The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-03
SUPREME sOURr OF THE UNITED
81 STATES. ~
n. q. q. Hartman, Plaintiff In Error,
samuel e. Greenhow. Treasurer OF the
city Of Richmond.
No. lA.-ocropsR TERN, 1880.


Mr.. Justice FIELD delivered The opinion
Of the Court.
The plaintiff In error. who Is The peti.
TONER In The court below. IL a citizen and
resident OF the city OF Richmond. state OF
Virginia and on the 5ib Ct Apri', 1873,
wps indebted In the State for taxes to the
amount of S26 81. On that day he ten
dered 10 The Treasurer OF Richmond-~ho
Ia by law charged with the 0nfy of coiiect-
ing the taxes Of the state In that eity-cer'
tsin interest coupons. which were overdue,
amounting 10 twenty four dollars, cut from
bonds Of the State, issued under the provi'
sious Of an act OF the General Assembly,
na.s.d March 30. 1871, commonly known as
The funding act, and two dollars ana NJ
,v.tbree cents in lawful money OF the
limited States, in payment OF the taxes A;
hut the Treasurer refused to receive me
courons in discharge OF tue taxes without
first deduc,ing tberefrCm stbe taxes upon
the lords 10 whichibey were originally al.
,acbed. The petitioner holding the cou'
mons was not at the time the owner OF sucn
bonds. Upon this refusal he applied 10 Tue
Supreme Court OF Appeals OF Virginia Tor
a writ of mandamuS 10 The Treasurer 10
compel him to receive the coupons, WIN
the mon"y mentioned, In full discharge OF
the petitioners taxes without any deduc'
ton from the coupons for The taxes upon
the bonds.
The court issued a rule OF an alternative
writ upon the treasurer, TO when he 3n-
swered that The General Assembly Of the
State had for MANY wears exercised the right
IN fax all bonds. chooses in action, and other
evidences OF debt, Including bonds OF the
State: that the taxes assessed upon the lat
ter bonds were according 10 their market
yaIne, The amount being fixed at fifty cents
on the one hundred dollars OF such value !;
that the law required the taxes to be collect
cd when the interest on the bonds was pald,
and made it a high penal offence for any OIL
Ger to receive coupons 10 payment OF taxes
without deducting from their face-yalue
the tax levied upon the bonds from
which they were taken; and he re-
fe,rtd TO several acts Of The Legislature IN
support of tins statement. lie also an
swered that at the time TIE coupons were
rendered to him be PROPOSE d TO deducl from
them The amount OF the taxes on the bonds
To which they were originally attached, ana
demanded Of the petitioner like amount IN
money in addition 10 what was rendered I;
that he would not otherwise have been us
tilted in giving q receipt in full for The taxes
due; and that this additional amount the
petitioner refused TO ply. The respondent,
therefore, denied that the petitioner was en-
titled to The writ, and pray ed that his peti-
lion be dismissed.
The application was fully argued before
the Supreme Court Of Appeals by counsel
for the petitioner, and by the Attorney.
General Of the State for the Treasurer. The
Judges Of the court were equally divided in
oplni0n upon il, and, a. is usual in such
cases, the application was denied and indg-
ment to that effect, with cOSs, was entered.
TO review this judgment the case Is brought
here on writ Of error.
The principal question for determination,
as thus seen, l. the validity OF the statute OF
The state requiring The tax levied upon It's
bonds TO be deducted from the coupons for
interest, originally attached to taem, when
the coupons are presented for payment, so
far as II applies to coupons separated from
the bonds and beld by d tierent owners.
To fully understand this question 1t VIII
be necessary 10 make brief reference TO
the legislation Of the State upon her indebt-
eduess. But before doing this there Is 4
question OF jurisdiction TO be considered.
The Judgment OF the supreme Court Of APP
peais, being entered upon an equal division
OF opinion among its judges. 1t is argued
that there is no such final adjudication OF
the State court a can be reviewed by this
court.
The Revised Statutes, which express
the statute law Of the United States
in force December /, 1879 provide,
i'm section 7O9-embodying substantially
the provisions Of the 25th section OF
III, - fhat tina
Judgment or decree, in any SUIT, OF the
highest court of a State in which deer
siou could be had, NAV be r. examined
by the Supreme Court Of the Uniied States
in three classes of cases. In all Of them
there must be tin'I judgment or decree Of
the highest court OF the State, and the deci.
sion espresso by that judgment must have
involved a question under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties OF the United States, and
have been adverse to some right, privilege,
or immunity claimed under them. ii re the
Supreme Court OF Appeals certifes that on
toe hearing Of the case there was drawn IN
question the validity OF the statute Of the
State authorizing the tax upon the bonds
and requiring its deduction from the cOu'
pons, on the ground Of it, repugnancy to the
provision OF the Constitution OF The United
State, prohibiting any legislation by the
States impairing the obligation OF contracts,
aud that the decision was in favor OF the va
lidity Of the State statute and against
the right claimed by the petitioner under
the provision OF the Constitution OF
The United States. That this certificate
correctly states the question involved will
more clearly appear from The legislation OF
the State, which we shall presently consider
The Judgment DENYING the writ OF man
dG,n1tS was a final determination against the
cIaim Of the pelitirner 10 have the coupons
held by him received for taxes without de-
duclion from their face value Of the amount
of the tax levied on the bonds. a man
ddrnuS in cases OF this kind Is no longer re-
garded in this country as Il mere prerOgatyt
writ, II Is nothing more than an Ordinary
proceeding or action in which the perform
ance OF a specific duty, by which The right
OF the petitioner are affected, is sought 10
be enforced Says Mr.. Chief Justice Ia
pey: cit undoubtedly came into use 10y
virtue OF preroGatiye power in the Engi-t
Crown, and was subject 10 regulations and
rules which have long since been disused
but the right 10 the writ aud the power ia
issue it have ceased to depend upon any pre-
| rogalive power, and Ii Is now regarded as
an ordinary process In cases to which it j.
| applicable. Ii was so held by tins court in
| the cas- OF Kendall Us. The United 5 ates, |:
Pettis. Gl5 and Kendall Us. Stokes ct a.,
Howard. l00."-tKeniucky rs. DeDnIsOn
II Howard, 81 And such we understand
to be The law Of Virginia. Toe judgment,
therefore, in the case stands like The iudg
| ment 10 an ordinary action at law, subject
to review under similar conditions. IL i:
| not the less expressive Of the decision OF
The court upon the merits OF the petition
er's claim in The case because II is render ed
upon an equal division OF opinion among