Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-02-09

standing that bad priority of right tyer his
1882 coupons. at least $260pJ0 having
precedence over his earliest GS79t coupons.
He also alleged in his petition there were
500, 600 in the interest and sinking fund,
and not more thar $4,000 of this Sl00, COO
had been demanded of the Treasurer, and
prayed for an order directing the Treasurer
to pay him his S23, i30. The District Court
sustained a demurrer to this complaint,
doubtless taking the same view Of the case
which you do-that the Treasurer could
not lawfully pay out the mozey then in the
sinking fund (say 500. 0001 on the coupons
manned outstanding coupons of an earlier
date TO the amount of $4,000, although
only S9o, 900 of them lad been presented
for payment.
Meyer appealed TIE Supreme Court re-
versed the judgment of the Court below,
ard in rendoing iE decision uses this Ian
gEsge in relation TO the older coupons,
which counsel sor the Treasurer claimed
stood ahead of Meyers demand;
Nor is the fact, if it exists, that there
were other creditors interested in the fand
provided for gaeir payment, who have not
demanded payment, any answer to the
application ID the petitioner. NoH-action
by others hs5ing equal rights with him. in
a matter on which his right is foanded,
cannot prejudice him in the assertion of
his right nor excus performance of q
duty in connection with it, specially en-
joined By law"
In January, 1856, George E. Bates filed a
petition in manGamus against James n.
Porter ssking an order to compel Porter to set
apart 81 cent. of the gross proceeds of the
water works Tor the fiscal year 1856, and
all future years, for the use Of the sinking
and interest fund. The Court in December,
1887, decided hat the creditors were EN-
titled to the So per cent, and that the Urea
surer had illegally paid oat large sums on
other claims against the city which right
fully belonged to the sinking and interest
fund. But as the money had already been
paid they could not remedy it. They'coulG
only order that in future the So per cent
should be placed by the Treasurer where il
belonged. (See IA Cal, pages 224 to 244)
In view of these decisions Ito which | dc
not think your attention was called before
Iyou wrote the opinion for Mr.. Gerber, dc
you not believe it woald be perfectly SAFE
and proper, and display only q proper re-
gard for the rights and interests of the tax.
payers, for the Trustees to make the fol
lowing advertisements
There is now in the sinking and inter.
est fund OF the city OF Sacramento
-, applicable TO the payment o.
coupons which fell due, respectively, or
the first days of Jenuary, 1876, 1877, 1875
and 1879, and coupons OF those dates vii
be paid in the order of their presentation
at he Treasury OF the city up 10 March
1889. If this fund is moi ez hausted before
that date, thea the Treasurer will com,
mence the payment in the order Of theil
presentation. of all coupons of 1876. 1877
1878, 1879 ana 1850, in the order of theil
presentation, If any party presents hi.
coupons al the Treasury and then refuse,
to receive m5afy ard surrender his cou
pons, this act viii De treated as q nullity
and the Treasurer viii pay the coupon.
next in order OF Presentation
Second-If the Treasurer obeyed sucl
order would not he and his bondsmen bt
perfectly safe? Aud if Davis should a
any time thereafter sue the Treasurer coulC
he possibly get any other order or iudg
ment than That the Treasurer should pay
him his money as fast as it came into tn,
sinking and interest fund.- You will per
ceive that by this course the Trustees
would not seek to delay or prevent Davis
or any other holder OF these, coupons from
getting their money. They would not eyer
seek TO prevent Davis from making thi
city the involuntary custodian of hi
money. Bat they only say to Mr.. Davis, i
you force US to be the custodian OF you
money, which we would rather not hold
sndst the same tine prosecute a suit fo
damages against Us because we are tho:
made the involuntary bankers of you
money, we certainly will use that MONEY
in such a way as to derive some advantage
from it to counterbalanee your claim o
damages. Is there a lawyer, a Judge, or
jury who would say it was not just, right
and lawful for the city so to 90?
II. o. BEATTY.