The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-03-16
THE COURT OF APPEALS.
COUPON CONTRACTS PRONoONo@D
10 DE NULL And TOfD.
Very Important Decision for the state VI
virginia-The Lapghorne Case "oe'
Back 10 the Lower Court.

The case OF the Commonwealth asai"''
Mccullough. which came from the ="
cult Court Of Norfolk city. decided III
the Supreme Court Of Appeals yesterday
WAS Of decided interest 10 the lesai
fraternity and Of great importance ~
the State. II Is believed that 1t VIII
finally end all litigation growing out Oh
the Funding bill contract to receive cou-
pons in payment OF taxes. and makes
the recent settlement OF the public DEBT
complete.
II will be remembered that the con-
tract endorsed on the coupon. and de-
clared valid and binding on the State IN
the case Of Antoni VS. Wright. decldeu
i'm 1872. provided that it should be re
ceivablc at and after maturity for an
debts. dues. and demands due the state
This led TO the free use Of coupons
I'm the payment OF taxes. and the otatc
was driven to desperate straights 10
secure enough money to run the Govern
mont In 1854. as one means Of relief, the
Legislature specially prohibited the pay
ment of school taxes and liquor licenses
I'm commons. This law was vigorously as
saulted in the courts, as contrary 10 the
sweeping decision i'm AntOni VS.. Wright
but the Court Of Appeals and the Su-
prcme Court Of the United States in the
Nashion and Childrey cases held that III
sOfar as the coupon contract Wdue
coupons receivable for school taxes ana
liotor licenses il was unconstitutional
and void These decisions were made IN
/ 1850 and undoubtedly had an important
| hearing in bringing about the AlcOtt set
Element. But it soon became evident
that a small part Of the creditors mold
| inc bonds. with tax-receivable coupons at
tacbed. say 81 .32j 900. determined not 10
accent the settlement but 10 stay on the
/ outside and force their coupons into the
| Treasury for taxes other than school
taxes and liquor licenses.
In the meantime the counsel Tor the
! Sinking Fund Commissioners, in connec-
| ton with the Attorney-General, ralseu d
! now question a. TO the validity OF the
coupon contract. viz. that inasmucn as
the courts had decided that that contract
was ILLEGAL in part, that on the we'll
| known principle contract having an
Illegal consideration i'm part was ne
| cal and void I'm whole. in other Words
that vice or illegaiity being incorporated
i'm the contract rendered the whole NOid'
Su.iained he view.
THE Supreme Court OF Appeals on yes
tordav. hv The concurrence OF -FOUR
Judges for TO one against. sustained this
view. The practical result is 10 cut an
annual crop Of $l332o OF coupons Tor
the next twelve years that would b.
forced into the Treasury. besides about
81 10000 Of matured coupons outstand-
Ing According 20 a statement made by
Second Auditor Ryland. the decision
will save 10 the State Sl,2S9.l52, provided
these bonds and coupons are now funded
l frsIrr he
ion.
The state was represented by the
Attorney-Gcneral and Hon. Henry r.
Pollard, and the coupon-holders by
Messrs. Maury q Maury.
Back 10 the l. wer Court.
In the case OF Charles VI. Langhorne
VS. the Richmond Railway and Electric
Co. the Court of Appeals reversed
the Judgment Of the Circuit Court OF
the city Of Richmond. and remanded the
case for a new trial on its merits.
This action is for damages to the plain
! tiff by being thrown from car OF the
defendant. through alleged negligence OF
the driver, whereby the plaintiff has been
rendered a cripple. The damages We're
laid at $500 The defendant claimed
| that the party responsible was the Rich
mond Railway Company, and not the
Richmond city Railway Company OF
It's successor the Richmond Railway and
Electric Company. and that by virtue OF
sale made Of the franchises and proper
~ Of the Richmond Railway Company
under a second and third mortgage &c
tho defendants prior 10 the institution 81
this suit. and the adoption by the pur
chasers Of a new name. under the pro
visions Of chapter 81. OF the Code OF 1879
they dhe purchasers acquired the pro
pcrtv and franchises Of the Richmon'
Railway Company free from all liaoil
tiles except a first mortgage, when wa
assumed by the purchasers.
The court held that under the act o
the LEGISLATURE OF March %, 1860 which
authorized the city Of Richmond 10 IN
corporate street railways, such corpora
tions so incorporated were, by the term
Of the act, not subject TO the provision
of CHAPTER 81. Of the Code Of 1919. There
fore the purchasers I'm acting under tina
chapter failed TO create a new corpora
ton, but they. being the owners OF IN
old CORPORATION, applied TO the city an
obtained an extension of its charter, uil
, der which they are still operating IN
D road and this act of theirs results
revivor Of the Richmond Railway Com
many. and for this reason the defendant l
this cause is liable for its debts.
t, The court also decided that the sale
all the works and property Of corpora
ton contemplated by chapter Gl' OF u
3 Code Of lS49 which entitled purchase
p to declare itself a new corporation, II
] tends a sale OF all such works and pro
y perty, and not a sale Of mere equity
10 redemption.
y The Other Cases.
10 Walkers administrator vs.. Lewis lro'
u Circuit Court OF Pittsylvania county. a
% firmed.
g Morton vs.. Dillon, from Circuit Cou
< of Prince Edward county. Affirmed
S Whitelaw vs.. Sims from Circuit Cou
T. of Orange. Reversed.
city Of Roanoke vs. Harrison, fro
n Hastings Court Of city Of Roanoke. Il
" versed
Il Daniels VS. Wharton. from Circu
st Court Of Fauquier county. Affirmed.
s. Michael vs. Roanoke Machine Work
~ Rehearing denied.
ST Bell vs. Farmvillo and Powhatan RIA
So road COMPANY Put on privileged dock,