Summary

City of Memphis v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

The remainder of the loan ($35,000) was wilfully withheld by the then acting representatives of the city, and applied to payment of interest on the general funded debt of the city, the city getting about fifty cents on the dollar for the bonds thus withheld. The mayor had given to Brown & Co. a letter (called by the city an acceptance, but which does not possess a single quality of a commercial acceptance) , stating that Brown & Co. should be entitled to receive $35,000 of Memphis city bonds so soon as they could be signed and ready for delivery.
Source: Wikisource

City of Memphis v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

Humes and Poston, lawyers of Memphis, were paid for prosecuting between four and five hundred suits through the courts, $10,000, and other attorneys for collecting them without the judicial process, $25,000.
It did not appear that this employment of special counsel was authorized by the city councils, or by any committee intrusted by them with the collection of the liens, though the evidence tended to show that the mayor of the city and the city attorney knew and approved of what was done.
Mr. Waddel, one of the attorneys at law, employed by Brown & Co.
Source: Wikisource

City of Memphis v. Brown — Opinion of the Court

Murphy, president of the Memphis Bank, testified that in his 'opinion,' had the city guaranteed and provided for the payment of the bonds, principal and interest, by a sinking fund set aside for that purpose-'had such fund been actually collected and placed in the hands of trustees of known integrity, and had that fact been generally known by the community, in Memphis and in the Eastern cities-such bonds would be readily sold from eighty to ninety cents on the dollar.'
Mr. Barrett, 'dealer in stocks and securities,' gave the same estimates. Mr.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature