Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-01-22

I concur in the judgment. Even if these cou =
pons bear interest amer maturity, or after nor-
payment for want of funds al or after maturity
(which is not Conceded) the Treasurer did all
that ne was required or authorized to do when
he offered to pay the face of the coupons upon
condition OF their surrender to him; and the
condition was one which he was not only aIl-
thorized, but which it was his duty to i'm
pose
The bond from which each coupon was sew.
cred, as well as the Act under which it was
issued, was part OF the contract made between
the municipality and the person to whom the
bond was issued, at the time it was issued, and
all the condi ions of that contract followed the
bond and every coupon attached to it, into
whatsoever hands it might thereafter go. The
Act was special one for the Incorporation of a
municipality. the funding of the Indebtedness
of lis predecessors, for which it would be liable
and providing for the general government of
the new municipality. It Constituted the whole
law of the State on the special subjects with
which it dealt and for which it provided-tak-
ing those subjects out of the operation of all
general laws which might otherwise have been
applicable thereto. The holders of claims
against the former municipality, or the former
county, were not bound to accept its provisions,
but if they did they and their subsequent as
signees were bound by them.
Quodd these bonds, and the coupons attached
to them, that Act becomes part of the con-
tract. The Act provided for the issuance of the
bonds, for the time of their maturity, for The
payment of annual interest thereon at the rate
of per cent per annum, payable at the Office
of the Treasurer on the first day of January in
each year, and that coupons for the interest
should be attached to each bond; and also pro-
vided for fund to meet these several sums as
they should fall due. 1t did not provide for
either principal or interest bearing interest
after maturity, and provided no fund to meet
such an added liability. The holders OF the
bonds accepted them with full knowledge of
these provisions and that this statute consti-
tuted the whole law by which their rights and
remedies were to be ascertained and deter
cd dpal LING with q
corporation is bound to know that its powers
are only such as are conferred by the statute
under which it is authorized to act, and Its OBJ
legations can only be such as it is by the statute
authorized to assume, or those necessarily Incl
dent to the exercise of the powers expressly
conferred. Knowing this, they knew that no
provision was, or without further legislation
could be, made for the payment of interest after
maturity upon any OF these OBJ igations. They
also knew that they could not maintain any
action against the municipality upon any obli-
cation arising under this Act, and accepted
their obligations upon that condition Nothing
in the Act prohibited them from maintaining any
proper action against the officers of the mu-
nicipality for neglect to perform any of the
duties escribed by the Act, but they were for
bi1den to maintain any action against the mu-
nicipslity itself. upon any liability incurred
under he Act, and they voluntarily accepted
these obligations upon that condition.
This AIT provided for the funding of the old
Indebtedness; for the creation of a fund to meet
the obligations specially authorized in that be-
half; and also for fund to meet the currect
expenses of the government of the munich
paiify: but it not only, &c indastrid. omitted to
provide for any of these obligations bearing
interest after maturity, or for the payment OF
any such interest, but 1t also expressly provided
that no officer nor any person should have power
to contract debt against the municipality for
any purpose or under any pretext whatever.
(See Sec. i5) If any of the officers had made
any provision, express or implied, to the effect
that any of the obligations which they
authorized to Issue nQdpF the Act Clnuld
bear interest at a greater rate or for a longer
period than that provided in the Act itself. to
that extent il would have been in direct viola
ton of this provision and void.
In view, then, OF the fact that all the rights
and obligations of the parties in relation TO
these bonds and coupons are limited and con-
trolled by the provisions of this Act under
which they were issued, the able argument of
counsel in support of the proposition that the
coupons bear interest after maturity, based
upon the statutes and upon decisions rendered
under other laws, seems TO me to have no ap-
pllcation. The Act takes the subject matter
upon which 1t opsrates out of the
general laws in relation to interest and
ont OF the operation of all other laws.
Under this Act the rule laid down in Sohr
VS. supervisors of Calaveras County 60 Cal,
1871 seems to me the only rule that can be APP
piled "Wnen no provision is made IN a fund
ing statute Ior the payment Of interest aftec the
nOnds issued under it have become due, DO in
terest viii accrue thereon after that date" and
the rule that will apply to the bonds VIII also
apply 70 the coupons AS Vas S5lu III Dtdls ".
Supervisors of Cslaveras County Us Cal 450l,
There is no express contract TO pay interest,
and no rule of aw independent OF statutory
provisions that would require interest to be
paid The statute under consideration in the
case Of David Us County of Yuba (75 Cal. 452l
was so widely different IRON the one now under
cJnsideration as to make the decision in that
case OF no value as an authority in this Gaze
There it was expressly provided that otner
funds might be resortsd 10 than the one created
under the funding Act and that the Board
might make other provisions than those speci-
fed in the Act, if those were found insufficient.
The payment OF interest in consideration OF Tor
bearsnce might well be allowed in that case.
and the provisions of the statute were suifl-
GENTLY liberal to allow that to be done.
1t is claimed that the case of Davis VS.. Porter
(66 CAL. 65sJ holds that the coupons uTon the
boEds issued under this Act bear interest after
maturity but / DO not 50 read the decision.
The effect of that decision is that, even II II be
conceded thst they SO bear interest, the plaiutti
was not entitled to the relief demanded, for the
reason that the Treasurer was not authorized TO
| paw more than the face of the coupons, II was
moi necessary in that case to deciee that they
did Tor did no) bear int rest, and the language
used DOGS not import decision to that effect.
I am unable TO find any decision hat Will sup
port that theory, as applicable to bonds or cou-
uons Issued under a statute Ike the one mere
under consideration
But. as said in the case last referred to. and
I as have said in The beginning. even if these
ro,fpo1s did b ar interest after maturity or pre-
! sensation. the plaintiff Is not entitled 10 this
writ for the reason that the Treasurer IS not by
the Aet authorized to pay anything more THAI
he face of the Obligation and ne offered to ras