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

bond case, but so much interest attaches TO
the subject at present that we give below
the opinions of the Court in full:
IN BANK.
Filed January 10, 1890
Bates, appellant, VS.. Gerber, respondent No.
Is, 329
Held, affirming the judgment of the Court be-
low:
That the Treasurer of the city of Sacramento
cannot be compelled by mandsmus to pay in
terest on the unpaid interest of the bonds issued
in pursuance of Section 35, page go, Statute
1855 This Act does not impose on the Treas
urer the duty of paying more than the annual
interest.
That the statute under and by virtue of which
these bonds were Issued was the basis OF, and
became part OF, the contract, and the bond
holders must be held to have taken the bonds
with the understanding and agreement that
they were only entitled TO the principal and the
annual interest, and that if the fund provided
for the payment thereof should be insufficient
to meet the same that no interest on the cou-
pons was provided for or could be recovered.
That appellants contention that these cou-
pOng drew interest fIOm their maturity under
the general statute providing for such interest
after maturity on all contracts is untenable and
the Treasurer had right to impose as condi-
ton upon which he would pay the annual in
terest that the coupons should be surrendered
Mandamus to compel the respondent as
Treasurer OF the city of Sacramento, to pay in
terest on overdue coupons OF certain bonds of
said city.
The Court below sustained the demurrer to the
complaint and rendered judgment for the de-
fendant thereon. The plaintiff appeals.
The precise question presented here was de-
cided adversely to the appellant in Davis VS..
Porter l66 Cal. 65s). On the authority of that
case the judgment of the Court below must be
affirmed, not alone because it has been so de-
cided by this Court, but because 1t was cor
rectly decided for the reasons stated in the
opinion.
In this case demand was made on the Treas
urer for the payment of the annual interest pro-
vided for by the coupons, and interest o. the
amount due on such coupons from the time the
same matured. The Treasurer offered to pay
the amount called for by the coupons. on de-
livery of such coupons to him, but declined to
pay interest on the interest or to pay any part
of the indebtedness unless the coupons were
surrendered as fully paid and satisfied.
1t is earnestly contended by the appellant that.
conceding that mandamus would not lie to
compel the Treasurer to pay interest on the an
nual interest. such coupons drew interest from
their maturity under the general statute pro-
viding for such interest, after maturity, ON all
contracts, and that as the debt existed the
Treasurer had no tight to impose, as a condi-
ton upon which he would pay the annual in
terest, that the coupons should be surrendered.
We cannot accede to this view of the law.
These bonds were provided for By special stat
ute, which provided q specific fund out OF
which they should be paid. The Act provided
for the payment OF the principal and annual in
terest and nothing more. stats. 1858, page 279,
Sec IS, page 2S0.) There was no other fund
out of which the interest demanded could have
been paid, and to have paid out a part of the
fund on liability not provided for, or allowed
by law, would have been to divert part of the
fund from the purpose intended and thereby to
deprive other bondholders of their annual in
terest and perhaps of their principal. The stat
ute having provided specifically what should be
paid out OF this fund. and OF what the fund
should consist, it cannot be presumed that it
was the intention of the Legislature that there
should be a general liability over sgainst the
city for interest on the annual interest in case
the fund for any year should be insufficient 10
meet such interest. The statute under and by
virtue of which these bonds were issued was
the basis of, and became part of, the contract
and the bondholderS must be held to have
taken the bonds with the understanding and
agreement that they were only entitled TO the
principal and the annual interest, and that if
the fund provi5ed Tor the payment thereof
should be insufficient to meet the same that no
interest on the coupons were provided for or
could be recovered.
Judgment affirmed. WORKS, ].
We concur: MCFARLAND, j.; PATERSON, J.