Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-04-07

=, - NHs Al vii efiN bOilto uill1i dlC Qut
1t is not customary to sell coupons from
bonds not yet due. BY this act of the cor
! po-ation in 1864 every man, woman and
child holding one or more of these bonds
was injured. The bonds were discredited
IN the market and made less salable II
the owner wished to retain them as an in
yestment they were less valuable to him
because his interest under such policy
was not likely to be paid regularly, and
began to be postponed from the start.
That damage was immediate, and the
holder Of any bond had his remedy imme-
diately. He could apply by mandamus to
compel the Trustees to make the proper
levy, if they failed in their duty in this
regard. If the Treasurer failed 10 place
! fifty-fiye per cent. of the water rates and
dog licenses in the interest and sinking
Fund, he could be compelled by mandamus
TO make the proper distribution of these
funds. And if at the end of the mandamus
proceedings the plaintiff found he had
lost one or two years interest on his bonds
owing TO the delay in the Court, he still
had his remedy for this. He could sue the
Trustees mot the corporation) for not hav-
ing performed their duty, and recover
whatever damages he could show he had
| suffered from this neglect of duty. So.
! too, he could sue the Treasurer for his
neglect Of duty. (See Amy V. Supervisors,
IL Wall, 1867
These are causes Of action which arose
at the time the wrongful acts were done,
and the actions accrued in favor of the
then owners of the bonds to which the
| coupons were attached. This action,
though in form of interest on certain cou-
pons, is in fact for various alleged breaches
OF contract on the part of the city in not
providing funds for the interest and sink
ing fund of the city. Upon each particu-
lar breach Of contract a cause of action
arose, and the statute began to run against
each separate action from the time of
the breach. That is, for failing to levy
taxes in 1864 was one breach; for the
same thing in 1S64-5 was another, and for
each of these actions the statute began to
run at different day.
Angel on Limitations, Section 1877, says:
The gist of an action of assumpsit for the vio-
lation OF special contract is the breach of such
contract, aud not any resulting or collateral
damage occasioned thereby The statute runs
therefore, from the time when the contract is
broken and not from the period when any dam
age arising therefrom is sustained by the plain
tltf and although such damage occur within
| six years. the action is defeated by the statue
| II the contract was broken beyond that period.
The doctrine is that the right of action
accrues Immediately ON the breach of a
contract, and the statute begins to run
/ although the real damage resulting from
| the breach may not become apparent or
| be capable of ascertaining until after the
statute has run. (See Angel on Limita-
tions, Secs. 1877 to 143, inclusive.) 1t does
not appear from the pleadings or proofs in
this case that Mr. Davis at any time be-
tween 1868 and 1876, owned a bond or
coupon issued by the City and County
of Sacramento. If he did not, he was not
injured by these breaches of contract on
the part of the city. If such proof had
been permissible, we think we could have
| shown that Mr.. Davis was greatly
benefited by these illegal acts Of
which he complains. BY means of those
acts, bonds and coupons were so greatly
deprecated that between 1880 and 1888
the city coupons of 1872, 1878, 1874, 1875
and 1876 were so deprecated that
they sold i'll the market for from 20 to
% cents of their face value Now, if Mr..
Davis bought some one or two hundred
thousand dollars of these coupons at 20
cents on the dollar, and compelled the city
to pay him par for all the coupons of 1872
"a and 3, and has been offered par for
the thirty or more thousand dollars of the
1876 which he still holds, we fail to see
how he was injured by these ubiquitous
acts about which his counsel complains so
loudly. But even if Mr.. Davis had been
the owner of these bonds from which his
coupons were cut, from the first hour
OF their issuance to this day, he
would have had cause of action
against the city, as has been de-
cided by Judge Sawyer and our SUI
preme Court. His remedy was against
the officers of the corporation, and not the
corporation itself. And if there ever was
a cause of action against the corporation,
each and all Of them arose before the be-
ginning of the year 1878, and have all
long since been barred by the statute OF
| Limitations