Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-12
supreme Court of the United states
No. l0ll-OCToBER TERN, 1885.
r. 3. Chafiin. Plaintiff in Error,
rs.
William TAYLOR.
" I4IINItt II y '"'
In error to the Supreme Court OF AZ
peals of the State Of Virginia.

peals of the State Of Virginia.
STATEMENT.
A former Judgment in this case
rendered against the plaintiff in error
by the Supreme Court of Appeals OF
the State of Virginia, was reversed by
this court, report Of which will be
found in Iii L. S.. 300.
The record at that time showed the
state Of the pleadings, as follows
The declaration was in trespass d'
Jouis aspo,tafis the defendant justified
the taking, &C.. as treasurer OF Henrlco
county. charged by law with the duty
of collecting taxes due the state OF
Virginia on property and persons in said
county, alleging that the property was
lawfully seized and taken for taxes due
from the plaintiff to the State, which on
demand he had refused to pay.
To this plea the plaintiff replied a
tender in payment of the taxes, when
demanded and before the trespass COM
planned of, of the amount due in coupons
cut from bonds of the State Of Virginia,
receivable in payment Of taxes by viz
tue of the act of the General Assembly
of that State, passed March 30 ~ l..
To this replication the defendant de-
INJURED, specially on the ground-hrst'
that by the act Of January %, 1882,
he was forbidden to receive coupons in
payment of taxes; and second, that by
the act Of March 13, 1884. an action of
trespass would not lie in such a case
the two acts referred to being set out
in the report of the opinion OF this
court in the case Of PotRderteT Us.
GresnIor. ia nited States, go, . ,.
On this demurrer Judgment was rem
dersd for the defendant, which was re-
yerssd by this court for the reasons set
out in the opinion in the case Of Pom
denser rs. GreSAhOp, ubi supra, ca the
ground that the statutes referred to
were unconstitutional. null and void,
as impairing the obligation Of the con-
tract entered into by the State with tht
holders of it's bonds in the act OF Marcf
30, 1871. -.
The caase was Yemanded, with Oh
rections to proceed therein in conforms
tv with law and the opinion OF TIM
court. The mandate being received
and entered of record in the Crcui
Court Of IIenrico county, that court
against the objection of the plaintiff OF
motion of the defendant, permitted tn
latter to file rejoinder to the replica
TOMAS follows:
"And the said de ndant. by his attorney
AZ M fha replication Of the pdalntlu, says
That the aid plaintiff ought not TO nave o
maintain mis- aforesaid action against mn
because he SAYS that at the time the sal
nIaintitf offered to the defendant as treasu
, rer and collector Of taxes FOR tue county
: | HenrIco in payment OF the taxes oI tn
| said plaintiff for the year lssS Que 10 va
, state of Virginia. paper or lnstruIheut !
|, | mini. writing or engraving pufportins
| he a coupon detached from Donu Oh IN
| C,ommonwealth OF virginia. issued unus
The ACT OF Assembly OF 1871, entitled a
mel 10 fund the public debt, ne, the sal
!, nlaintift. demanded that the sald eeienost
should receive the same, together Win
| small sum OF national.oank currency,
full for said tayes due oy tne PAIN ),
Tor the year 1883, ana gave t h.l'' y,
, said plaintiff, receipt IN .us w W.
charge Of said taxes ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS =,
: sct Of the General Assembly Appsossa 10,
uary IL. 1889, which provides 'na'' Wue