Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-05-27
VALIDITY OF CITY BONDS.
Intervention of the City-History of the
BOnds-The Judgment PRAYED for

An intervention has been made by the
attorneys of the city in pending bond
suit that brings TO issue the question of the
validity of the city bonds representing the
municipal debt. 1t is desirable that this
be determined and as speedily as may be-
II tests the whole question of the validity
of the citys outstanding paper, and when
decided, whatever the result will clear
away much Of the doubt now involving
the bond question. OF course if the prayer
of the city is granted the bonds sued upon
and held by Daniel Meyer, for himself or
others, will no longer be menace to the
city. The following is the petition of in
tervention, almost i'll full, which has been
filed in the Superior Court Department
Two. before Judge Mcfarland:
In the Superior Court in and for the county of
Sacramento, State of California-Danel Meyer,
complainant, vs. James y. Porter, Treasurer OF
the city of Sacramento defendant
Now comes the city of Sacramento and by
leave of the Court first had and obtained and
having an interest in the success of defendant
in said action files this, its complaint in inter
ventiOn, and denies that the said municipal cor
poration, organized under said Act passed March
70, 1871, ever became. or ut any time was in
debted to divers persons, or TO any person. in
sums OF money amounting in the aggregate to
81 10000, or III any amount or sum whatever
greater than the estimated annual revenue of
the said corporation, which said estimated an
nual revenue did not, as this interyenOr is in
formed and believes, exceed the sum of el200 600.
Ana on information and belief this interVenOr
alleges that no part of such debt ever entered
into or formed part of the consideration of the
bonds mentioned and described in the said pc
tition tatiidaYiD of plaintiff.
And this intervenor denies that the greater.
or any portion of said or any debt of the said
municipal corporation known as the Mayor
and Common Council Of the city ofSacramento,
was in the form of bonds lSSueu by it bearing in
tcrest greater than per cent. per annum or i'll
any other form.
And this intervenor denies that the said Mayor
and Common Council of the city of Sacramento
ever issued its bonds to anyone.
NO POWER To ISsC EIB6NDS.
And this intervenor AYERS that by the terms of
said Act of March 26, 1851, the said Mayor and
Common Council of the city had no power to
issue It's bonds bearing interest, and had no
power To incur any indebtedness of such munich
pal corporation greater than its annual revenue,
and by the terms of its charter the said Mayor
and Common Council of the city of Sacramento
were required to keep and restrict its expenses
to Il sum which would be paid within a year by
the ordinary revenues of the said body polite
and corporate. and it was not by the terms of
its said charter permitted to issue its bonds or
other intcrest-bcaring securities, and the bonds
mentioned by petitioner and described rs bear
ing interest at a rate greater than six per cent.
per annm were issued by certain officers of
said municipal corporation without the author
ity of law, and not by the Mayor and Common
Council of the city of Sacramento and were
fraudulent, void, and of no effect,
No BONDS DELIVERED TO ANYBODY.
And referring to Division V. of the petition
latiidavit) of plaintiff this intervenor denies
that the said municipal corporation and. body
polite ever executed, issued or delivered to any
one the bonds numbered and mentioned in the
said petition (attdavit) of plaintiff or any one of
them. or any of the coupons thereto annexed.
This intervenOr admits that certain papers de-
Scribed by plaintiff in his affidavit were issued
to divers persons but it AYERS on information
and beliefthat noone ofthem was issued pursuant
10 the provisions of the said Act of April n.
1888. That the Board of Supervisors of said city
and county of Sacramento did not receive the
Indebtedness of the said Mayor and Common
Council of the city of Sacramento, or pass upon
the validity thereof, and did not issue or direct
the issuance Of the said bonds of plaintiff orany
one of them.
And this ntervenor denies that any of said
bonds described by plaintiff in his affidavit was
or were issued TO any one i'll payment and liqui-
datiOn or payment or LIQUIDATION of anY legal
debt or liability of or against the city OF Sacra
mento, or against The Mayor and Common COun-
ell of the city of Sacramento.
THE CITY NEVER PROMISED TO PAY.
And referring to the allegations contained in
Division VI. of said petition and to the said in
tcrcst coupons therein described this intervcnOr
mento ever promised to pay the amount Of any
of said coupons 10 the bearer thereof, or to any
one, or at any time, or at all.
