New-York tribune., 1886-02-02
VIRGINIA. COUPON CASES,
rtrtsros IN THE o. S. SUPREME COURT.
AorpoSs ARE RECEIVABLE Jas TAXES AND ARE A
LEGAL TENDER.

rr.u,ycroN. Feb 1.-The Supreme Court |
I-,,+od states to-day rendered the following |
decisionsi No., ....,u ., e... -, Win |
ito Tn error to the supreme Court OF Virginia The |
SITE was convicted In the Hastings Court OF Rict
sna NJ practising law without license. To the
attenuation he filed plea setting forth that ne rendered
- the Deputy Treasurer OF Richmond once coupon Tor
~ and in United states Treasury notes in payment
=, his license tax that when he made the tender he
smanded certificate stating that he had del osed the
non and money. but the Deputy Treasurer refused to
eceye the coupon and refused to give him certhcae
,oa, so the act February Z, 1884 forbade MIN To
eceye the license in coupons and because the act o
March 5 lSS4 provides that all license taxes sha De
od in cnrrent money Of the United states ana not III
'o,s. that be theteupOn made an affidavit setting
% these facts and presented TO the Commissioner OF
tho Revenue OF Rict mond and demanded OF MIN
license but the Commissioner refused to issue 10 MN
ucsnse and that he then accepted tho employment OF
oant and practised his profession TO TINS plea the
common wealth filed general demurrer which was
rstoibed ny the court the ground that Royal had
M right to practise his profession after the tchder OF Ihr
o,upon without first having obtained license. EoyaI
,ben uealed not guilty and trial was had resulting Ia
ovordict finding him guilty and assessing his fine at
Gao The court in rendering its judgment held that
son sc Of CHAPTER 81 of the Code of Virginia OF 1873
,be acts of February = 1891 and OF March 10, lsSl are
mt repurnant to Section 10 Of Article l. OF the Constu
,,, of tbe United states Justice Matthews, in deliver
OniniOu or tue Supr6lue u'I6 vi lHV bHi'O"
States said by the Of the act of March 30 1871
tho cou,ons rendered ia this made receivable
for all taxes debts dues and demands due the state
and this stipulation has been Itedly decded by
tbe Cour Of Appeals of guia ana hy this court con
s,i,utel a contract between coupon holder and the
s,,te o Virginia the obligation Of which the state was
forbidden to impair by the Constitution of the United
st.es and any law OF the state which would nave that
effect If enforced is thereby annnllea and made void
That charges. or they are called in the statues
assessments made by law conditions precedent 10
obtaining licenses pursuing business or profession
are included within the meaning OF the words taxes
darts dues and demands the state a. used in the
c, oi March so ISL to admit OF reason
able donbt Ia Clarke against Tyl r. 1t was aUndSed ny
the Court OF Appeals Uf Virginia that hne uni loSou i
a violation of law could DO discharge uhuef 'hI-
proyon in coupons leu of money SO that upon the
authority OF that case tho very fine mposo1 by the
Hastings Court o: Richmond upon the painh III error
for practising law with, ut license may lawful! DC p"u
and In the very coupons which were rendered
in payment OF the license itself and refused 0he!
such AN an Omay caunOt be justified or admitted
The payment required preliminary TO the license
he held ia in the nature o. tax, aud Is due to the
State Ii occupation tax for which the license Is
merely receipt. anl not an authority except III th"'
sense because is laid and collected as reverue ana not
merely as incident TO the general police Iower OF the
State He quoted from Chief Justice Chase In Mc0nire
aaIn.t the Commonwealth show that the granting OF
license must lie regarded nothing more than iner7
form OF imposing a He maintained that the tac'
that the party complying with the statutory conditions
is entitled OF right to tn, license is conclusive th"' inc
payment Is tax laid revenue, and not for purposes
of re .ulation We think it," the Court says ene!
