Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1881-02-02
THE VIRGINIA BOND CASE
No. 154-Octobor term. 1891
z. G. e. Hartman, ls'n:in in error,
Samuel &. Gresnnow, Treasurer Of
the city o. Richmond.

The plant Il il CIroF, who ii ltG prti. ynrr
10 the court below, is CT. q etd siien. q
the city OF Richmond, Safe OF Nirai1!s; and Oh
the 5:h OF April, 1878 Has in6t BIZ i to The state
Tor taxes to the amour. CT twenty SIX dollars and
fifty thee cents. ga that dsy ho rendered 10
the treasurer OF k.chmo.d-TEo is by laW
charged With the duty OF collecting the iaX.s Of
the state in that ciY-ccrtnin Interest coupons,
which Tcro overdue, amounting 10 twenty tour
dollars, cut from bonds OF the slate, issued
under tho provisions Of an act OF the general
assembly, pa.s d march sob, 1871. commonly
known as tho funding ACT, and two dollars aod
fits 'r1uc cents 10 lawful money OF tho United
St-tcs, u psl ul:nt If tic tax s; tut tho treas
Urcr TtHsCd 10 ccivn tie clupuDs 10 discharge
OF The taxes Hi,l.1u: Isl deducirg thercirom
the taxes upon the h>udN TO which they were
originally attached. Tie p: tiiooer holding the
coupons was aot at tho time tho owner ct such
| bonds. Upon this refusal Ia aap'i,d to the
Supreme Court CT Appeals CT Virginia for writ
OF mandamus 10 tbs treasurer 10 Oymp:I him 10
| receive tho coupors, with The money iocpLiou,
cd, in full discharge OF Inc petitioner taxes
without any deduction irum tho coupons for the
| taxes upon tho boIdi.
The court issued Tce o: an sltetn aiiVo writ
| upon tho treasurer, TO Which &c BIS Sered, that
| the general assembly ct the s'a.o mad. for many
years. exercised the Ttht 10 tax al bonds,
chcs.s il so:i.r, ard olhrr cVideLces Ct debt,
Iac, u3rg bonds CT the s;ut(; that The ti3!s as
sssScd upJn tie litter bonds were scc5rdipg to
their nglket value. the amount being fixed ct
! Gty ccats on tho GEO hundftd dollars of such
| vaiut; that The a| required tho taxes to BIO COL
| Ice Cd wic1 tho interest Oh the boads WAS paid,
old uad. II high penal otieroa Tor any cticor
| 10 receive COUPONS In psymen. OF taxes without
dcduetiDg tom their tco Vaius tho tsx levied
upon The bends from which they we're Il k,r
| and ho referred TO several SEES of The leglsla.
| turo IN support ct lhis statement. he also &c.
Tered, that at tie time he coupons Wero ten
dcrod 10 lin. he proposed 10 deduct from them
| the amount OF the taxes Oh tho bonds to which
| they we're "ri&usy attsched, and demsrdod
of the reti i'Itr q like amount 10 money in ad
ditiliou to what was rendered; tina. he would
! rot otherwise hssc bcen Justified in giving O
rtcaiptI in full for The tsxcs due; and that this
| add;ilUra tm3ua. the rcti;ioner refused to pay,
The respondent, therefore, denied that the Pc
| tltiontr WIS Cniiled 10 tho writ, ADD piaycd
J that his pci ion he dismissed.
Tie aprI!caljn wss in!ly urgusd b, foro the
| euDrCMc court Ct appeals by council for the no
| Ilii0De7, nod ly tho attorney general of the
state for the treasurer. The Judges Of tho court
gtr, equally divided 10 cpibiJu upoa il, and, us
| Is u;uel in snch cases. Tho application was dc
! Dicd and Judgment 10 that tfec,. with costs, was
entered. 10 re7loW this judgment the cls3 is
brought hero CO wit Of lIror.
The Dr!tc'ral q1astiaD fer dsttrmin ,liou, ee
thus ser, is The validity oil tho statute CT the
slate r'qI:i!De the lex l.vNd upon lis bordj to
| be deducted from the coupons for Interest,
originally sttsched tn then, when the coupons
Gre irts@uitd Ter l:aJ 1tu, So far 6 i. apples
| 10 couGCLS Separated II III the bonds and Eeii
| by different oHact..
