Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-02-01

| ond, because they were barred BY the
statute Of limitations. When these points
| were decided agains. the city the Court
| gave judgment for Davis with interest. On
petition for modification Of Judgment, the
| point taken was that under fhe form of
| proceeding by mandamus heCourt could
not give judgment for interest. And this
point was sustained by the Court. In this
case the point may also have been taken
and believe was taken by counsel Though
l have not the briefs to refer to-, that inter.
est coupons, as class, do not bear in
teresi. But If this latter point Wes made.
It was certainly ignored by the Court. But
| IN that case Il was not apparent that the
point ever was made that under the special
provisions of the law authorizing the issu-
ance CT these bonds It YVES clearly provided
by Law, and became part Of the contract
that neither the bonds nor coupons should
bear interest after maturity.
But when the case of Davis against the
city came up, counsel for the citv made
these points First, the contract Tiaw1 be-
tween the city and bundholders provides
that no interest shall ever be PAYABLE on
coupons or on bonds after due Second, if
the coupons and past due bonds bear inter
est there is only moral obligation to pay
the same bondholders having voluntafilV
fore they can have no Judgment Third. if
Davis ever had right Of action, it is barred
by The statute of limitations.
During the tendency of this suit | was
asked frequently if the decision perma-
nently settled the whole question as to in
terest. usually replied that l did not
know. If the case was decided in favor of
the city on The first point las if has BEEN.
that would settle the whole question. If,
decided ia favor of the city on the second
or third points, then it left the question of
interest on overdue bonds still open.
For my own part was very much afraid
the Court might divide the case on the sec
ond and third points, which they could
well have done with little or 10 particular
examination. This would have effectuallv
settled the question of interest on coupons.
and then they would have escaped the
labor and care necessary to examine the
first point, merely saying tits not necessary
to examine or divide the first proposition
OF respondent, SIS the points We have de-
cided settle the entire case.
But fortunately for. Us, the case of Bates
vs.. Gerber came up at the same term of !
Court. Judge Eoil took for his defense in
the Gerber case the first point made for de- |
tense in the Davis case, aud made an argu- |
ment of great force and elesrness in sup |
port OF the proposition. dis case came on !
first The Court fully sustained him, after |
a very careful examination of the case, as |
is shown by the opinions. This point, |
being decided IN the Gerber case, was sim
ply applied to the Davis case, and fully |
settles the whole controversy.
1t is true the only question before the
Court was as to interest on coupons, and |
Judge Fox's remarks about interest on
overdue bonds is what lawyers call a
dictlrn,, and not decision. Dicta are SONG
times Of very little value when only re-
motely connected with the subject of de-
cision by the Court. But sometimes a
dictum and the decision are so intimately
connected that the one cannot be wrong II !
the other is right They must both stand |
or fall together That is the case here.
The decision and dictanR are so intimately
connected that they must stand or fall To-
gether.
In another article 1 will endeavor to
show the present status of the Fund Com.
and correct some of the erroneous
and absurd assertions made about the same
by lawyers of the city, who ought to know
better, if they do not. H. o. BEATTY.