Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-01-16

:
themselves, because the obligation to pay |
them did not arise until after the Act of t
1868, i, e., until 1876 and 1877. But such
position is untenabie, for the 'matter or
thing" constituting the liability was not
entered into or made after the passage of
the Act of 1868.
But if he coald maintain this action,
says the Court, the right did not accrue
until August, 1887, when Mr.. Davis de-
manded payment, and when the Treasurer
offered to pay the full amount due on the
coupons, and because of such offer the
plaintiff has no cause of action. As
plaintiff never had any cause of action,
the Court holds it to be unnecessary to
consider the question OF the statute of
Limitations
We think there can be no misunder-
standing of this decision The law is made
perfectly clear, and just what is the legal
responsibility Of the city is made so plain
that we do not deem it necessary to extend
a
The decision of Judge Hunt In the
Sacramento bond case of Bates VS.. the
lefty is important to local interests,
and should be clearly understood. 1t
was an application to compel the City
Trustees to fund certain bonds of the city
held by Mr.. Bates. The decision, in brief,
is: The Act of 1851 creating the city and
giving 1t power to go into debt authorized
1t to sue and to be sued. The Act of 1858
gave authority to issue bonds to raise
money to pay debts of the city. In 1854
similar Act gave the city power to issue
bonds to pay expenses of the fire depart
ment. Neither Act provided means Tor
liquidating the bonds. Bates owns three
bonds issued under these Acts, which ma
tured July l, 1874 Their coupons were
payable semi-annually.
Under the charter of 1858, consolidating
city and county, provision was made for
funding all claims against the city existing
January l, 1859. In 1868 the city was
rechartered, and suits against it under any
prior obligation forbidden. A funding Act
was passed in April, 1864, for issue of new
bonds at 6 per cent, and provided that
creditors should present their claims, and
for such as the City Trustees held to be
just and legal, bonds should issue Octo-
Der, 1887, Bates presented his bonds, and
for principal and interest demanded the
issue of new bonds under the Act of 1864.
While the Trustees were..given power to
issue bonds for what they deemed just and
legal claims, that. was legal discretion,
not an arbitrary one. As the genuineness
of Mr.. Bates bonds were not questioned, it
was the duty of the Trustees to grant
his petition If the claim was not barred
| by laches, and they can be compelled to
perform that official duty. The author
ity under which petitioners bonds were
issued did not prohibit suit against the
corporation by the creditor-it expressly
authorized it, and to the property fran
chises and revenues of the original corpo-
ration the spresent one has succeeded.
Creditors holding bonds under the Acts of
1858 and 1854; though the Acts of 1858
and 1868 prohibited suit against the city,
are not bound by such prohibition to hold
them to it, would amount to Reputation
by impairing the obligation of a contract,
and would therefore be unconstitutional.
Because the city in one instance claimed
that the Act of 1858 barred suit on de-
mands accruiDg prior TO its passage, does
! not estop the defendant from maintaining
the present contention. 1t does not APP
pear, says the Court, that the neglect to
institute the present proceedings was due
to such plea by the city. But the statute
of limitations is properly pleaded against
the petitioner, and his claim is barred, be-
cause the suit is founded on an alleged
obligation Of the City Trustees, defend
ants, to perform an official duty, to wit
the refunding of petitioners Indebtedness.
But Judge Hunt adds that, even If this were
| AfNS -; siAS pIiiNdliou vi DATES must
be denied for laches, for he might long
ago have applied for the relief he seeks.
Though the Funding Act OF 1864 fixed no
limitation within which he should avail
himself of its benefits, yet the law requires
performance of an act it authorizes, within
reasonable time. The presumption OF
the law is in favor of official performance
Of duty, and hence it must be assumed
that the petitioner could have successfully
applied over twenty three years ago. But
he waited nearly thirteen years after the
maturity Of the bonds before acting. and
nearly twenty-four years after the passage
of the Funding Act, before making his
election to take new bonds-this is laches.
and hence his claim must fail. That as
late as 1880 the city funded other bonds,
constitutes no estoppel upon the city from
jayailing of its defenses now
SENATE BILL No. 10, by Mr.. Britt, con-