Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-11-16
THE CITY TRUSTEES.
The City Attorney Gives "ri'
nDtnfor m tI,a Rand Question.

The City Attorney Gives a "r''en
Opinion on the Bond Question.
The Board of City Trustees met in reg
ular session yesterday, all the members
present.
G. w. Hancock, one of the Directors OF
the State Board Of Agriculture, appeared
before the Board and asked for an extern
sion of time for the building of the side
walk on the north side OF II street, from
Twentieth to Twenty
The matter was referred to Trustee Ryan,
who will extend all the fayors possible I'M
der the law. but will insist upon the con-
struction of the much-needed walk within
a reasonable length of time.
Some time ago Samuel Il. DAVIS and
George E. Bates presented demands against
the city for interest upon certain coupons.
The matter was referred to the City Attor-
ney, who, associated with ex-City Attorney
W. A. Anderson, yesterday filed the FOL
lowing written opinion with the Board
1.-The question of the ultimate liability
of the CITY of Sacramento for interest on
coupons after maturity is not free from
complication. In the cases of Freehlll VS..
Porter and Davis VS.. Porter q West Coast
Reporter, pages 7S0-1), the counsel Tor the
respondent Porter invoked the statute OF
limitations. it appearing that the coupons
set out in the petition for mandate were
more than four years overdue. In support
of this defense, the cases of Clark VS.. Iowa
CITY 90 Wallace u. s., $780, Amy VS..
Dubuque (9S U. s., 400. Koshkonong vs..
Burton Us Albany, L. j., 400 were relied
on, and in which cases it was held that
coupons bore interest after maturity, and
for that reason the statute of limitations
would run against them.
1.-The Supreme Court of this State, in the
cases of Freehill and Davis, supra, held that
the coupons of the 1859 bonds are not
subject to,the statute of limitations, because
the city authorities failed to provide the
necessary funds for their payment at ma
turity, and the statute would not commence
to run until the funds were in the treasury,
properly applicable to their liquidation.
I'm the case of Davis VS.. Porter, supra, the
Supreme Court included interest on cou-
pons in the judgment Counsel for the
city moved for modification of that judg-
ment, and the Court, in the case of Davis
VS.. Porter (6 West.Coast Reporter, 240), de-
cided that the City Treasurer, in that pro-
ceeding. could not be compelled to pay in
terest on coupons. Under the Consolida-
ton Act of 1858, and in the Charter of 1868,
no authority appears lor any interest," Oh
coupons The only provisions are for an
nual interest, and mandate will not lie for
any other.
1.-The real safety for the city. therefore,
lies in the provisions of the Act of 1858,
and which are incorporated in the Charter
of 1868; that the city nor any of its officers
cannot be sued or subject to any process,
original, mesne or final, upon any action or
proceeding based upon the bonds or cou-
pom of 1859.
THE only remedy that can be invoked
is the writ of mandate, and which can only
be based upon some plain and express pre-
vision of some law, and the failure of the
city authorities to comply Herewith. There
being no express provision with regard to
interest on coupons, and no fund provided
for the same, no mandate would lie against
any officer of the city. Neither is there
any authority whereby mandate could be
called into requisition to enforce the levy
or collection of tax to create such a fund.
Holding those views, | recommend that the
Board of Trustees decline the modest re-
quest of those coupon-holders who are de-
manding interest on coupons overdue. 1t
is not necessary to consider the question
whether the coupons bear interest or not.
The point for the Board to consider is Is
there any present liability for any such in
terest, and to that, for reasons above given,
say no enforcible liability exists"