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 against the CITY the Court
| gave judgment for Davis with interest On
petition Tor modification CT judgment, the
| point taken was that under the form OF
proceeding by mandamus, the Court 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 TOT that inter.
| est coupons, as class, do not bear in
| terest. But if this latter point was made,
II was certainly ignored by the Court. But
III that case Il was not apparent that the
point ever was made that under the special
| provisions OF the law authorizing the issu-
ance OF these bonds 1t wss 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 city made
these points: First, the contract Tlaw1 be-
tween the city and bOndholders 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 paw
the same, bondholders having voluntatily
bound themselves not TO sue, and there.
fore they can have 10 Judgment. Third. if
Davis ever had a right Of action, ii is barred
by The statute OF Limitations.
Daring the pendency of this suit l 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 it has BEEN,
that would settle the whole question. If
decided il favor of the city on the second
or third points, then il left the question of
interest on over due bonds still open.
For my own part I was very mach 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 as the points we have de-
cideG settle the entire case.
But fortunately for. US, the case of Bates
vs.. Gerber came up at the same term of
Court. Judge Roll took for his defense in
the Gerber case the first point made for de-
Tense in the Davis case, aud made an argu-
AISAtt VI cat iOlCG anu GlthEIbSS IN sup
port Of the proposition. His case came on
first. The Court fully sustained him, after
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.
It 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
dictuol, and not decision. Dicta are some
times of very little value when only re-
motley 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 dictum are so Intimately
connected that they must stand or fall to-
gether
In another article I 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. 0. BEATTY.