Court Opinion

ID: 9807813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:16:34.100533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:58:19.593667
License: Public Domain

Walker, J.,
dissenting: While I always hesitate to disagree with my brethren, it seems so very plain to me that the question which the parties intended to raise in the case is clearly presented for decision, and that the case agreed has been submitted to us in good faith, that I am compelled to enter my dissent. The bonds were offered for sale upon the distinct understanding and agreement that they would be nontaxable, and this, it is expressly stated, was an inducement to the making of the contract of sale, and a part of the consideration. In other words, the parties have substantially agreed that the defendant would *257not have purchased the bonds if they are taxable under the laws of this State — and for a very good reason, which is, that the supposed exemption from taxation related to the value of the bonds as commercial securities, and the price agreed to be paid was based upon the understanding of the parties, at the time of the sale, that they would be untaxable while held by the defendant, who did not buy them for the purpose of speculation or with the intention of reselling them, but as a permanent investment. IIow it can be said that this is a feigned issue — a mere fishing for the opinion of the Court, or “a case made to order”— I confess my inability to understand. Every term of the Court we pass upon questions of title, where the parties, at'the time of making their contracts, know of the alleged defect in the title and make the contracts with a view of obtaining the opinion of this Court as to the validity of the title. In those cases they are unable to decide as to the law, as the parties are unable to do in this case, without the aid of this Court. The question involved in those cases may have related to the validity of a lien, as, for example, a lien for taxes assessed upon land. In order to determine whether the vendee should be required to take the land and pay the purchase money, would we hesitate to pass upon the question as to the validity of the tax, or its effect as a lien upon the land? Of course not. But it is said that this is an important matter, in which the State has a vital interest. Admit this to be true: the State is not bound by our decision, and, besides, we decide many cases here which may indirectly and vitally affect the interest's of the State and also of individuals, but they cannot be said, for that reason, to be necessary, or even proper parties. They are affected by our decision only as a precedent, and not as an adjudication against them. Suppose the question presented in this case had been whether or not the bonds were valid, would we deny to the parties a hearing and a decision ? It would seem that such a course would be contrary to all precedent., and the State would no more be a necessary or proper party than would a person non compos mentis, who had executed a bond, be a necessary party in a suit strictly between third parties, if its validity, on account of his incapacity, were assailed. If we would decide a case as to the validity of the bonds, why not a case involving a question which affects their value, and was considered by the parties, according to the case agreed, in fixing the price? I express no opinion upon the merits of the case, but I do think that the parties are entitled to a decision from us upon the question they have stated in their case agreed.