Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-02-20

shall be subject to be sued in all Courts in
like cases as natural persons"
3. But, even if the exemption were other
wise legal, it is nullifed by the fact that
the city did not comply with its obligation
by setting apart SO per cent. of it's revenue
for payment of the bonds, principal and in.
terest. for the exemption and obligation
are reciprocal.
6. Equity will not permit right to fail
for want of remedy. An agreement not
to enforce right is in contravention Of
public policy.
To all these points the city of Sacramen-
to by her counsel replied
l. The Act Of 1858, consolidating Sacra-
mento city and county, repealed all former
Acts; refunded all indebtedness of both
governments provided one fund of 80 per
cent. of certain city revenue to pay city
bonds and coupons, and another of % per
cent of certain city and county revenues !;
city bonds to be paid out of one and county
bonds out of the other.
?. Under that Act Kennedy voluntarily
surrendered his claim, and in satisfaction
took bonds of 1857, and both Kennedy and
the city bettered themselves by the ar
rangement, A part OF the new contract
was that the city should not be sued in any
action whatever, etc.
3. There was good consideration for this
contract, and the creditor is not remediless,
for he may, by writ of mandate, compel
the officers of the corporation to do the
duty enjoined on them by the contract.
f. The old corporation of 1858 expired
at the birth of the new one of 1868 Great.
ing the present municipal corporation of
Sacramento. But the new one did not
change the relation between the city and
the bondholder. 1t ratified and continued
the old contract.
5. There is nothing in the contract that
is inhibited by the Constitution of the
State or the United States, or that is con.
trarY to public policy, for the reasons
stated.
On the argument of these points the
Court decides for the city, thus determin-
ing that the corporation cannot be sued in
an action at law upon bond coupons of the
character stated, Kennedy has other suits
against the city in the same Court on old
or outlswed coupons, but of course the
case just decided covers every point that
can be made in the other suits. 1t is to be
kept in view by our people that the decis.
ion does not decide that the city cannot be
compelled by writ of mandate to provide
fund for the interest and to pay coupons
from it.
In one sense, then, the decision is prac.
tical victory for the city. But the Su.
preme Court has held that by mandate
we may be compelled to pay coupons
out of fund. Now if by mandate we can
be compelled TO create the fund, "the
devil will be whipped about the stump"
as the old saying has it.
On the heels of the favorable decision
comes another and from the Supreme Court
in Hausmeister vs.. Porter, Treasurer of
Sacramento, which, without the opinion
before us, is represented as holding that
there must be paid into the sinking and
interest fund, for bond and coupon re-
demption, 50 per cent. of all our revenues.
If this be true, it goes beyond the gravest
fears of our citizens. Certainly Sacra,
mento is in need of wisest business counsel,
for the law thus far seems to have been
rlunging US deeper into the mire. Let
some Daniel come to judgment.