Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-01-15

proceed Dy nlandamus against the officers OF the
city personally TO compel them, in proper cases
to perform the duties prescribed by the legisia.
ton preyiou-ls referred to. The Supreme court
| of this State, in FreehiIl vs. Chamberlain, supra
also held that. according to the Act OF April 25
1868, no action can be maintained against the
city upon these bonds or coupons
The Plaintiffs counsel, while recognizing the
binding force OF these adjudications, seeks to
escape from the principle there enunciated, by
Claiming that the present action Is based upon
liability arising after the passage of the Act OF
| 1888, and hence. that, under the provisions OF
sa d Act, allowing the defendant to be sued upon
any contract, matter or thing. made or entered
into after the passage" of said Act this action is
maintuinable- His contention is that his shit
differs from the Kennedy suit in that IL is not
| suit upon coupons, but for interest and damages
! arising from the defendants failu to provide
| for the payment Of the coupons at maturity
| that the action herein is not upon contract. but
upon liability arising by operation of law
which liability results from the defendants de
| fault in the non performance OF its obligations
| to its creditors.
The evidence sustains the contention OF
| plaintiffs counsel that the defendant did not
annually levy a tax of 81 upon each 500, as re-
| quired by the Act of 1855; and that il did not
| in some instances at least, upon the close of the
| fiscal year, transfer to the interest and sinking
| fund the surplus remaining in other funds A
| a part of the history of the bonded indebtedness
IN question, 1t appears that ia consequence Of
various misfortunes ana vic ssitudes the city OF
| Sacramento became unable to pay the amour,
| due for interest upon its bonded Indebtedness.
/ as the same matured. IL was not until the veal
| 1887 that there was sufficient accumulation IL
| the interest and sinking fund 20 discharge TIE
| coupons maturing in the year 1876, and at the
| present time the city is at least ten years back
! wards in the payment OF the interest upon 1t.
bonded Indebtedness.
| In Freebill VS.. Chamberlain. supra, the Su
| pfeme court held that bondholders were moi
| entitled 10 payment of either bonos or coupon.
until there were funds in the treasury properl,
applicable thereto.
| Assuming, however, for the purposes OF thi.
decision, that the coupons in question were pay
able on the date OF their face maturity, viz. OF
| the lst day of January, 1876 and 1877 the plain
tIffis in no better position: because. in sens
| can the demand. here sought to be enforced
for interest upon matured coupons, be, in an
seuse, reearde, as a liability arising upon ICON
tract matter or thing. made or entered inio aite
the passage OF the Act of April, 1868. The &C
OF 1868, re charteriDg the city of sacramento
! was not designed to impose any additional liza
| biIitv upon the city 10 regard 10 these boa6s
Ii Is true that in creating the fund for the pay
ment of interest and redemption II the bond
an amendment WAS made in respecs to III,
| water rates, but in no other partiu,a.s wa
there any substantiated change in the iegis,a
ton upon this subject. IN view OF this con
s;deraficn II is difficult TO underst and how ~
plaintiff eau be prohibited onl suing uroii L.