The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-03

was promised 10 the creditor. This Geci-
sion would he decisive here, but The present
c. SO Is still stronger for Ibe creditor. The
finding act made the bonds issued undeisit
psyab..e TO order or bearer, and made the
coupons payable TO bearer. They were so
far dlstinc. and independent contracts lint
they could be seDarated from each other and
transferred TO different hands.
fn Clark Us. lows City we bad occasion 10
sneak of bonds OF municipal bodies and
ptiyoie corporations having similar coupons,
and the language there Used Is applicable
here. We said that most o! sucb bonds
"sre Issued in order to raise funds for
works OF large extent and cost, and their
payment il, therefore, made az distant pc.
RODS, not unirequenlly beyond quarter OF
century. Coupons for different install
ments OF interest are usually attached TO
such bonds in the expectation that they viii
be paid n they mature, however distant The
period fixed for the payment OF The pilnci-
pal. These coupons, when severed from
The bonds. are negotiable and pass By de-
livery. They then cease TO be incidents OF
the bonds, and become in l1ct independent
claims they do not lose their validity II for
any cause the bonds are cancelled or PAID
before maturity, nor their negotiable cha
racier. nor their ability to support separate
actions. then possess the essen
till attributes OF commercial paper, aS has
been held by this court IN repeated ln-
stances. "-(2O Wall, js9)
Here, also, the coupons held by the petit
toner were distinct contracts imposing sep
arate obligations upon the State. He was
not the owner OF the bonds TO which they
had been originally attached. In his hanCs
A. fr,a nd liz
liability on those bonds as though they had
never been connected with them. And
surely il is not necessary to argue that an
act which requires the holder Of one con-
tract to pay the taxes levied upon another
contract held 10y Il stranger cannot be sus-
tanned. Such an act is not a legitimate eX-
erc>e of the taxing power; 1T undertakes
~ impose upon one the burden when
should fall, If at all, upon another.
The funding act stipulated that The cou-
pons should be receivable for all take, and
dues TO the State-lhat j., for taxes and
dues owing by the holders of the coupons,
and for their full amount; ana upon this
uledge the holders OF The bonds OF The state
surrendered them and took new bonds for
two thirds Of their amount. The act OF 1876
declares that the coupons hall not be thu'
received for taxes and due. owing By The
holder, OF them for their full amSint, but
only iOr such portion aS nav rcmlin after
tax subsequently levied upon the bonds
10 which they were originally attach
ed j. deducted, though the bonds be
held BY other parties. ii ibis act does not
impair the contract with the bOndholder-
Who WIS autb0riZ d 10 transfer 20 Others HE
coupons with this quality OF recclyabiiity
for taxes anncXod-aud also The contract
with the bearer II the coupon written Oh
it, fee that ii should be received for sill
taxes 10 the Stalc--it /, difficult 10 see IN
what way he contract with either would DE
impaired. even though the tax on the bond
should equal the whole face OF its coupons.
II. AGAINST the express terms Of The cot
tract, the state can take portion of TIE m
leres, IN the shape Of a tax on the bond, 1t
M ~ ut H. pleasure take the whole.
We are clear that this act Of virginia 81
1876. (>ec. no requiring the tax on her
bonds, issued under the funding act OF
March 81. 1871, To be deducted nom the
cOup0us originally attached to them when
rendered in payment Of taxes or other due'
to the state, cInnot be applied TO COUPONS
separated from the bonds, and held by
different owners, without imparng the
contract with such b0ndhOderS contained
IN the funding act, and the contract with
the bearer OF The coupons. Ii follows tnat
the peti Toner wa, entitled 10 Il writ Of man
danVS to compel the Treasurer OF the ciiy
Of Richmond to receive The coupons ter
dered to him in yment Of taxes due The
State for their full amount.
The judgment OF the Supreme Court of
Appeals denying the wit must. therefore,
be reversed d, and the case remanded for fur
ther proceedings in ACCORDANCE with this
opinion; and II is 30 ordered.
Nj. JCSTICE MILLER: | dissent from the
judgment OF the court. In addition TO the