The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-02-26

his coupons in payment of license taxes,
and thereupon 10 issue licenses precisely
as if payment had been made in money
itself gfattf ,H4 ~ sf.
He sets forth, that relying upon his right
to transfer his coupons to those who are
taxpayers of the State, he has made ar
engagements with sundry tax payers to use
the coupons in question in payment of
their taxes and license taxes now due, and
that by such arrangement he would receive
payment in large part for his coupons;
but that the tax-c0llectorS OF the State. re-
fuse and the defendants, refuse to accept
the said coupons according to the terms OF
the contract. ii4st4f i s8a5gts .s.a.t,.-,
He files with his bill a list of the .cou-
pons amounting to $4,986, upon which it
is founded, which identifies them by their
numbers. letters, and dates. saefsf,,,. III
He prays for al injunction against the
defendants to restrain them from refusing
to receive the particular coupons thus
identified. He also prays for a SPECIFIC
performance on defendants part of the
States contract with himself, evidenced
by these particular coupons, and for gen
eral relief. 5Yf4 H. sF7f d,fd,,
THE defendants file an answer, among
other things setting up the Acts of the
General Assembly of Virginia, which re-
quire coupons to be verified by a jury and
Uudt bllto6 pdt blCuldli COupOilo iI1fC
ever been so verified. The answer does
not deny that the coupons are genuine,
and does not comply in that respect with
the statute law of Virginia, page 1884 of
the Code of 1878, chapter III. section 80,
which puts the burden of affirming the
spuriOusness of a signature on the de-
PENDANT. G fsiH~ ,a1 fslpr a. l
Defendants also demnr to the bill for
multifarious, and on other grounds, which
are proper to be considered at the final
hearing of this cause. Defendants also
plead in abatement to the jurisdiction OF
the court. sl~ h33Gt1 qet .a,tF....5+..
= Upon the compliments bill, duly veri-
fed, this court, on the End February in
slant, granted temporary restraining
order in substantial accordance with its
prayers, and set down for hearing on the
10th of February the compliments mo-
tion for a preliminary injunction. 1t is
upon this motion for an injunction. which
shall stand until the final hearing of the
cause, that we are to pass. r Xxx.
After so many hearings of coupon cases
in this court it is useless to go into the
equities of the one at bar. The contract
of the State with the holders of coupons
like those under consideration cannot be
denied. The genuineness of the particular
coupons, $4,9S6 in nominal amount, as to
which an injunction is asked for. is not de-
MED, and must be assumed to be conceded.
It IS the misfortune of the defendants in
all this class of suits that they cannot
deny on oath the gepuineness of the cou-
pons sued upon and that the court upon
all the rules of pleading, and by reason of
section 80 of the 167th chapter of the Vir-
ginia Code. must take their genuineness
as confessed. The Supreme Court OF the
United States declared in Aaatoad o. Green
hon. that the legislation of Virginia re-
lating to the verifcation of coupons in no
manner shifts the burden OF proof.
Nor is it worth while to advert to the
provision of the National Constitution
which forbids State from passing any
laws violating or impairing the obligation
of her contracts or to show that such
laws are unconstitutional. null, and void.
Nor is it necessary to show particularly
the unconstitutionality of legislative acts
of Virginia which in their practical effect
operate to destroy or impair. the contract
specifically set out in this bill. Nor need
it be shown that the coupons now sued
upon do evidence a contract between the
State of Virginia and the complainant.
That this is "a valid. subsisting contract
has. in reference to similar coupons. been
declared by the Supreme Court Of the
United States in Hartman o. GreenhoU,
1902 IT. s.! 672. and by the Supreme Court