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

amount paid by him for the taxes refunded
ont Of the first money In the treasury In
preference 10 all other claims.
N n somewhat difficult to see any sub
stantial difference between the remedy
given by these sections and that by section
4. There the form Of the suit i mondd-
mus begun while the coupons are i'm the
hands of the taxpayer. After the suit has
been begun, the court requires delivery
of the coupons into its own possession. and
the payment Of the amount Of taxes into
the Treasury. This being done, the court
sends the coupons to the appropriate tribu-
nal for adjudication, and the proceedings
| thereafter are in all material respects like
those provided for in the other sections.
/ The Judgment il also the same. eX.
cept as 10 the merest matters Of
/ form. In both proceedings the object
/ Is TO require the collector to accept the
coupons US payment OF the tax, and deliver
/ back the money that has been deposited for
! the same purpose in case the coupons are
not in law receivable. The petition for
mdHddmuS filed in the Court Of Appeals
unde. section 4, is the exact equivalent Of
/ the petition TO he fled in the other courts
under sections /, ,, and TO have the gen.
!
pOns determined, and in both the real mat
/ ter submitted for determination is whether
( the taxpayer is entitled TO have back the
money he has deposited to pay his taxes in
case his coupons ought 10 have been re-
ceiyed.
|. -NdadamuS, in this class OF eases. Is in
! the nature Of a suit TO obtain specific per-
| Torrance OF a contract. But i'm the preSent
.pzg iaf ont
OF money. and the remedy substituted is
I equivalent to n suit ai law for It's recovery.
with ample provision for the satisfaction Of
any Judgment that may he obtained; for it
/ is made the ministerial duty Of the Trca-
surer 10 pay the amount OF the recovery
ont OF the first money in the treasury, and
/ i'm preference to all other claims, a, soon
! rs the Judgment is properly certified.
/ The language OF the act is, "Shall
refund the money before then paid for his
taxes by the taxpayer out OF The first mo-
/ ncy i'm the Treasury, i'm preference TO all
other claims" Clearly this is an appro-
T priation 10y law Of money in the Treasury.
within the meaning OF article 10, section
/ 10. of the Constitution Il Virginia. and the
/ treasurer would be authorized 10 make the
payment without furthur legislative action.
/ IL will be time enough TO consider the ef
feet Of a repeal of this branch OF the RENE
/ dy when that shall he attempted.
/ The primary obligation Of the State is
for the payment OF the coupons. All else
/ j. simply n a means TO that end. Ii mat
tiers not whether the coupons have been re-
/ fused for the taxes ii full payment Of the
amount they call for is actually made in
money. y remedy, therefore. which is
ample for the enforcement Of the payment
OF the money is ample for all the purposes
/ OF the contract. That, we think. is given
/ by the act OF lSS3 in both form Of proceed
/ ing.
/ Some objection is made to the 1st, ID,
and Sd sections because there Is 10 prOvi.
I sion Tor the recovery Of costs. Without
/ determining whether in point OF fact costs
can be recovered. il j. sufficient 10 say that
costs. no HOmiHc. were moi recoverable at
common law, and are usually regulated 10y
/ statute. Certainly it would not be claimed
/ that the change Of an ordinary statute
which provided q remedy for the enforce
mcut OF contracts 50 H. 10 prevent the TC-
c0ycry OF costs when they had been given
| before would impair the obligation OF con-
tracts between individuals that were AZ
! fcctcd by what was done, and We see no
reason why one rule in this particular
should be applied TO individuals and an
other 10 the state.
/ In conclusion, we repeat that the qIcs-
/ ton presented by this record i not whether
/ the taX.colcctor is bound in law TO receive
| the coupon. Notwithstanding the legislation
which on lis face prohibits him from doing
| so. nor whether, ii he refuses 10 take the
coupon and proceeds with the collection OF
/ the tax by force, be can he made personally
responsible i'm damages for what he does,
/ but whether the Obligation Of the con-
/ tract has been impaired by the changes
which have been made in the remedies Tor
/ its enforcement i'm ease lie refuses 10 accept
! the coupons. We decide only the question
which is actually before Us. II i no doubt
/ true that the commercial value OF the bonds
and coupons has been impaired by the hos
/ tile legislation OF the State, but this impair
mcnt. IN our opinion, comes not from the
change Of the remedies, but from the re-
/ fusal to accept the coupons without suit.
/ What we are called upon 10 consider IN
/ this case i not the refusal to take The cou'
pOnS. but the remedy after refusal.
! We might have satisfied ourselves 10y 4
/ reference 10 the case Of Tennessee rs.
Sneed, NH supra. where the same general
question was before IL, but ~ we were
asked 10 reconsider that case, we have done
/ so with the same result. and, as we think,
without in any manner departing from the
! long line OF cases in which the principle
/ involved has been recognized and applied.
/ maSmuch rs we are satisfied that a
remedy j. given by the act OF 1882 sub
stantally equivalent to that in force when
/ the coupons were issued, we have not
! deemed it necessary 10 consider what
would be the effect OF a statute taking
away all remedies.
J The iud,rmcut i affirmed