Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1882-10-06

So where the terms or nature of along
Standing obligation have become uncertain
in consequence of the lapse of time, the loss
Of evidence, or the death of witnesses, equity
will sometimes refuse to enforcei it in conse-
Quencc of this uncertainty.
AS said before it will not make decree
apparently just where there is danger i'll
making it, of doing real injustice.
|, Such are some of the considerations on
which equity will refuse to enforce an old
obligation. But where the obligation is
clear, and its essential character has not
been affected by the lapse of time, equity
will enforce o claim OF long standing as
readily as one of recent origin; certainly as
between the immediate parties to the trans
action. - &
The parties to the present transaction ure,
on one side, q government of permanent
stability, and on the other q municipal cor
poratiOn older than the government.
They are not like natural persons, whose
relations and obligations are all more orless
affected by mere lapse of time. The reason
which induces equity to look with disfavor
upon old and stale claims as between nat
ural persons ceases when applied to govern
ments and public corporations. Forty years
in the life ofsuch bodies are but as so many
days or months in the lifetime of individu-
ais. Obligations between them are just as
enduring.
| Unjust hold that as between the United States
and Alexandria, time has not released the city
from the obligation to deliver to the Secretary of
| the Treasury the 4. 800 shares which she had in
| March, 1887.
The State of Virginia is not q party to this suit,
and could not be required TO return any part of
| the 2,T2O shares which she obtained from Alex
| andria If she were 1t is not shown that she was
made cogniZanr Of the fact that Aleyanlria had
moi an equitable right to deliver to her as many
of the shares Of the canal company as she did dc.
! liver. The evidence does not show thut this fact
was brought home to the mind Of the Virginia
Legislature when that body passed the act author
izng the exchange of State bonds for these shares
though it does show that Alexandria, in the per-
sons of her agents, was informed that she was vo-
laing her obligations to the United Statesin soic
ing and making that exchange.
I AS to the damages claimed by the bill againt the
city from the nOn-delivery of the 1000 shares to
which the United States are still entitled do
not think ii would be equitable for this court to
do more than require these missing shares to be
| delivered.
| 1t was not intended by the United States in
| the act Of March B. 1887 to create money de-
mand directly or indirectly against the city, and
am not disposed to make a money decree against
the city. do not think the measure of damages,
| in this particular caSe is the highest price which
the shares of the canal company have commanded
in the market since the delinquency. What steps
| should be taken in this suit to enforce the full
performance of the obligation of the city, must be
hereafter determined. will ut once mako de-
cree requiring the city to transfer to the Secretary
nf the Treasury the $50 shares still held by her,
and to make up the remainder of the 1000 shares
| remaining due