Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1911-03-18

argument is pressed that Virginia has
discharged herself Of all liability as to
one-third CT the debt; that, therefore,
she is without interest II. this suit.
and cannot maintain it on her own
behalf; that she cannot maintain it
as trustee for the certificate holders.
New Hampshire VS.. Louisiana, Jos IT,
s rs; and that the bill is muItifarious
in attempting to unite claims made by
the plaintiff as such trustee with
| some others set up under the Wheel
ing ordinance. &C, which, in the view
we take, it has not been necessary to
mention or discuss. We shalt assume
it to be true for the purposes of cur
| decision, although it may be open TO
debate, Greenhow vs.. Vashoa. 81 a.
336, 342, 343. that the certificate hold
ers who have turned in their certi-
| ficates. being much the greater num-
Der, as has been seen, by doing So II
| not before, surrendered all claims UNI
der the original bonds or otherwise
against Virginia to the extent of one
| bhAN VI luf 0f7Uls AeuA even DH llb0L
concession the argument seems TO Hs
unsound.
The liability OF West Virginia is
deep-seated equity, not discharged by
changes in the form of the debt, nor
split up by the unilateral attempt of
Virginia to apportion specific parts to
the two States. II one-third Of the
debt were discharged in fact, to all
intents, we perceive no reason in
what has happened, why West Vir-
ginia should not contribute her pro-
portion to the remaining two-thirds.
But we are of opinion that no part
of the debt is extinguished, and fur.
Their, that nothing has happened to
bring the rule of New HAMPSHIRE VS.
Louisiana into play For even if Vir-
ginia is not liable she has the CON
tract of West Virginia to bear an |
equitable share of the whole debt. |
contract in the performance of which |
the homer and credit of Virginia is |
concerned, and which she does not |
lose her right to insist upon by her
creditors accepting from necessity |
the performance of her estimated |
duty as ccnfining their claims for the
residue to the party equitably bound.
Her creditors never could have sued
her if the supposed discharge had not
been granted, and the discharge does
not diminish her interest and right |
to have the whole debt paid by the
help Of the defndant The suit is in
Virginia's own interest, none the less
that she is to turn over the proceeds.
See United States VS.. Beebe, 127 U.
S. 33S, 342. United States VS. Nash
vile, Chattanooga & st. Louis Ry. Co,
rs U. S. 100, 1875, 1876 Moreover,
even in private litigation it has been
held that a trusee may recover to the
extent of the interest OF his cestu
que trust. Lloyd's vs. Harper, 16 Oh.
d 290, 300, 315. Lamb VS.. Vice, M
g. W., 467, 472. We may add that in
all its aspects it is suit on the con-
tract and it is most proper that the
whole matter should be disposed of
at once.
1t remains true then. notwithstand-
ing all the transactions between the
old Commonwealth and her bondhOld-
ers. that West Virginia must bear her
equitable proportion of the whole
debt. With a qualification which we
shall mention in a moment. We are
of opinion that the nearest approach
to justice that we can make is to
adopt a ratio determined by the mas
ter's estimated valuation of the real
and personal property of the two
States on the date OF the separation,
June 90 1868. A ratio determined
by population or land area would
throw larger share on West Vir-
ginia, but the relative resources OF
the debtor populations are generally |
recognized, we think, as affording
proper measure. 1t seems to us plain
that slaves should be excluded from
the valuation. The masters figures
without them are, for Virginia $500
SS7,36774, and for West Virginia $92,-
416, 02165. These figures are criti-
cised by Virginia, but we see no suf-
ficient reason for going behind them,
or ground for thinking that we can |
get nearer TO justice in any other way.
IL seems to us that Virginia cannot
complain of the result. They would |
give the proportion in which the $780,
S97,073.S2 was to be divided, but for |
a correction which Virginia has made |
necessary. Virginia with the consent |
of her creditors has cut down her IL |
ability to not more than two-thirds |
of the debt whereas at the ratio |
shown by the figures her share, sub !
ject to mathematical correction, is
about 1861. II our figures are correct, |
the difference between Virginia's |
share, say s25,931 ,261 A, and the
amount that the creditors were eon-
tent to accept from her, say S22.
sos, O49.21 is 1888, 21226; subtract |
ing the last sum from the debt leaves
$30y563 ,S61,56 as the sum to be APP