Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-09-28
TUESDAY.........SEPT'R %. 1886.
The Dulaney Case.

We had hattered ourselves thst we
lad convinced the Iynchburg Adrance
Of the justice of our claim that the
Commonwealth has the right to compel
Mr.. DULANEy to pay into the State
Treasury the coupons which the sheriff
refused to accept from him. Bat We
reckonsd without our host. The i'd
rance is so confident Of the strength OF
its position that it reproduces in full our
argument in the case. We cannot do
less in return; and therefore We give
our Lynchburg contemporaries last ar
ticle in full. II says:
Now. we give our friend OF the Dispatch
his full statement and argument OF the case,
and out OF his own mouth will we convict
him. IL appears that Nr. Duleney owed
the State some s225 OF taxes, and he pro
posed 10 pay In coupons. as he had night
10 DO. The state officer refused the cou-
pons. levied on his property. sold 1t. and
putths money in the State Treasury or his
pocket ,s....,, o,,oo,o,
TO this mode OF proceeding, and, consider
"damsges" He did not sue for the amount
Of his taxes. because he did not dispute IL;
neither did lac sue for his coupons, because
the state had refused to receive them
and had no night TO them. But he
sued the State for damages, and placed
the damage ct 100000. He had
right 10 do so; but the jury only assessed
his damages at some sS25 which. OF course.
the state had 10 pay, and very fortunate
that ~ didn't have 10 pay more. Then the
plain result of the whole matter simply re-
solves Itself into this. that the state cot
lected its taxes OF Mr. Dulsney by forcibly
selling his property and refusing his cou.
pops; and Dulaney got his damages"
against the state by Judgment OF the
Jury In his favor TO the amount OF some
ss25,. which might have been 100000 II
The State. therefore having collected Its
amount OF taxes from Dulsney by selling
his property. and Dulaney having got his
imperfect damages oy the verdict OF tne
reasona bic pretext the state can now have
20 step IN and maze any shadow OF claim
for possession OF Dularey's refused coupons?
Mr.. Dulaney would have the same right 10
step In and ssk the jury 10 double his dam
sses as the State has TO step in and ask
Dulaney 10 pay his taxes over again.
The only question at issue is whether
Mr.. DULANEY recovered the value Of
his coupons; and that he did so, there
is no doubt. The sum which the State
paid to him as damages included the
face value Of his coupons. This point
was brought out in the argument Of
the case. Mr.. TUCKER argued the
case. lie knows what the verdict was
for-that is, whether ell Of it was for
punitive damages, or part for these and
the other part for the value of the
coupons which Mr.. DULANEY had ten
dered; and Mr.. TUCKER has advised
the State officials, SO VIC are informed,
that MIR. DULANEY can be compelled
TO pay over the coupons which the
State was forced by the verdict to pay
him for. This latter statement tells
the whole story-namely, that Mr..
DULANEY forced the State to pay him
for the coupons which she had refused
to take from him. In other words,
the sheriff sold his property and
made him pay his taxes in
money. He sued the sheriff and
recovered the money. What mo-
neyg Why, the value Of the coupons.
II he had not offered to pay the coupons
he could not have sued at all. If the
State could have proved that the cou-
pons were not hers, DULANEY would
have lost his case. He sverred to the
Court that no held the coupons subjsct
to the order Of the State or her officers.
He thereby disclaimed their ownership.
His whole claim was founded upon the
fact that he had paid the coupons to
the sheriff, the tender Of them being
held by the Court 10 be the same as
payment. Therefore by the judgment
of the Court they are the Common
wsalth's property, and she can make
him surrender them.
More II he had recovered sl00, 900,
this sum would have included the face
value Of the coupons.
Nevertheless, we are afraid that our
Lynchburg friend is "sot in his ways. "
We dismiss the subject.