The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-06-22
Treasurer Is found In section4 . OF the act,
which provides that

,nent Of snch take, Gcbfs, and demands soon as
they have been legally ascertainea 70 be genuine
| shIc. IJpon such return the court before whom
the application is made shall require the petitioner
pay his sIes to The % ,ss o, n,s eeI
and upon fllng the receipt for such taxes IN such
court. the said court shall direct the petitioner to
Ole his coupons in such court, which shall then
county, or hustings court OF the city. where
| such taxes are payable, and direct said court
plaintiff, and the Commonwealth as defendant, as
| TO whether the coupons so rendered are genuine
of Ike eause the attorney for the Commossweai in
| In the lower courts. aud the Attorney-Gcneral in
the Supreme Court Of Appeals, shall apper Tor the
| Commonwealth. and require proof OF tue genuine
ncss and legality Of the coupons In Issue. Either
party shall be entitled TO exceptions and sn APP
peal to the circuit court and supreme Court Of Ap-
peals on the trial Of this Issue. IL the decision be
| finally I'm favor Of the petitioner the SndndaDaus
shall Issue requiring the coupons to be received for
said taxes, and forth. and they shall DC so re-
| ccived; and on the certificate OF such judgment
| the Treasurer Of the Commonwealth shall forth
wis money 60 Ss beore ibcn paid f By @
out Of the first money In the Treasury In prefer
ence 10 all other claims"
Does this section provide as edectual a
remedy for the enforcement OF the
CONTRACT OF THIS COUPON
as that which existed by mdnd1mus at the
not, rs was said by Judge Burks in the
opinion Just referred 10, according to q
long line OF decisions OF the Supreme Court
OF the United States, which need not be
cited, it cannot be sustained"
The principles involved in the decision
OF this question. as settled by the different
decisions OF the Supreme Court OF the
United States, are well stated by Mr.. Royal
4, Oh f4afD
hotr, substantially as follows:
1st. The same rules OF law which are ap-
piled in constituting and enforcing the con-
tracts OF individuals are applicable to the
contracts OF a State. Murrdu Us. CitVOf
Grdu 1G Wall, 232 Hall rs. Wisconsin,
1903 u. s. H., IL.
I'd. Under the constitutional prohibition
the contract cannot be impaired at oil.
at must be kept as made" Green Us.
rs. Sharpe, 6 HOudrd, 321; Bronson rs.
Kinzie, l Houard, 3l7; Yon Hoffman rs.
Quincy, Wall, 1928: Walker rs. White
head, i6 Wall, 3ls; Harrington Us. Ten
ncsSee, 95 Il. $. r., ,GS3; Edtcdrds Us. Keor-
Sey, 9G L. s. H., Col.
Cd. The laws in force at the time and
form part Of the contract. and this is as
true Of the laws providing remedies for
enforcing the contract as OF any other
laws.- Walker Us. Whitehead, Ed,cardS rs.
KedrSeu, supra McCrdckon Us. Hducard,
HoUdrd, Gl2; Gnnn Us. Barry, 10 Wall,
G23.
4th. The principle that the obligation of
the contract is not to he impaired at all
can he no more evaded by changing the
remedy provided for its enforcement than
by any other mode. Green rs. Biddie, Ed
lcdrd rs. KedrSeD McCrdken Us. HaWcdrd,
supra; BrdnSOn rs. Kinzie, Hop., 81;
Louisiana Us. Nep Orleans, 103 L. s.,
20G-7.
9TH. One OF the best tests OF whether
or not the obligation OF the contract has
been impaired is the effect produced by
the legislation in question, on the market
udlue Of the contract. .-Pidnters Bank rs.
Sharpe, Von Hofman Us. Quincy, Ed,rardS
Us. hedrSeY supra.
THESE SAME PRINCIPLES
have been followed and reilrmed by our
own, and the Supreme Courts OF nearly
every State in the Union. See the "IIome-
stead" cases, % Graft: Taylor Us. StedrnS,
Is Graft. Bdnk Of old Dominion rs. Nc
Weigh, 20 Graft. The cases from other
courts TO the same effect are too numerous
even for citation of them in this opin-
ion. See al.o BroOm's Legal Maxims,
34-5.
Applying these principles to the case at
bar and what is the result! Here we have
the contract OF a State. pledged for the pay
ment Of an honest debt, recognized rs such
repeatedly by every department Of its gov
ernment. AT the time it was entered into,
it was stipulated that these coupons should
be "receiyable for all taxes, debts, dues,
and demands due the State" and if a tax
collector refused TO receive them for taxes,
the holder had simply to apply to any court
for Il mdnddmaS to compel him to do 50.
and such collector would not only be COM
PEELED TO receive said coupons, but made to
pay the costs Of the proceeding as the
penalty OF his refusal. Now, admitting, rs
before stated, that these coupons are en-
braced in the provisions Of section 4 OF the
act in question, and what is then the course
of proceeding and result: The coupon is
rendered by the Taxpayer, ii Is refused by
the collector,
TIE MANDAMUs
Is applied for, the return is prescribed by
law, that the collector is ready to receive
the coupon rs soon as it il ascertained
to be genuine, &C.. the court is then direct
ed by the Legislature "to require the
taxpayer TO pay his taIes TO the colec-
tor IN money" and upon fling the receipt
therefor "He Court shall direct the peti-
toner to file his coupons in such court,
which shall then forward the same TO the
County Court OF the county or Hastings
Court Of the city where such taxes are pay
able, and direct said Court to frame an
issue between the petitioner as plaintiff and
the Commonwealth as defendant rs to
whether the coupons so rendered are gen
uine coupons, legally receivable for taxes"
dc. The act then goes on TO prescribe that
the attorney for the Commonwealth i'm the
lower court and the Attorney General In
the Court OF Appeals shall appear for the
Commonwealth and require
PROOF OF THE GENUINENEss
OF the coupon. 1t then gives either party
the right Of appeal, not only from the
county courts to the circuit courts, and
from the latter to the Court OF Appeals, but
also gives such right OF appeal from the
huStinqs courts to the circuit courts, i'm
direct contravention OF section IA OF Art. |
vi. OF the Constitution Of the State, which |
provides that the hlstings courts shall
have "s,mildr jurisdiction which may
be given by law to the circuit courts"
See Chahooiis case, u Grattan, S27. And
:" il the decision be finally in favor OF the |
petitioner" the mdnddmus shall issue, the |
coupon shall be received. and the tax-pay-
er's money refunded "out OF the first |
money in the treasury" In other words,
in order to make the State perform It's con-
tract, to take this S15 coupon for taxes,
this coupon-holder, or taxpayer, must not
only first pay fifteen dollars in money to the