The record-union., 1893-08-18
INDIAN WAR BONDS.
A Sacramento Case Decided by the
Supreme Court.
w. #. Sawyer's Appeal Denied. and
the Judgment of the Lower
Court Sustained.

An opinion has been rendered in De-
partment Two of the Supreme Court by
Commissioner Haynes, Commissioners
Searls and Van Cleef concurring, in the
case of w. F. Sawyer, appellant. VS.. Ed
ward p. Colgan, Controller of the State of
California, respondent.
The appellant filed his petition in the
superior Court of the County Of Sacra-
mento, praying that a writ of mandate
issue requiring the respondent to issue to
him warrant upon the State Treasurer
for the amount of bond of $500 and cou-
pons, given for war Indebtedness and
known as Indian war bonds.
The bond was issued in 1854 under an
Act of 1852 authorizing the State Treas
urer to issue bonds, not to exceed $500, 600
for the payment of the expenses of GER
tam expeditions against the Indians, and
was made payable in 1862. There were
also coupons from bonds issued under a
similar Act in 1851.
In 1884 Congress madean appropriation
OF S924, 259 10 to reimburse the State for
expenses growing out of this war, and
that large portion Of the bonds were paid
by the I nlted States directly, the money
never coming to the State treasury at all,
and that i'll 1884 an unexpended balance
OF the appropriation, amounting to S.
36Z l6, was covered into the United States
treasury, and that there remained unpaid
OF the bonds OF 1881 S3,0U0 and of those
OF lS52 Sl6,oOO and coupons of both issues
falling due between January |, 1891, and
September l, 1856, Sl73,32Z Ze.
The petitioner in 1881 presented the
bond and coupons, with a demand for
legal interest on them amounting to Sl2,-
404 6O, and the Controller refused to pay
them.
Several questions were presented, as to
whether the States liability was con-
dltlOnal or unconditional, and whether
the Government had made provision for
their payment; whether an appropriation
has been made for their payment, ana, if
so, when, and when it was first available:
whether the claims were barred by the
statute OF limitations; whether it was the
controllers duty to draw warrant for
payment Of part or the whole OF them.
Ihe Court Commissioners only con-
sidered the last question, and decided
that, under Section 672 of the Political
Code, the claim should have had the
sanction OF the State Board OF Examiners,
as there was no special provision author
lzlng the Controller to draw his warrant
without such approval, and il was his
duty to re1uselt. They, therefore, are OF the
opinion that the Judgment appealed from
should be affirmed, and Judges McFar-
land, DeHaven and Fitzgerald so or
dered.
The court has also rendered a decision
in the case OF Alvis Wetzel (respondent
VS.. Z. e. Webb (appellant), a Siskiyou
case, involving chattel mortgage on a
growing crop of grain, situated on the
land ot man named Jones, which Wet
eel held. " hen the grain was stacked
Webb threshed it and converted it 10 his
own use.
An action was brought to recover dam
ages to the amount OF Wetzels lien, and
Judgment for him was given ana ap-
pealed from.
Webb claimed the grain by virtue of an
oral agreement that it should be paid to
him as interest on purchase money OF the
land by Jones.
The evidence showed that when the
mortgage was given by Jones to Wetzel
Jones was in possession of the crop, and
judgment was given to Wetzel.
The court affirms the judgment, Ga
ROUTE deciding and Harrison and Beatty
concurring.