And referring to Division MI. of said petition,
and to the avement therein contained, admits
that by the said Act of April y, 1855 provision
was made for an interest and sinking fund. but
denies that the moneys in said fund are for the
payment of any Illegal demands on The treasury
Of said city. and denies that the said Act made
provision for the payment of any of the bonds or
coupons mentioned in the said petition.
oil
XIII. of the said petition contained, intervenor
denies that the said Act of April -, 1868. was
passed by the Legislature mt the instance and
request of the citizens of said city. and de
MES that the said city of Sacramento ever
assumed or became liable for all or any of
the debts liabilities of the said city and
county of Sacramento, and denies that the said
city of Sacramento assumed, undertook or prom
Sed to pay the said bonds or coupons mentioned
in said petition (aitidaviU or any of them.
And referring to the allegations i'll Division
XIV of said petition, interVenorde denies that the
said Act of March ~, 1864, was passed III the in
stance request of the cOrpOratOrS of said city.
And referring to Division Nv, intcrvcnor de
MES that the Board of Trustees of said city eX
ecuted. issued or delivered to any person any of
the bonds or coupons of plaintiff referred TO in
said Division Nv. except bonds ~, 9S and 90,
and denies that any OF said bonds were issued
in liquidation of valid claims against the said
Mayor and Common Council of the City OF sac
ramcntO.
NOT THE DUTY To PAY.
And referring to Division XIX. of said petition
intervenor denies that it is the duty of said
Treasurer to pay petitioner any part of his de-
mand.
And further answering the said petition (aifi-
davit) of plaintiff this intervcnor AYERS that the
said plaintiff ought not to have or maintain his
said action or proceeding, because ii says that
there is no statute or law providing for the pre-
SentatiOn and registration of said coupons and
payment in order of such presentation and de-
mand, and no account has ever been kept in
th.aa
demand of the several holders of said bonds and
coupons. That the claim against said fund i
greatly in excess of the money in Said fund, and
each holder of demands due and payable out OF
said fund has an interest in the distribution of
the money therein, and the writ of mandamu>
is not n proper remedy to enable intervenOr or
defendant to make fair distribution OF said
moneys.
THE INTERvENoR TALKS BACK.
Intervenor AYERS that the illcgality of the said
several bonds in plaintiffs petition (afidavitl
described and hercinbefore referred 10, is statu-
tory, and that the original holders thereof with
all intermediate holders and owners thereof and
plaintiff mt all times had due and legal notice
of such illcgality.
And having an interest in the said matter
against plaintiff in said action, for cause of
complaint against him alleges
l. That it is Il municipal corporation organ
lied under pursuant to, and in accordance with
an Act of the Legislature of said State, passed
March -. 1863, entitled " An Act 10 incorporate
the city of Sacramento" and the several Acts
amendatory of and supplementary thereto.
THE ACT BY WHICH BONDS WERE PREPARED.
H. That by Sections 81 and IS of the said Act
of April "a 1855 il was provided that the Treas
urcr of the city and county of Sacramento
should cause TO be prepared suitable bonds for
the city of Sacramento, bearing interest at per
cent. per annIm from the LIST day OF January,
1853; that all legal debts and liabilities against
the city OF Sacramento remaining unpaid and
unprOvided for on january /. 1883. should be
funded in the order of their reception by the
Board of Supervisors of said city and county,
one-tourth of the whole amount to be made
PAYABLE February !, 1855, onc-lourth February
l. 1898 One-fOurth February |, 1898, and the bal
ancc February /. 1903, the interest to be paid
annually at the Office of the City and County
Treasurer. on the lst day of January of each
year, the interest to be represented by coupons
annexed to each bond, numbered cOnsecu-
tively-that is to say, coupons affixed to bonds
to bonds due 1893, from l to %; to bonds due
1875 from to 30: and to bonds due 1903 the
coupons were numbered from to Is, the cOu-
pom TO be first paid being numbered l.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
Ill That the Board of Supervisors of the city
and county of Sacramento for the years 1858
and 1883 was constituted follows: II. l..
Nichols, President; c. O. Harrington, Jared
Irwin, = Carroll. = Hastings: - Hopkins,
w X Lindsay $ c. FOCUS, - stockton; that
during that time Morgan Miller was Treasurer
of the city and county of Sacramento, and
Jerry b. Dayton was County Clerk.
cory OF BOND AND COUPON.
That in the years 1855 and 1859 the said
Morgan Miller, II. l.. Nichols and Jerry Dayton,