10 tu!Iy uaders.suj this qu 3Slion it will be
! Gtc-s1aly 10 uakg bIiei reference to The leg
| is!otiou Ut The riGt, uaGu her indebtedness.
Bu. before Go;ns this there is q q 1oston CT ia
r:saicitn 20 b. CONSIDERED. Tho judgment OF
tho iuHTcme crutt Of syp2a!s, tglpg catered
! upon I'd opal division cf oploion among lis
ladgc5, Ii IS argued tia. there is DO such foal
adj 1dcailO4 OF tho state curt c. Gun bo review
Cd by this c1urs.
The R:v:s!d S!e!li:s, which tSpfts, the
statute law Of tho u aied States IN force d..
c,mbor Isl, 1873. provide, ia tcc,ion 100 -cm
bo5yinR substantially tEc provltinns Ct the 25 h
a;clion Of the jl&iciry &C. @! l7S9-.hat fos
Judgment or t!c:cr in atty suit, Of the hight g
| court OF state lii which It csion could be had
| tHay he rseX mircd by the SapEtm, Cour. a
| the Uci:cd StatoS 10 thrcn clas $50 of cases. La
oil CT them there must be fasl III !gmcut CT
decree OF thu highest court Of the state, and the
decision expressed by that Judgment nus. have
| lnVol7ed question under tha Constitution
laws. CT treaties OF the United States. and ha7 {
| BEEN edv;Is' TO soma right. pr!viI, ge, or immu
pity claimed under them. Here tho supreme
court CT appeals certities TINT 90 he hearth o
the c'so there Was drawn 10 G1cs i'm tho valid
ity Of tho statute OF tho state authorizing The
tx upon the tcrds and rcq1itiog il S deduction
from The coai o1s, on The grouod OF iis rspug-
F.. haccy to Tho provision Of the Constitution u
tie dated btatos, nrohiLiirg apy Legislation
bJ Tho s:ata3 IN pairing tue obligation of con
tracts; AID that the decision Tss in favcr II the
va!lily CT tie state statute aud agaiost the
right cs;rnea by tho ncitioner 1der tho pro
visloD OF the Constitution OF tho United States
That this certificate c9rteo,ly states the qucs
!lon ln9ulved will mclo clearly appear from TIT
Legislation OF the state, which we shal! present.
" consider. The jud guert denying ihs wri
OF man1aulus Was fnsl determination against
tho claim CT the petitioner TO havs tho III.
pens held by him received for iexcs si.hnn
Gcducticu from tteiT f &C va!u, Ct ID,
amount OF tho tax levied DC the bonds
A Eandsmus 10 cases Of this ki1d is co locge,
regarded ia this country a. mare preorga,igc
witt Its notblog moro than 80 ordinary pro
csediog or scion 10 which tho p.rtorms1c, #
d fp:ciio duty, by which the rights of tho peti
0ner arc Affected, is s)ug!t 10 BIO enforced
Says Mr.. Chic! usic, fancy: 1T uudoubtcdy
came into usa ly viriu, CT prirogaive power
IL tho English Gown and was sui %. TO reeuIr-
tlo1e and rules which have long size, b,eu
dlsused; but the right 10 the writ and the
power 10 lssu' il have ceased to depcnd upon
any pEercgstlVc power. odd it is now regarded
as az ordinary PROCESS 10 cases to which it is
applicable 1t WAS so hold ty this court 10 the
cases Of Kendall vs.. The United S ates, IL
Peters, CTS, and koudull vs.. Stokes ct al,
) Howtr1. 100. '-(kettu,ky VS. D,nuison, "a
Howard. 81 AID tu,h we understand TO b.
the law of Virginia. Tho judgment, therefore,
IN the case stands like the Judgment in an ordi.
nary action at law. sutjscS to review under
similar conditions. 1t is no. the less expressive
OF the decision OF the court upon the merits of
petitioners claim 10 the case because it is rem
dered UPON an equal division of opinion among