clear hot the OF the case and upon author
v that the payments demaudahle ny tue state Tor
the license applied for hy the paiutih are taxes Wu
tho meaning of the act OF March 80 1871, in discharge
OF which coupons receivable by it, terms ana tha
the plaintiff must be regarded after making the tender
alleged in the same situation In law as If he had ten
dered gold or silver coin or ot1er lawful money "f me
United states. In tho present case the palhud '1a'
been prevented from obtaining license to prdcSe MS
rroessou IN violation OF his rights under the CouStu
tion of the United states punish him for practising
Il without license thus withheld Is equally deuiH OF
hia ri.hts under the Constitution OF the United states
and the law. under the authority OF wllch thls Is
attempted must on that accOlnt and in his case be
REGARDED as null and void IT. judgment OF the Court oi
ANNALS of virginia is accordingly reversed and the
cause is remlnded with directions TO take farther pro
ceedngs therein in accordance with Jaw and IN con
forlnt~ with tlis opinion
No 973-Rol ert r. Barr, against T. G. Edmnnds
Treasurer of Fauquer County, virginia In error to the
tircuit Colrt of the United States Eastern District o
virginia This was action @; tTesoIss brought y Inc
plaintiff III the Circuit Court OF tha United states Tor the
Eastern District Virginia IN his declaration ne sets
forth that rendered in payment OF h tiNes
which were refused aud that tho defendant e'l'" on
hi, property in order compel HIM 10 ay MS taxes ID
another medium The defendant hIed pea 70 tHc
Jurisdiction OF Circuit CoIr allegini that as te
nlantf and de endant botn citizens OF the state Of
yr-nia the courts OF that state had exclusive JuTdc-
TO O, the acg "a cause Of action The Ci:cHt Court
that il was without iu col fOr the reason ina the
amount Of taxes less than 800 and the property
seized was worth less 5000 This WIZ Of erro was
brought to retIcw that juds ncnt Judgment reversed
Judge Matthews delivered the opinion
No 1000 William H. sands acan.t J.. G. Edmuhds'
Treasurer OF Fauquer Count Virginia In error te-u
preme Court Of Appeals OF Virginia Sands rendered to
Elmuud, in paymet Oi A license t'X as an attorney AZ
law coupon for @l5 cut from hoGd ISSUED uhder INC
act OF March So 1871 The defendant refused to receive
the coupon on te ground tlAt tie acts OF February =
lssl and March lj t. uiTt all hccnse taxes to be
p.id in money 0ng ana not IN coupons The p!aintlh
prayel that "a mtndamu, nii be issued cOnmah ING
Elmunis to show alse why a-Pcreinpt'9y mandarin"
should not issue commanding MIN 10 receive the coupon
Tle writ was denied ~ the Circuit Court oI FauIdlct
County, ami applicat Oh to the supreme court oi
Appoas OF Virginia that judgment was affirmed - a
refusal to allow appeal To reverse th1t judgment
tAis writ Of error IS prosecuted JGstce M'Ju'"'' III
delivering the opinion Of the conrt held tha ' fsH' o
the ,,jp 70 pay bis license in cOupOns Is affirmed IN
Tie opinion In the o' Ro' against the state ot VIZ
eni. and hi, remedy 10 have thcm received Tor
yercati,n and back the moley ptld ior MS
license il seeurod to him by the terms oi the "ct OF
January 1852, which for such purposes was uph' ~
this court - valid enactment In Ant"n aia'nst Green
how AID under the authority Of tnese DECISIONS t'
dsmsl; of the supreme Court OF Appeals OF virginia 10
reversed AMI the cause Is remlael with directions 10
take turh r proceedings according t. law ana III con
fOrniy with this opEiOn.
Case No lO1l r. y. ChatIin against William Taylor
Tn error to the Supreme Court OF Appeals OF virginia
Chan lered the defcn liant who was lfea'hrer o'
Henrico County Virginia, IN payment OF his 9tt'o taxes
due on hi, propcrtv situated ia that county tax receV-
able coupons which the defendant refused 10 rocel'o'
aul aiterwrd levied and sezed the painths morse
and so it u iorco him to pay his taxes III announcer
mclnm. Thn plaintiff then sued the deicAd''' io'
tesplss anl the defendant pleaded to the aclo oil o
Icisl lre of Virginia 90 nmaniing him refuse said
coupons aud to levy Notwithstanding such tender In"
Clrcnt Cnurt held mt deience 70 De g0Oi one rhe