Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1894-10-06
The Coupon Case.

The Parsons coupon case, mention Of
which was made several days ago. was
argued before Judge Simonton, of the
United States Circuit Court in Rich.
mond yesterday by Messrs. Mann and
Maury, attorneys for the plaintiff, and
by Attorney General Scott for the Com.
monwealth. Edward Parsons, the com.
plainant, in his bill AYERS that he owns
$4,000 of tax-receivable coupons cut
from Virginia State bonds, all of which
are genuine and past due; that he has
made contract with several hundred
Virginia taxpayers to pay their taxes
for them in coupons, and that the tax.
payers have agreed to pay him for 50
doing upon the delivery to them before
November 20 of their bills duly recent.
ed, and that this contract is worth 10
the plaintiff $4,000 and more: that
unless compliments tender is recoc.
nized by the treasurers of Norfolk
Richmond and Petersburg as payment
of taxes, and the tax bills receipted and
delivered to complainant, his and their
rights can only he settled by costly liti.
CATION; that the treasurers aforesaid
have recognized the tender. but have
refused to deliver the tax bills recent
ed that this refusal is unlawful and
thereby many taxpayers are deferred
from making similar contracts with
complainant, whereupon he prays re.
lief from the court and temporary in.
junction in each case has issued.
The Attorney General for the several
defendants moved the court to dissolve
the temporary injunction and to dismiss
the bills, and submitted the following
points in demurrer:
First-The bill has not proper parties.
The coupon contract is the contract of
the State of Virginia, but no process
has issued or was asked against her.
This is fatal defect.
Second-The compliments demand
is conceded, as he states it is without
any element OF pretum affections, for
which he has legal remedy.
Third-Complainant's bill is multi
farious and argumentative.
Fourth-The contract evidenced by
the coupons is not the contract aud
does not bind the State of Virginia.
Fifth-The coupons taX.receivablo
quality was bestowed by repealable
statute and this law has been repealed.
Sixth-The coupon contract was
made by statute of Virginia, and this
statute has twice been construed BY the
Court of Appeals.
Seventh-Edward Parsons is not
taxpayer OF Virginia, and the contract
rights of the coupon can only be en-
forced by the taxpayers of Virginia.
Eighth-The contract alleged to have
been made with the taxpayers of the
cities of Petersburg, Norfolk and Rich
mond is destructive of Virginia's credit;
takes from her the means OF support,
is contrary to public policy and cham
pertous. The complainant is busy
body in other mems business, stirrer-
up of legal strife and barrator.
Ninth-The contract made with the
taxpayers resident in the cities Of Pc
tersburg, Richmond and Norfolk is not
supported by valuable considerationand
not based upon legal subject matter,
both necessary elements which must
coexist in all enforceable and valid con-
tracts.
Tenth-The complainant's bill de-
mands the specific execution of the cou-
pom contracts, contract made by the
State of Virginia to which the treasur-
ers of the cities of Petersburg, Norfolk
AMI Richmond are neither parties nor
privies. These suits, and each of them
in form, effects and facts, are suits
against the State of Virginia and are
prohibited and forbidden by the amend
ment to the federal constitution.
The judge took the case under ad-
visement. Ex-Governor Chamberlain,
of New York, but formerly Of South
Carolina, appeared with Col. Maury for
Parsons.