The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1885-02-26
Parsons Coupon Case.
JUDGE HUGHES OPINION.

folk when Judges Bond and Hughes were
both sitting. Judge Bond delivered the
oral opinion OF the court, and announced
that Judge Hughes would file written
opinion-which Judge Hughes has done.
His opinion is as follows : 4 7ai ota
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT EASTERN
DISTRICT, OF VIRGINIA, AT NORFOLK.
18th FEBRUARY, 1885: Edt0in Parsons
%. Morton, Marye, auditor Of Virginia;
Samuel c.. Greenho,o, Treasurer and r..
B.. Mlgaf0rd, Commissioner of heUe1aqte. -
In Equity, ON Motion for a Preliminary
sIs2j1,sct6On.. .,.J s Isfl y a"i it2
ruary,, r. Il. Maury and D. H. Chamber
layne for complainant. and F. S. Blair, At
torney- General of Virginia, for the de-
PENDANTS. anasIl9 6ii,. i....,
On the 18th February Judge Bond de-
hvered an oral opinion assigning reasons
for granting the preliminary injunction,
and announced that Judge Hughes would
file a written opinion. as6e2,i
The following is the opinion afterwards
filed by Judge Hughes:
q This bill is broughtby Edwin Parsons.
resident of New York, and a holder of
the bonds of Virginia issued under the
funding act of March 80, 1871 he de-
PENDANTS are Morton Marye, Auditor of
Virginia Samuel G.. GreenhOW, Treasu-
rer and r. b. Munford, Revenue Com
missioner of Virginia in Richmond.
II The bill sets out the history and pro-
visions Of the funding act of 1871, reciting
that the bonds it authorized We're issued,
with coupons attached, receivable at and
after maturity for all taxes, demands, and
dues to the State. and that this receiva-
ility of the coupons for taxes constituted
the chief value of the bonds. 1t alleges
that large number of creditors were in
duced to surrender their old bonds on the
faith of the new. because OF this recelva-
bility of the coupons in taxes, and that
thereby contract was made between the
State and the holders of the new bonds
that the latter should have the right not
only to tender the coupons directly IN pay
ment of lakes, but should also have the
right to transfer them to any taxpayer OF
the State, with their quality OF receivable
ity for taxes annexed.
The complainant sets forth that he is
the owner of $4, 1856 of said coupons past
due and unpaid, cut by himself from gen.
uine bonds issued under the funding act
of 1871, and that they are genuine and re-
ceivable for taxes by their express tfnor.
He alleges that other coupons cut by
himself from the same bonds have been
pronounced genuine by a jury in the mode
prescribed by the laws of Virginia; and
nave also U6eIl dSCoIldluCu w NC SCAulut
by this court. He insists, therefore, that
the coupons now in question are by every
test genuine, valid, and legal and entitled
to be received according to their tenor in
payment of all taxes due the State.
These averments imply that this com
plainant has held as an Investment of his
own, for series of years, the bonds from
which the coupons in question were cut
that they have not been bought i'll market
in speculation land that he is now seeking
to render these securities available by
transferring them to tax payers, to be used
in payment of their dues to the State of
Virginia. He alleges that this right to
transfer them would make them worth to
him IS cents in the dollar. m r.,.,
The complainant alleges that Virginia
has for long time refused and still re-
fuses to pay the coupons in money and
that she has, moreover, enacted certain
laws intended to destroy their receiva-
bility in payment of dues to herself, to his
own great damage and injury, and in vio-
lation of her contract with him in that re-
spect. h7g-fh 8 efr 8 f4g
= He particularly complains that the State
has passed all act forbidding the receipt Of
his coupons for license taxes, and providing
that the Auditor and Commissioners Of
Revenue shall not grant licenses until the