Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-10-11
Judge Simonton DlssolVss the Parsons
lnjunctiOns Against City TreasurerS.
COMPLAINANT SUFFERED NO WRONG.
Tho Virginia OniciaIs. Therefore, "aso
Nothing TO DO With His Contracts
Circuit Court OF appeals.

{nfunctions restraining the ueasuteis Vi
"a. cities of Richmond, Petersburg. ana
Norfolk from refusing TO receipt Tor cou-
pons rendered for taxes.
The point raised by the complainant
was that the defendant treasurers by
,belr refusal 10 give receipts as above
stated interfercd with his complying with
a contract.
Judce Slmonton heard the cases-or
rather the case against Slaughter. Trea-
surer Of Petersburg. which was made
,est-on the question Of perpetuating the
,niunctions and the argument was by
n +. Maury and Ex-Governor Chamber
lain. Of South Carolina for the complain
ami and Attorney General Scott for the
Commonwealth.
VALID OBLIGATIONS.
Judge Simonton's opinion makes con-
else statements OF the facts, presents
The result Of cOupon-litigatOn. as stated
by the United States Supreme Court IN
the McGahey cases, and concludes "s
follows.
II can no longer. therefore. be said that
these coupons are not valid Obligations VI
the state OF Virginia, receivable Tor 'aN's
and dues To her. and II Is equaiiY '''"i
thai when taxpayer OF that Sla'e ''"-
drrs these coupons in payment OF tdN'a
1, bv him. and preserves this attitude,
so as to make good his tender at any ana
ali times. he will thcnceforth. in law ana
N fact. be considered 10 have pald inc
taxes. and will be protected in person anu
property from any effort on the part %
any Sxate officer to enforce the tax lHI'
Is 10 say. the tender must either be maze
IN person or by authority OF the TAX -pa?oI
for taxes due by him. The proteolIo"
given by the court is given TO the TAX
paver. II will be observed that TINS nio-
ioction in of n distinctive character. men
toa tax-paver has made his tender pro-
ducing his coupons. he has fulhlled an
that Is REQUIRED of him. and In law 'he
fax is paid. He has nothing more 10 90
cxcept 10 keep his coupons ready LOT ue-
livery. IT, after this, any step be taken
looking to the issue Of tax execution OF
distress warrant. or Of beginning OF SUIT
against him or his property to collect
the tax, upon reporting ms case 10 Nic
court it will restrain such act.
CAN He GO FARTHER?
IAN he go farther than this? VIII
bin lie 10 compel the Treasurer To re-
i've coupons. that is 10 say. speclilcaliy
TO perform the contract set forth in them
II is not the contract OF the Treasurer; IL
and the only reason why it Is presented
To him for performance is that h is an
officer of the state of Virginia. such
hU would be- in fact, one TO compel the
state 10 perform it, contract, and such
4. bill would not lie in this court
Whether a suit against the officers Of
a state u.s. or Is not. "a SUIT against the
State itself. is question when mas long
weed the Suprem" Court of the United
states. The question Is ably ana eapo-
rafelv discussed hv that court In PEN
rov.r against McConnaughy. 40 |. :.
nag, ]. Mr. Justice Lamar delivering the
opinion His analysis of the decisions
and his conclusion as 10 the result on
tb.n have been reviewed and confirmed
in Reasan against Farmers Loan and
Trust Company. ia L. 5, SSS.
MAKES \ DISTINCTION.
This case seems TO make this distinc-
tion: That when State officer commits
some overt act wrongful In its character
20 the rights and property OF a citizen.
he takes upOr himself the responsibility
Of the act and cannot justify II by the
authority Of the state under color OF an
unconstitutional statute But if II be
suit not to restrain him from acting.
bu, - make him do an act for the state,
which the state could be made To do were
she suable, then the suit is really against
the State So. If this were SUIT by
taxpayer who had rendered coupons for
his taxes and now asked this court, in
aid Of the COntrac in the coupon, 10
compel the Treasurer to give him re-
clint In full therefor. the suit would not
be one restraining the Treasurer from an
act OF trespass upon his property, threat
en-l or committed, but would be pro-
ceeding seeking the specific performance
by him of "a contract made by his prin-
cipal with the taxpayer which aid this
court could not grant. The language of
Mr.. Justice Bradley in the Virginia cou-
non cases ia L. $. 1876, is not inappli-
cable:
But then it will be asked, Has the
citizen no redress against the unconstitC-
tional acts or laws Of State? Certainly
he has There is no difficulty on the
subject. Whenever his life, liberty, or
property is threatened, assailed, or IN
yaded by unconstitutional acts. or by
any attempt 10 execute unconstitutional
laws. he may defend himself in any
proper way by habeas corpus, by defence
10 prosecutions. by actions brought on his
behalf by injunction. by mandamus. Any
one of these methods OF redress suitable
10 his case is open 10 him. a citizen can
not in any way be harassed, injured, or
out having some legal means Of resistance
or redress But this is where the State
or its officers move against him. The
right to all these means OF protection
and redress against unconstitutional OPP
preston and exaction is a very different
Thing from the right to coerce State
into a fulfilm mt of its contracts. The
one is an indefeasible right, right which
cannot b. taken away; the other is never
mot
ceded by the State. and If conceded may
he conceded on such terms as the State
chooses TO impose"
NOT A TAXPAYER.
Is the complainant in a better position
than the taxpayer He is not a tax
payer. and no property OF his Is liable
for taxes or is exposed TO any mode of
attack. His case is this: He has made a
contract with. the taxpayers that he
will tender his coupons in payment Of
their taxes, and that when he presents
10 each of them receipt in fun Of his
tax then. ana not before, the taxpayer
will pay him for the coupons so used.
This contract iray be either a sale OF the
coupons to the taxpayer, taking effect
at the time of the tender. the price pay
able upon the delivery Of the receipted
taX-bll; or IL may be sale Of the cou-
Of the delivery OF the receipted tax-bill.
IN EITHER EVENT.
If il be the first and the property in
the coupons passed 10 the taxpayer at
the date Of the tender, then the complain
ant. parting with the coupons. lost all
OF his interest In the contrtct, and cannot
complain that il was not performed.
Marye vs.. Parsons IA L. S., 329) IL,
however. under the contract he was 10
remain the Owrer Of the coupons and In
control of them up TO and until the de-
livery of the tax-bill receipted. then he
has 10 standing in this court; for, lit is
oLly when IN the hands Of taxpayers
or other debtors coupons are receivable
for taxes ami debts due the State" Nir-
ginia Coupon Cases. ia L. S. S29)
THE WRONG no THE PRINCIPAL.
1t has been earnestly urged that the
act Of the complainant In making tender
for all OF these taxpayers. was lawful
act. OF this there can be 10 doubt. Ben
nett against Hunter. 9 Wal. 1861 Any one
can tender or pay the tax Of another;
aud If. either by act or acquiescence. the
nder IL ratified or the payment itself is
bod. the person rendering the payment