Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-12

w W. iUt tOtIVUN utlNfutu IOtu DDnh' ~
the Commonwealth issued under the act Of
1871. entitled An act to fund the pubic
debt in payment OF any such taxes. deots
and demands, the person TO whom such
papers are rendered shall receive the SANE
giving the parry rendering receipt, statlns
that he has received the same Tor the
purpose OF Identification and veriiica
lion: he shall NJ the same time re
quire such Taxpayer 10 pay his tsNe'
in coin legal-tender notes. or national
bank bills. aud upon payment give MIN .
receipt for the came la case Of refusal =.
pay. The axes due shall he collected ~ al
other delinquent taxes are co,lscted. Inc
said defendant as treasurer aud tas-eOi'
lectOr for the county OF Henr!cD, as was his
duty, did on account OF said act ot January
IA. 1882. refuse TO comply with the oe
mands OF the said plaintiff. hut was wi,ilns
and ready TO receive. aud Is still rsauy 70
receive. the said paper or instrument ~
print. writing. or engraving purPoIllnS y.
be q coupon detached from a bone OF tut
Commonwealth issued uader tue act 81
1871 entitled An act TO fund the puhtl'
debt, and give said p'sintlf n receip' t0i
the sane. for the purpose OF identification
and VerifcatiOn. ST the same Time tecclNin ~
from the said plaintiff his taxes IN com
legaltepder notes. or natlonal-oahk uuiN
giving him a receipt for the same. ~ 70.
uuired by said act at January IA, 1882. ana
for the purpose herein set forth. But the
said plaintiff Was NOT WILING 10 comply
with Sai0 ACT OF JthlhtN ~. lS-< ana lIIl
not comply with the same hS by law he
WAS required TO do. aud he refusing o. pay
his taxes aforesaid, the defendant. as
treasurer and tsN-cOllectOr for the county
OF Henrco as was his duty under the law.
prOce eded To collect the said taxes from the
said plsintin In the manner set forth in
the plea OF the defendant heretofore hied
aud aS provided for in said act OF January
IA. 1852. and this lie Is ready To verify
The cause was finally submitted on a
demurrer to this rejcinder when the
court, being Of opinion. as the record
rectes, that the judgment and opinion
of this court in this cause dill not pre-
cludc and forbid the defendant from
pleading in bar the act Of Assembly OF
January II, 1889, set forth by him in
his rejoinder. and that the Constitution
Of the United States did not make said
act Of Assembly null and void as de-
fence to the defendant in this action,
rendered judgment on the demurrer in
favor of the defendant. A petition to
the Supreme Court Of Appeals Of Vir-
ginia for writ of error to that judg-
ment was denied. and the cause is now
brought here for review.
February /, lso6.l
Mr.. Justice MATTHEWS delivered
the opinion Of the court.
The rejoinder which the Circuit Court
Of Henrico county permitted the de-
PENDANT to file rendered no issue Of
fact, but one of law merely; and every
question of law in the case had beer
covered by the former Judgment OF thi:
court in this case. The proper actor
of the Circuit Court of HenricO count!
upon the mandate Of this court woulC
have been to have entered judgment OF
the pleadings in favor Of the plaintiff
and proceeded to an assessment OF hi
damages.
The act Of January II. lS82. set ul
in the reioinder. is the same that wa
considered by this court in ANlOHi IS
/ GresuLow, To- United states, 1Gg
where it was adjudged that, a. a
amendment to the law regulating tn
proceeding by mandamus to compel tn
acceptance by the officers Of the stat
of tax-receiyable coupons in paymer
Of taxes. it was not a law which IN
paired the obligation Of the contraC
under the act OF March 30, ISL.
The same act was necessarily cor
sidered in the opinion OF the court
Pomds5tey e.. GreenioE, III [. ;
30. as it wa claimed in argument O
the part OF the defendant in error I'll,
the case then under consideration ougf
10 be governed by the decision in Il
case of ARtopi Us. GreeHBor, pb, Suprt
on the ground that the remedies pr
vided by the subsequent acts Of JAM
ary %. 1852, and of March Is, l,S
were. like that provided by the act
June 1t, 1852, adequate, ana therefor
exclusive.
But we expressly pointed out thi
the last-named act Of June II, lS>.
the one set up and relied on in the r
ioinder of the defendant. had no appl
cation to the case, so far as the decislC
in Aatoni rs. Gresnh u, Hbi supra, "a
held it. because the present action VI
not one to specifically compel the IA
collectors to receive coupons IN pa
ment of taxes, but proceeded on q
ground that after the tender Of coupon
in pursuance Of the law of March 3
1871. the tax-collector in distrainlr
property for the payment of the tax
still delinquent was guilty OF tire
pass.
In Anfoai rs. GrssahoW that questl
was decided. The Cour; there SAT-
The question we are now TO consld
is not whether if the coupon tender'
j., in fact genuine and such a. Ougt
under the contract. 10 be received, al
the tender is kept good, the treaSur
can proceed to collect the tax by dl
traint or such other process a the Ia
allows. without making himself perSo
ally responsible for any trespass ne M
commit, but whether the act Of Is
violates any implied obligation Of t
State in respect to the remetl
that may be employed for I
enforcement Of its contract II q
collector refuses to take the coupon
p.774. And again " In conclusio
we repeat that the question present
, bv the record Is not whether the Ia
collector Is bound in law to receive {
+ coupon. notwithstanding the legislIt,
which on its face prohibits him fro
doing so, nor whether. Il he refuses
, take the coupon and proceeds with
collection Of the tax by force. be can
made personally responsible in damag
/ for what he does, but whether the OBJ
l CATION of the contract has been impair
= bv the changes which have been ma
} in the remedies for its enforcement
. case he refuses TO accept the coupons
= The question that was not decided
r Anf0ni Us. GreeHhoW was the ye
question decided in the present case a
= in the case of POiHdeGtsT Is. GrecDhl
where the grounds Of the Judgment
, set out in full. 1t was there decd
i that the taxpayer had contract n:
= to pay his taxes IN coupons; that
t tender of them for that purpose, as
= subsequent steps to collect the tax
t delinquent, was equivalent to paymeI
; and that seizure of property undeI
p. levy thereafter for their non-paym
B.. was a trespass, Notwithstanding