The San Francisco call., 1896-06-10
SACRAMENTO MAY PAY,
The Supreme Court Decides That
City Bonds Must Be
Redeemed.
Interest on Overdue Securities, From
the Date of Maturity, Must
Also Be Settled.

The Supreme Court has decided that the
city OF Sacramento must pay the principal
on its overdue bonds, with interest there
on, from the date of maturity.
w. S. Kendall made application for a
writ of mandate to compel James NJ. Por-
ter, Treasurer of the city OF Sacramento,
to pay him principal and interest on bonds
in his possession. A demurrer to the peti-
ton was sustained by the trial court and
Judgment entered against the plaintiff
The decision of the Supreme Court is:
Section 81 of the act of April %, 1858, au-
thorizes the city of Sacramento to issue bonds
not exceeding the sum of 81 500, 900, bearing
interest a the rate of per cent per annum
from the first day of January, 1859 and pay
able at the Office of the Treasurer. The
interest on said bonds shall be payable at the
Office of the Treasurer on the first day of Janu-
ary of each year. Section 3S provides:
The annual interest and principal OF all bonds
issued for claims against said city shall be paid
from the interest and sinking fund provided
for by this act.
Thus it is specifically declared that the bonds
shall bear interest; that the interest shall be
payable annually from the date of their issu-
ance, and that the interest shall be made a
charge upon and payable out of a fund created
by and designated in the act. There is no sug-
gestion or intimation that the interest is to
cease upon the maturity of the bond, and it is
q rule, general and well established, that in
terest-bearing coupon bonds continue TO bear
Interest after their maturity. This is
but the application of the general statutory
rule allowing interest for the detention of
money due, and there can be discerned IN this
no hardship upon the city.
The Treasurer is specially charged with the
duty of paying the interest. If he can make q
valid and sufficient showing why that interest
should not be paid he may make it in his re-
turn, but as IL is made the explicit
duty of the Treasurer to pay the interest upon
these bonds as it becomes due, mandamus NAV
be employed to compel him to perform that
duty.
1t follows, therefore, that the demurrer was
improperly sustained. The judgment is re-
Yersed and the cause remanded with direc-
tions to the trial court to overrule the de-
murrer to the petition with leave to the Treas
urer to make his answer or return thereto.
The decision is signed by Justices Hen
shaw, Temple, Harrison and Garoutte
Justices Mcfarland and Van Fleet file a
dissenting opinion which says:
The rights of the appellant are not those of a
general creditor, and he could not recover
upon his bonds judgment against the city
for single dollar. The bonds were accented
under q statute which provides that the city
shall not be sued in any action whatever D
= We think that in the case at bar the major
fly opinion treats this proceeding as an action
against the city by general creditor to re-
cover Judgment for interest on overdue bonds
In that view, however, appellant could not re-
cover either the principal or interest of his
bonds, for both would be barred by the Statute
OF limitations.