The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-03-10

Sucn person 10 nldke lttttTn 10 Sdlu Wd1tuu
mus, that he is ready 10 receive said cou
pons in payment OF such taxes, debts, and
demands rs soon rs they have been legal,
ascertMned 10 be genuine, and the coupons
which by law are actually receivable
Upon such return, the court before whom
The application Is made shall require The
petitioner TO pay his taxes TO the t1N-col'
lcctor of his county or city. or to the Urea.
Surcr Of the Commonwealth. and upon
fling the receipt for such taxes in
such court the said court shall di-
rect the petitioner TO ii'c his cou-
pons i'm such court, which shall then for
ward the same TO the county court OF the
I county or hastings court of the city where
such taxes are payable, and direct such
court to frame an issue between the petit
toner rs plaintin and the Commonwealth
rs defendant a to whether the coupons so
rendered are genuine coupons. legally re-
( Coivablc for taxes. On the trial 81 the
cause the attorney for the Commonwealth
in the lower courts. and the Attorney
I General i'm the supreme Court OF Appeals,
shall appear for the commonwealth and re-
, Qurc proof OF the genuineneSS and legality
/ Of the coupons i'm issue. Either party
shall be entitled to exceptions and M appeal
20 the Circuit Cour and supreme Court OF
/ Anpeal> on the trial OF this issue. III the
decision be finally in favor OF The petitioner
the nqndamUS shall issue requiring the
commons 10 bc received for said taxes and
so forth: and they shall he so received
and On The certificate OF such Judgment
the treasurer OF the Commonwealth shall
forthwith refund 10 the taxpayer the
amount Of currency or money before then
paid by him out Of the first money in the
trcasuiy in preference to all other claims.
-. This act shall be in force from IT.
passage"
ON the 20lh Of March. 1882, Andrew An.
toni, who owed The State taxes 10 the
amount OF S3.1j. rendered the Treasurer
Of the city Of Richmond, the lawful taX-
collector. a coupon of the Issue ~ 1871 fOr
S3.1j lawful money in payment. This
tender was refused. and Autvn on the 2o,h
of March pctltioncd the Supreme Court OF
Appeals for m0HddmUS II require its ac-
ceptance. The Treasurer, on the 30th of
+ March, for return tO an order 10 show
cause. said he was ready 10 receive the cOu-
non as soon rs it had been lcSaL! a>cci-
tanned 10 be genuine, and such - by law
was actually receivable. To thi, return a
demurrer was filed. Upon the hearing Of
the demurrer the court. being equally
divided i'm opinion on the questions In
yolved. II i'm pursuance Of an act OF Assem-
lly i'm such case made and provided de-
MED the writ From judgment TO that
effect this writ of error was brought.
The question we are now to consider Is
not whether. if the coupon rendered Is in
fact genuine and such a. ought under the
contract to be received and the tender is
kept good. the Treasurer can proceed to
collect the tax by distiaint or such other
process as the law allows without making
himself personally responsible for any
tre,paS> be may commit, but whether the
act of 1852 violates any implied obligation
~ the state i'm respect TO the remedies that
NAV be employed Tor the enforcement OF
IL, contract if the collector refuses TO take
them.
II cannot be denied that. aS n general
rule. laws applicable To the case which are
i'm force nj the time and place OF making 4
contract enter into and form part OF the
contract it.clf. and that this embraces
alike those laws which affect it. validity,
construction. DISCHARGE. and enforcement =
walker as. Whitehead. 10 Wall, 80
but II i, equally we'll settled that changes
in the forms Of action and modes OF pro-
Iceeding do not amount 30 al impairmen,
OF the obligations OF a contract if IN AIDE
ouatc and ctlicaciouS remedy is left. This
limitation upon the prohibitory clause OF
the Constitution i'm respect to the lcglsll-
five mower Of the states over the obi
cation Of contracts was suggested by
Cbief-.Iustice Marshall in SturgeS rs.
Crowningshicld, ( Wheat. 200. 201.
and has been uniformly acted on
since. Mason rs. Halle, IL Wheat, 31S ;
Bronson as. kinZie, l How, BIG; Won
Hoffman as. Quincy, / Wall, 5j3: Orch
man as Stihe. s Wall, COZ: Gum rs.
Barry, II Wall, G23; Walker rs. White
head, is Wall. 3lS; Terry rs. Anderson,
% United states, G33; Tennessee rs. Sneed,
90 United States. 60; Louisiana rs. Pills
bury. 10j United Stltcs, 30l. As was very
pronerly said 10y Mr.. Justice Swaync in
Won Hoffman rs. Quincy, ubi supra, at IS
competent for the States to change the form
of the remedy, or tOmodliy it otherwise, as
they may see fit, provided no substantial
right secured 10y the contract Is thereby
impaired. No attempt has been made to
fix definitely the line between alterations OF
the remedy. which are 10 bc deemed lcgiti-
mate, and those which. under the form OF
modifying the remedy, impair substantial
rights. Every case must be determined
upOn il, own circumstances. Whenever
the result last mentioned Is produced the
act is within the prohibition OF the Con>ti.
tuition. and TO that extent void In all
such cases the question becomes. therefore
one Of rcasonableneSs and OF that the Legs
lature j. primarily the Judge. Jackson
as. Lamphirc, 3 Pet, 300; Terry cS'
/ Anderson. uJi SVpr0. We ought never
10 ovcrrue the decision OF the legls-
/ laiiye DEPARTMENT Of the government tl'
/ lr-. pakDable error has been committed.
/ II a state Of facts could exist that would
/ iu.tifv the change i'm 4 remedy which has
/ bcen made, we must presume II dld exist
and that the law was passed ON that ac-
count. Mum rs. Illinois, 81 |. :, l32
We have nothing to do with The motives oil
| the Legislature. ii what they do j. within
/ the scope OF their powers under the Con-
stitution.
/ The RIGHT Of the cOupon-holder i to have
| his couuon received for taxes when offered.
/ The question here is not a TO that right
[ but ~ 10 the remedy the holder has for IT.
enforcement when denied. At the time
the coupon was issued there was remedy
/ bv ya0adQmMs from the supreme Court OIL
| ADpeals TO compel the iaX-cOllcctor to axe
/ the coupon and cancel the tax. This I'M
piled q suit, with process, peadingS, ISSUES,
! trial. and Judgment. No restrictions were
placed or the defences the collector could
make. He might raise such issues as he
chose. Without the aid Of some restrain
ing power, the mere pendency OF the sul'
would not prevent the collector from pro-
ceeding according to law with the collec-
tion OF the tax. lie might, il he went on,
subject himself to liability for damages, II
the tender was one he ought to have ac-
cepted. but there was nothing to prevent
his going on if he chose to take this risk.
| -. L., LII. In,, fhn flial must be had in The