Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1876-05-18

payment. Section i've Of the Act pro-
yides as follows: When any interest
shall be paid upon bond issued under
the provisions of this Act, the County
Treasurer shall detach the coupons for
the interest then due and paid. and de-
liver the same TO the County Auditor,
taking his receipt therefor, whose duty
ii shall be to file the same in his Office"
II is claimed by appellant that this Sec
ton is mandatory; that it was inserted
to prevent fictitious coupons from being
presented to the Treasurer, and that it |
prohibits him from paying any coupons |
not detached by himself. 1t is not pre- |
tended that the coupons presented were |
fictitious; but, on the other hand, it is |
admitted that they are genuine, and that
if they had been paid the Treasurer
could have delivered them to the Coun-
ty Auditor as directed in said Act. True
it is, that there was no excuse for the
holder Of the bonds to detach, or cause
to be detached, the coupons before pre-
senting the same to the Treasurer, and
this was certainly not the safest course
to pursue. 1t is always best to follow
the plain provisions of the statute and
thereby avoid any question of construc-
ton. But the respondent having disre-
garded the provision, insists that the
statute is merely directory, and that in
asmuch as no one has been prejudiced =
ought not to lose its claim because it
| not present the bonds with the coupe.
| attached. We are of opinion that. Courts
have often gone too far in declaring
positive provisions of the statute merely
directory. This summary mode of dis
pensing with statutory provisions is often
liable to abuse. 1t is the exercise of
power which trenches so closely upon
| legislative discretion that it ought never
to be resorted to by the Courts, eek
cept," as was said by Lewis. G. j., in
Corbett vs.. Bradley, - when it is clearly
manifest that the Legislature did not
deem compliance with it material, or
unless it appears to have been prescribed
merely as matter Of form" q New,
1857
Judge Cooley in his work on Constitu-
tionRl Limitations, in discussing this
question, says: Those directions which
are not of the essence OF the thing to be
done, but which are given with view
merely to the proper, orderly and prompt
|
to obey which the rights of those inter.
} ested will not be prejudiced, ore moi
, commonly to be regarded as mandatory
and if the act is performed, but not il
! the time or in the precise mode indi
: Gated, it may still be sufficient. if tha
I which is done aecomplishes the substan
tal purpose of the statute" Cooley
Const. Linn, ", IS and authorities there
cited.)
g In determining this question, as wei
= as every other that involves q construc
ton VI the statute, we must carry int,
;, effect the intention the Legislature hs'
u in view in adopting it, in order to secar
d if possible the object intended to be ST
o cured by the statute. 1t will be observe,
= that no negative words are used whicl
, forbid the detaching Of the coupon
D. from the bonds by any other person thai
D. the Treasurer. We think it is clear tina
"a the Legislature in adopting the provs
:, ion inserted the clause requiring tn
- Treasurer to detach the coupons as
g mere matter of form. The real object t
y be accomplished was the surrender c
IA the coupons and the delivery c
the same TO the Auditor to be b
u him filed as provided in said Ac
ie aud it was immaterial by whose hand
N they were detached. The act of detacl
NJ ing the coupons from the bonds was nc
:. OF the substance of the law. Upon th
" ground, sanctioned as it is by the EN-
,e nent authors and approved by numerou
be decisions, this provision OF the Act mus
-. be considered and treated as directory,
2. 1t is commended by appellant tn
% the act is obnoxious to Sections TWEEN
q and twenty-one of Art. w. of the Co
n. stitution OF this State.
A. Whatever views we might entertai
~ upon this question if it were res iateJ
Ell need not be here expressed. We thir
ep the constitutionality of the Act must
me- sustained upon the authority OF Youn
!. Va. Hall, 8 New, 212.
ne As the bonds OF Lincoln county, fro
mt which the coupons were detached, a
or negotiable and rights of property there
al- may have been acquired by the transit
thereof since the decision in that ca
AZ. was rendered; and as the Legislature
raj 1876, relying upon the correctness
IRA that decision, passed certain Acts tn
ia would be subject to the same objectic
=, even we entertained the opinion til
'ne Young vs.. Hall was erroneous, the &C
1ot sequence of reversal would unqu
be tonably prove OF greater evil than
H., nllow it to remain. In such case
:, '' conceive it to be our duty to adhere
'he former decisions. The question whetl
ty, the Act impairs the obligation of CO
of tracts is not presented by this appe
-. That could only be raised by pa
0'' holding outstanding warrants agail
the county which were issued prior
the passage of the Act and have
ill been funded under the provisions
'"' said Act.
the 3. Appellant argues that it was
ing intention OF the Legislature to keep
dos financial transactions Of the county o
,s, cash basis if possible and not to st
~" the county of the means provided
Hes meet its current expenses; that
holders of the legal outstanding clai
against the county had vested right
nite all the money in the General Fund 8,
~. cient to pay their claims and that
sn' only money subject to the Treasure
say draft for the payment of interest is
. to surplus over and above the legal {
standing claims against said Gem
Fund.
bs The conclusion we have reached n
ton rsndSrs !, n,nacsssarr 70 ,o,i,e in
ac' tail the several points presented by
'ers. pellant's counsel in support of
position. That the object of the LIE
ap- laturs in funding the Indebtedness
The Lincoln county was to place all fiji
- cial transactions upon cash basis Il
:" can be no doubt, for such is the exp
language OF section one of said Act.
order to accomplish this purpose it ,
however. evident that some provi
would have to be made whereby
ner- then existing and outstanding indeb'