The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1881-02-10
Supreme Court of the United States.
No. 154.-OCToBER TERM. 1880.
Fl. c. G. HARTMAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.

II. C. G. HARTMAN, PLAINTIFF IN ERRol
vs..
SAMUEL c. GREENHow, TREASURER, OF tn
CITY OF RICHMOND.
Mr.. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion {
the Court, b..
The plaintiff in error, who is the petitione
in the court below, Is a citizen and resident
the city Of Richmond. State of Virginia; an
ON the 9th OF April, 1878, was indebted to tn
State tor taxes to the amount of $2H 53. o.
that day he rendered to the Treasurur of kicl
mond-who is by law charged with the dut.
OF collecting the taxes OF the State IN tina
city-ctrtain Interest coupons, which Wer
overdue, amounting to twenty-four dollars
cut from bonds ofthe State, issue,l under tn
provisions of an act of General Assembly
passed March 30, 1871, commonly known a
the funding act, and two dollars and fifty
three cents in lawful money of the Unne'
States, iii payment of the taxes but the Treas
urer refused to receive the coupons in dis
charge OF the taxes without first deductin!
ther"trom the taxes upon the bonds to which
they were originally attached The pctitione
holding the coupons WIS not at the time n
owner OF such bonds. Upon this refusal h
applied TO the Supreme Court of Appeals o
Virginia tor writ of n,aOClgnlS TO the Treas
urer To- compel him to receive the coupons
with the money mentioned in full dlscharg
OF the petitioners taxes withoutany deduction
from the coupons Eor the taxes upon thu
| bonds.
The court issued rule of an alternative
writ upon the Treasurer, to which he answer
ed that the General Assembly OF the State hat
ior many years exercised the right to tax al
bonds, chooses in action and other evidences o
Lib Of flfn hot
taxes assessed upon the latter bonds were &C
cLrding to their market value, the amount be
ing fixed at fifty cents on the one hundred
dollars of such value; that the law required
the taxes to be collected when the interest OF
the bonds was paid, and made it high pena
otfense for any officer to receive coupons IL
payment of taxes without deducting from thell
lace-value the tax levied upon the bonds from
which they were taken; and he referred &c
several acts of the Legislature in support OF
this statement. He also answered that at the
time the coupons were rendered to him he pro
posed to deduct from them the amount OF the
taxes on the bonds to which they were orlgi
nally attached, and demanded of the petition
er like amount in money IN addition to what
was rendered; that he would not otherwise
have been justified IL giving receipt in full
tor the taxes due; and that this additional
amount the petitioner refused TO pay. The
respondent, therefore, denied that the petit
TONER was entitled to the writ, and prayed
that his petition 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 the opinion up
on it, and as is usual in such cases, the appll-
cation WAS denied and jud gment to that effect,
with COSTS, was entered. TO review this judg-
ment the case is brought here on writ oterror.
The principal question for determination, az
thus seen, is the validity of the statute OF the
State requiring the tax levied upon lis bonds
to deducted from the coupons for interest,
originally attached 10 them, when the coupons
are presented for payment, SO tar as ii applies
to coupons separated from the bonds and held
by different owners.
To fully understand this question it will be
nec( ssary to make a briet reference Il the leg
isialion OF the State upon her Indebtedness.
But before doing this there is question OF
jurisdiction to be considered. The judgment
OF the Supreme Court Of Appeals, being enter
ed upon an equal division at opinion among
its judges, it is argued that there is no such
final adjudication OF the State court as can be
reviewed by this court.
The Revised Statutes, which express the
statue law ofthe United STATES il force De
cember l, 1878, provide, in section 709-em-
hodying substantially the provisions OF the
25th section OF the Judiciary act of 17o9-thal
final judgment OF decree, i'll any suit, OF the
highest court of Il State in which decision
r,.id be had, may be re-examned by the Su-
pre.ne Court OF the United States in three
classes OF cases. In all OF them there must be
a final judgment or decree OF the hi CHEST ourl
OF the State, and the decision expressed by
un Ter the Constitution, laws or treaties of tb,
United Stales and have been adverse TO SOM,
right, privilege, nr immunity claimed under
them. Here the Supreme Court CT Appeals
rIties that ON the hearing OF the case there
was drawn in question the validity of the stat
ale Of the State authorizing the lax upon tht
Opnds and requiring its deduction from til,
coupons, on the ground Of lis repugnancy IT,
The provi, ion of the Constitution Of the United
states prohibiting any legislation by the State
impairng the obligation Of contracts, and that
.lie decision WAS in favor of the validity OF til,
state statute and against the right claimed by
the petitioner under the provision of the Con
stitution of the United States. That this ceI-
liticate correctly states the question involved
will more clearly ppear from the legislation
OF the State, which We shall presently oonsider.
The Judgment denying the writ of -HanoaAnu>
was a final determination against the claim "t
the petitioner to have Il G coupons held by
him received for taxes without deduction
from their face value of the amount of the tax
levied on the bonds. \ Ndndam1ts in cases OF
this kind is no longer regarded in this country
as a mere prerOgative writ. II is nothing
more than an ordinary proceeding Oractlon i'll
which the performance OF specific duty, by
which the rights of the petitioner are affected
is sought to be enforced. Says Mr.. Chief Jus
al tool L..
virtue Of prerogative power in the Englsl,
Crown, and vas subject to regulations and
rules which have long since been dsused
but the right TO the writ and the power to ISSUE
il has ceased to depend upon any prcrogative
power, and it Is now regarded as an ordinary
process in cases to which it is applicable. Ii
was SO held by this court in the cases of Ken
dali rs. The United States. ~ Peters, 6l5, and
Kendallrs Stokes ct a., 3 Howard, 100"-(Ken
lucky rs Dennison. "a Howard, 97) And sucl
we understand to be the law of Virginia. The
Judgment, therefore, in the case stands like
the judgment in an ordinary action at law
subject TO review under similar conditions. Ii
ls not the less expressive OF the decision OF the
court upon the merits of the petitioners claim
i'll the case because it is rendered upon an equa
division of opinion among the judges / he
fact Of division does not impair the conclusive
the decision from being authority in othel
cases upon the question involved. The judg
ment is that OIL entire curt, and is as bind
ing in every respect as if rendered upon the
concurrence of all the Judges essieur as
Price. ~ How, 50; Durant a. Essex county
WALL 1907; S. c.. 101 L. s.. $3.50
Nor does it matter that the Judgment wa.
rendered in an original proceeding in the Su
preme Court of Appeals of Virginia, and moi
in case pending before that court on appeal
1t is enough for our jurisdiction that the judg
ment is by the highest tribunal of the State il
which decision could be had in the suit
When such a Judgment is brought before us
for review, involving in its rendition decis
sion upon Federal question, we do not look
beyond the action of that court. 1t is enough
that we have its final judgment in the case
whether it be one of original jurisdiction OF
heard by it in the exercise of its own appellate
power over the inferior courts OF the State.
We proceed therefore, to consider the legis
lation of the State upon her Indebtedness. A
briet sketch of it will perhaps enable us bette
than in any other way TO exhibit the question
Tor our determination, and indicate the solution
it should receive.
1t appears from the status to which we ART
re1erred-and we know the fact as matter o
public history-that prior to the late civil wa
Virginia had become largely indebted for mon
eys borrowed to construct public works in thu
state The moneys We're obtained upon he
bonds, which wereissued to an amounte: ceedinl
,nrty millions of dollars. Being the obligation
of State of large wealth, which never allow
g 4 "a