Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/877

 GABRBTT,t). CITY OF: MEMPHIS. 865 �supreme court, where it was decided by a divided court, whose mandate-it is my duty to enforce. But the principal question involved is of such far-reaçhing importance, I am unwilling to finally dispose of it, in accordance with said mandate, without leaving, in a permanent form, a statement of my own views in relation thereto. �This question, broadly stated, involves an inquiry into the powets of the legislatures of the states to enact laws by and under which municipalities can be legislated beyond the authority of the courts, and thus enabled to evade their past and valid contract obligations; but as presented in this rec- ord the question is whether taxes duly levied in pursuanoe of law, before a repeal of a municipal charter, can be collected by a chancery court, through a receiver, at the instance and for the beneiit of creditors. �The argument in support of the proposition that a chancery court can, through a receiver, collect such unpaid taxes and apply the same to the paymerit of the debts of such extin- guished municipalities, is concisely and forcibly stated by Mr; Justice Strongin his opinion, delivered in behalf of the minor- ity of the court, in this case. He says : "But while, in these particulars and for these reasons, the decree entered by the circuit court cannot be sustained in its fuU extent, I am of opinion that the complainants are entitled to some of the relief granted them by the decree. If they are not, then a new way has been discovered to pay old debts. It cannot be that a corporation, whether municipal or not, can be dis- Bolved, and that by dissolution its property can be withdrawn from the reach of its just creditors by any process of law or equity. No doubt there are teohnical difficulties in the way of maintaining proceedings at law against a corporation af ter its charter has been repealed, but a court of equity is com- petent to enforce justice, to some extent, even where the process of law fails." �A case, I think, was made by the bill for the appointment of a receiver to take into the possession of the court thdse taxes which had been levied byjudicial direction for the pay- ment of judgments recovered against the city — taxes which �v.5,no.l0 — 55 ����