In this transcript there is no proof, not even the former decree of this court upholding the state appropriation and appointing the commissioners.

...