Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-10-17
CITY BOND CASES.
THE VARIOUS SUITS CONCERNING
OUR INDEBTEDNESS.
A History of the Litigation Relat
ing to the Bonds and Coupons
Held Against the City.

Va leoS ACRaA JNSAAS 49, %-,s~ "SNA-
the most voluminous litigation against this
city and its Treasurer and Board OF Trus-
tees, embracing all conceivable forms of
actions. A search of the records has been
made, to ascertain the extent and char
acter of the numerous actions growing out
of the bonded Indebtedness of 1859, author
lied, as is held by the Courts, by the Con-
solidation Act of 1858.
The first suit instituted against tie city
was that of julius Hausmeister VS.. the
City of Sacramento, filed in the United
States Circuit Court in March, $780, This
action was dismissed under an agreement
made with Daniel Meyer, the agent of
Hausmeister whereby the Trustees were to
pay the interest due for the years 1s77-6
In December 1880, II. Amy & Co, of New
York, by George Cadwslader, their attor-
ney, commenced suit against the city for
SIS, $50, upon overdue coupons. This case
still appears upon the register as pending
upon demurrer, but, as q matter of fact, an
arrangement was made, through the
Funded Debt Commissioners and special
counsel for the city, by which the major
portion of the coupons we're paid.
Theodore lie Roy, by his attorneys, Mas
tick, Belcher & Mastick, on the 9th day of
January, 1882 instituted an action at law
in the United States Circuit Court, for
S32 900 on coupons. The complaint in this
case embodied $50 pages solid printed mat
ter. The suit was defended by W. A. An
derson, City Attorney. LIE Roy died some
time ago, and his executor was substituted.
The case still is pending, but has virtually
been decided in favor of the city upon the
authority of a subsequently decided case by
that Court, wherein it was decided that the
city could not be sued, and that mandamus
was the only remedy.
On February 20, 1882, Z. D. Kennedy
sued the city for $16,3I2 upon coupons due
in 1873-4-56 and 8. Winans, Belknap &
Godoy were his attorneys, and W. A. An
derson and A. p. Catlin appeared for de-
PENDANT. This action was also in the United
States Circuit Court, and is still pending.
On the same date and in the same Court,
E. D. Kennedy instituted another suit
against the city for S., 936 on coupons This
action was brought to trial, and defended
by Messrs. Anderson and Catlin, and on
February is, 1884, Judge Sawyer decided
that the action could not be maintained
against the city, and rendered judgment for
the city. q West Coast Reporter, 223.)
Thomas Freehill applied to the Supreme
Court for writ of mandate against the
City Treasurer to compel the payment OF
$40 coupons. This case was afterwards con-
solidated with the case of Samuel Davis vs.
w. e. Chamberlain, Treasurer, for $lO092
coupons, and both cases tried together.
Mastick, Belcher & Mastick and J. +.
Cowdery were attorneys for petitioners, and
MesSrs. Catlin, Anderson, Freeman d
Bates for defendant. The case was q tedi-
Gus one, in which volumes of testimony
were taken before Judge P 0. Hundley to
whom the Supreme Court referred the cases
to report findings" The principal de-
tense in the case was. the statute of Hmita-
tons. The Court, after long deliberation,
held that the statute of limitations could
not obtain against the coupons. (Freehill
VS.. Porter, West Coast Rep, 1901 A re-
hearing was granted in that case and the
judgment modified, so that coupons should
not bear interest.
Daniel Meyer and F. Roeding next CON-
menced suits against the Board Of Trustees,
Auditor and Treasurer, praying for man
date, in the Superior Court of San Fran
cisco. Meyer claimed s23, 1870 and Roeding
$1O,374. The cases were subsequently
transferred to Sacramento county for trial
A demurrer was interposed by counsel for
the city, }. H. MeKune being employed to
assist the City Attorney, and by Judge
amended the complaints, excluding the
Trustees and Auditor, leaving the action
against the Treasurer. A demurrer was
again presented against the cause of action.
and again sustained. From this the peti-
TONERS, by their attorneys, benson, Rosen-
baum and Scheeline, appealed to the Su-
preme Court, where the judgment -ras re.
versed and sent back for trial a long in
tervention was then filed by counsel for the
city, setting up the history of the issuance
OF the bonds, and a..~o;ng fraud and want
OF authority. Meantime A. Sievers by
Chickering & Thomas and Grove L. John
son, his attorneys, commenced proceedings
OF mandamus against the Trustees, Au-
ditor and Treasurer for payment of SIG GOO.
The city demurred. The demurrer was
sustained and petitions amended, and the
case now rests in abeyance.
julius Hausmeister, by his attorneys,
RoSenbaum It Scheeline and benson, com
menced an action at law in San Mateo
county on January 8, 1888, against the city
OF Sacramento, to recover 50 $50 coupons.
The case was subsequently transferred to
this county. The principle contained in
the decision in the case of Kennedy VS.. the
city, before mentioned, applies to this case
and settles it in favor of the city
On February 20, 1888, E. D. Kennedy, by
his attorney, Mr.. Cadwalader, sued the city
for So, 224 Case in allegiance, but will fol
low the decision of the United States Cir
cult Court in favor of the city, mandate
being the only remedy.
Next came the famous one per cent case
by Daniel Meyer vs.. John @. Brown ct al,
which was to compel a tax levy of 81 on
each 800 of taxable property. This case
was fought strongly by the citys counsel.
II was before the Supreme Court in various
forms three times. During its tendency
the Board OF Trustees were ordered to APP
pear to show cause why the members should
not be punished Tor contempt Suisse
quently the order was vacated and the case
was decided against the city, and tax or
dered levied q West Coast Rep, 106-76O).
1t IS with regard TO this case that an appeal
to the Supreme Court of the United States
was contemplated, to be based upon Fed
eral questions thought to be involved.
On May 3, 1888, Max Hausmeister peti-
toned the Supreme Court for q writ of
mandate against James N. Porter, Treas
urer, for the payment of $3.50, COUPONS
benson, RoSenbaum and Scheeline being
his attorneys. The case was dismissed on
motion of MeSsrs. McKune and Anderson.
On December &c, 1882, H 0. and w. II.
Beatty, attorneys for the Funded Debt
Commlssioners-Alber Gallatiu, J. D. Lord
and |. q S. Wormser-commenced four
suns lor nlahuate against w. e. Cham ber-
lain, City Treasurer. for the following re-
spectiVe amounts: $43, 200, $40, 81 500 and
$1,000. Messrs. Catlin and Anderson are
counsel for city
On September 3, 1883, Max Hausmeister
petiuoned the Superior Court of the county
OF Sacramento for writ to compel Treas
urer Porter to apportion 55 per cent. of
S2o9 900, the revenue of the city for that
fiscal year, into the interest and sinking
fund. Rosenbaum g. Scheeline and s. c.
benson were attorneys for petitioner. An
derson and McKune & George represented
the city. The case is still pending.
December 81, 1888, Daniel Meyer again
comes forth with another application for
mandate for payment of SIC, 1854, coupons.
The action is before the Superior Court of
TINS county, with benson and Rosenbaum
x Scheeline attorneys for petitioners.
On December 20, 1889, Sam Davis, BIZ his
attorneys, !. S. g. w C. Belcher. sued the