Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-02-15
------ - - ---------------
TEE BOND CASE DECISION,

following is the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case Of Meyer vs. Por'
ter, relative to the payment of coupons Of
Sacramento city bonds, to which reference
was made yesterday:
Application for a writ of mandate to compel the
Treasurer OF the city OF Sacramento to pay out oi
able coupons belonging to bonds issued by the city
of Sacramento, of which the plaintiff is the OWL Ell
and holder
The fund out OF which payment is demanded is
known as the " Interest and Sinking Fund OF the
city OF Sacramento 1t is admitted there in that
fund, when the coupons were presented and pay
ment demanded, the sum of 500 0O0 yet the Treas
refused to pay, and the Court below sustained
him ia his refusal.
The coupon bonds in the hands of the petitioner
were issued under charter granted to the city in
April, 1858. That charter empowered the municipal
authorities to issue bonds for the past Indebtedness
Of the former city government and to set apart and
appropriate 90 per cent OF the municipal revenue,
when paid into the treasury, to an interest and
sinking fund.- which shall be applied to the payment
Of the annual int crest and the final redemption OF
bonds issued for city Indebtedness ia accordance
with the provisions of this At" Is cs. 81, 35,
Stats. 1858, p. z79) The bonds were therefore is
sued under law which provided for their redemp-
ton they became due, with interest thereon, pay
able annually until redeemed. But the charter also
provided that :" the city and county shall not be
sued il any action whatever, nor shall any of its
lands, buildings, improvements, property, fran
iss taxes, revenue, actions. chooses in action and
effects, be subject to any attachment, levy sale,
or any process whatever, either mesne or fl al u
(Sec l, Id
In 1868 the charter of 1858 was repealed, and 8
charter substituted The repeal CT the old char
ter cid not impair the validity of contracts made
under its provisions.
In fact the substituted charter Of 1853 contained
the provision for interest and sinking
fund" for the payment OF the annual interest Of the
bonds and of their redemption that contained in
the repealed charter and 1t also contained i'm
piled prohibition against suits actions against the
city upon any bonds which had been issued under
the former charter. Therefore, it is contended by
both the original and substituted charters the hold
ers of tHese city bonds took ami held them with
notice that actions upon them could be main
tanned against the city.
But, howevel that may be, it is no answer to a
proceeding BY mdndGmuS against officer of the
city to compel the performance Of duty in conuec-
ton with the payment Of the bonds which the Iay
under which they were issued has specially enjoned
upon him. Meyer vs.. Brown, II Pac. c. L. j., D.
1853. II, therefore, it was the clear legal duty Of
the Treasurer to do the act demanded of him, per-
Torrance OF it be compelled and the only ques-
ton is was it the duty OF the Treasurer to pay the
coupons, when presented to him, out OF the fund
which he had on hand
Tnat fand contained 500 0G0, and the moneys had
been set apart and appropriated for the purpose of
the payment Of the annualinteIest and final redomp-
ton Of the bonds stats. 1855, p. 259; Stats 1868
4161 The Interest made payable at the eff
of the Treasurer the first day of January of each
year (Sec 81, Stats 1858, D. 2S0 and SAYS Sectien
40 Of the same salute: Ii shall be the duty of the
Treasurer to pay the interest on said bonds when
the same falls due, out Of said interest fund as pro-
yid in this Act" Thus the duty TO pay is specially
enjoined upon the officer. 1t is special duty with
regard TO the bonds which is imperative upon him
over and beyond the ordinary duties OF his office as
prescribed by other provisions of the charter ordi
orders Of the municipal authorities. Being
a special duty, other statute, ordinance or order
was requisite fer its performance.
Nor was Il necessary that the coupons should have
been pres snted to the Board OF Trustees and Aud
itor for examination and audit ordinary accounts
claims against the city, under the provisions OF
Sections p g. If the Act OF 1868 for as the law
under " hich they and the bonds to which they be-
longed issued made it the duty Of the Treasurer
to pay themn the manner, and out Of the fund pro-
viied for that purpose, no warrants necessary
to authorize their payment. Nor is the fact if 1t
exists that there other creditors interested in
the fund provided for their payment, who have not
demanded psymest. any answer TO the application
Of the petitioner Non-action by others having even
equal rights with him, in a matter on which his
right is founded cannot prejudice him in the asser
ton II his right excuse non-perform ance OF a
duty in connection with it specially epjoined by law
And as the coupons partake OF the nature Of the
bonds to which they belong, and against which the
Statute OF Limitations had not run, they were not
barred by the statute.
Judgment reversed and cause RENAMED.