The record-union., 1898-02-15

cess whatever either mesne or final"
CSection L.
If in any year there remained in the
fund after paying the annual interest
surplus amounting to Sl,OOO II was
made the duty of the Treasurer to ad-
vertise for the surrender Of bonds, and
to redeem those that were offered at
the lowest rate not exceeding par. (Sec-
ton 49,
Such being the provisions Of the
statute and the bonds having been Is
sued in strict conformity thereto II is
apparent-as has been many times de-
cided by this and other courts-tnat
the rights of the bondholders are not
the same as those of holders of ordinary
coupon bonds. These rights are, on
the contrary, strictly measured by the
terms of this statute, and they can
claim nothing under general provisions
of law inconsistent with 1t. They are
to be paid certainly, but they are TO
be paid only in the manner and in the
order as in this Act provided. 1t con-
tains the terms offered to the creditors
of the city. They accepted those terms
and thereby contracted to be bound by
them
AS remarked by Judge Sawyer in
Kennedy VS.. Sacramento 90 Sawyer,
32): THE parties who surrendered their
prior evidence of indebtedness, and took
these bonds took them under the provis-
ions Of this Act which was a contract
made between the city and them that
the bonds should be collected only in
that particular mode, and no other; that
there should be no other remedy for
them-that the city should not be sued.
The advantages which they obtained
are subject to the provisions made for
their payment, to the limitation put
upon their remedy. The advantage TO
the city was that it should not be
harassed by any other kind of suit; an
extension of time for payment, and the
reduction of the rate Of interest. The
advantage to the holders was the spec
ific, certain and permanent provision
made for prompt payment in the fu-
ture'
That was an action by the holder of
overdue coupons detached from bonds
issued under the Act of 1858 in which
h sought to recover judgment against
the city. The opinion of Judge Saw
yer implicitly concedes-what indeed
could not be denied-that the action
would have been well brought if these
bonds had been of the ordinary char
acter but he held that by reason of the
peculiar provisions of the statute no
action against the city could be main
tanned and that the only remedy of
the creditor was mandamus against the
Treasurer to compel him to pay any
money there might be in the sinking
fund
Besides this decision of the Circuit
Court there have been numerous decls-
ions of this court, all based upon the
fundamental proposition that the Act
of 1858 embodies the contract between
the City of Sacramento and the bond
holders (F'reehill VS.. Chamberlain, To
Cal, 603; Meyer VS.. Brown, TO Cal,
$50: Davis VS.. Porter, 66 Cal, 65S:
Bates VS. Porter, "A CAL. 224; Bates
VS.. Gerber, 50 Cal, $50; Davis VS.. Sac
ramento, 50 Cal, 1922
In F'reehiH VS.. Chamberlain, which
was mandamus to compel the Treasur-
er to pay coupons more than four years
past due, the statute of limitations was
interposed as a defense, but it was
held that since the city could not be
sued upon the coupons the statute did
not begin to run until the money appli-
cable to the payment of the coupons
was in the sinking fund, the implicit
concession being that the coupons
would have been barred if there had
been any general obligation resting
upon the city to pay.
Davis VS. Porter, GO Cal, 65S, was
mandamus to compel the Treasurer to
pay overdue coupons with interest
thereon.
The court did not in that case hold
as enormously assumed on the farmer
hearing Of this case-that the coupons
did not bear interest after maturity.
On the contrary it was expressly con-
ceded for the purposes of the decision
that the plaintiff was entitled to in
terest on the coupons after maturity.
and the decision went altogether upon
the ground that whether the city was
or was not liable for interest, ii was
at all events not the duty of the Treas
urer 10 pay anything more than the
face of the coupons out of the interest
and sinking fund.
The principle of the decision, clearly
deducible from the whole opinion Of
Justice Thornton and the authorities
cited is that the only legal duty of the
Treasurer enforceable by mandamus is
to pay the principal OF the written OBJ
legations of the city in the order of
their maturity and presentation, and
that the right Of the bondholders to in
terest after maturity-conceding its ex-
istence-imposed no additional duty
on the Treasurer. And if this is true
with respect to the coupons it must be
equally true with respect to the bonds
themselves. for both by the general law