The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-03-09

out sufficient success 10 make 1t neces-
sary to set forth the contents of the
statute. The certificates for balances
not represented by bonds .'.constituting
West Nirginia's share of the old debt"
stated thta tch balance was TO the &C
counted for by the State OF West Vir-
ginia without recourse upon this Com :
monWeal tn"
passed which led to a settlement de-
scribed In the bill as final and salts
factory. This provided for tho issue OF
bonds for Sl9,U00.U00. in exchange for
S2s,Oo0,000 outstanding, not funded. the
new bonds bearing interest at per
cent. for the first ten years, and per
cent. for ninety years; and certificates
in form sin, Jar TO that just stated, ~
the act OF 1882. On March s. 1894. a
joint resolution of the Senate and
House Of Delegates was passed. re-
citing the passage OF the four above
mentioned statutes. the provisions for
certificates, and the satisfactory ad
justment of the liabilities assumed by
Virginia, oil account OF two thirds o t
the debt. and appointing a committe Q
to negotiate With West Virginia. when
satisfied that majority OF the certt-
ticate holders desired 1t. and would ac-
cept the amount to he paid by West
Virginia in full settlement of the one
third that Virginia had not assumed.
The State was TO be subjected to no
expense. Finally an act OF March 8,
receive and take on deposit the ccrti-
ficatcs, upon 4 contract that the certi :
ilcate holders would accept the amount
realized from West Virginia In iull
settlement Of all their claims under
the same. ltalso authorized a suit II
certain proportions OF the certificates
should be so deposited, as since then
they have bcen-the State, as before.
TO be subjected to no expense.
On January 9. 1906. the commission
reported that apart from certificates
held by the state and not entering into
this account, there We're outstanding
OF the certiiicates Of 1871 in the hands
OF the public, ST., 103,i6l.T9, s We have
said. of which the commission held
S1O.S5I.2a4.03. and OF other certifica ties
there Were in the hands OF the public
$2,T1S,239.S0. OF which the commission
held so,322, l41.S.
argument is pressed that Virginia l.lS
discharged Eceself OF all liability IS
% one third OF the aebt; tbat. there
fore. She is without interest in ,i:i+
slit and cannot maintain il on he.'
own behalf. hat she cannot maintain
il as trustee or the certificate holders.
New, tIanpshire VS.. Loui siana, 0S l.. ;.
76 and that the bill is multifarious in
attempting to unite claims made BY
the nlaintiff q such trustee with some
others set ZIP under the Wheeling or
dinancc. etc, which in the view we
take ii, has not been necessary to men
ton or discuss. We shall assume II to
be true for the purposes Of our decision,
Grecnhow VS. NashOn, 81 Va. $40. 34..
3i3, that the. certificate holders who
have turned in their certificates, being
r.uch the greater number as mas been
seen by doing SO, if not before. sur
rendered all claims under the original
bonds or otherwise against Virginia
TO the extent Of one third OF the DEBT
But even on that occasion the argu-
ment seems to us unsoind.
The liability Of West Virginia IS q
dcrp seated equity. not discharged BY
changes in the form or the dcht. nor
split IN by the unilntcrai ATTEMPT Of
Virginia, to apportion spectre parts TO
the TWO states { onc-third OF the
q, ht ,scrc discharged in fact. TO all
intents We perceive no reason. IN VIVA
has happened why West virginia
should not contribute her proportion Of
the reniaininc tWo-thirdS. But we arc
OF opinion that no part OF the debt is
distinguished, and further that notii :.
ing has happened to bring the rule Of
Ecw Hampshire IS. Louisiana into play.
For even If Virginia is not liable she
bear an equitable share OF the whole
debt. IA contract in the performance OF
wllcn the honor and credit Of Nirt;inia
is concerned, and which she does not
lose her right 10 insist upon by her
creditors accepting from necessity the
performance ot her .stimatcd duty as
conhnlng their claims for the residue
10 the party eQnitahly bound. Her
creditors never could have sued her e
the supposed discharge haG not been
granted. and the discharge does not
diminish nor interest aud right In have
the wnhlc dcnt paid hy the help Of tho
dofcndan. The suit Is in Nirginia's
own interest, none the less tina, She is
tn turn over the proceeds, Sc. United
states vs. Isccbe III L. s. SaS, so.
tinted States rs. Nashville. C'hatta-
noogn and ST Louis hallway Co,
lis l.. s. 100. ic5. les. Moreover, even
In private litigation !; has been Held
that aFtruStec may recover 10 the ca
tent or the interest Of His ccstmi Que
trust. IAoyhs vs. Etarrcr, 10 CHI y,
300. 500 SIS. Lamb Us. Vice. NJ & w,
49,, AZ. We may add that in all its
aspects IL is a suit on the contract,
and il is most proper that the whole
matter should be disposed OF AT once,
1t remains TRUE then, notwithstand-
ing al the transactions between the
old commonwealth and her bond