Reis v. State
Before: Dyke
Synopsis
State—Bonds—Inability—Appropriation.—Act of May S, 1852 (Stats. 1852, p. 59), provided for the issuance of bonds to pay the expense of military expeditions, such bonds to be payable out of funds appropriated for that purpose by Congress, with the condition that, if such appropriation was insufficient, the bonds would be a valid claim against the state. Congress, in 1845 (19 Stat. 576), appropriated an unapportioned amount intended to pay the military expenses of the state incurred under the act of May 3, 1852, and under prior acts, but such appropriation, while sufficient to cover the expense under the act referred to, was insufficient to pay the entire indebtedness for which it was appropriated, and interest coupons on such bonds held by plaintiff were unpaid. Held, that, the liability of the state being conditioned on the failure of Congress to make an appropriation sufficient to pay the bonds issued under that act, such appropriation being sufficient for that purpose, the state was not liable, though the appropriation was insufficient to cover another and prior indebtedness not mentioned in the act.
VAN DYKE, J. This action is founded upon interest coupons detached from bonds issued under the act of May 3, 1852 (Stats. 1852, p. 59). The act is entitled “An act authorizing the treasurer of the state to issue bonds for the payment of the expenses of the Mariposa, Second El Dorado, Utah, Los Angeles, Clear Lake, Klamath and Trinity and Monterey expeditions against the Indians.” The first section of the act reads as follows: “A sum not exceeding six hundred thousand dollars is hereby appropriated and set apart as an additional war fund, payable in ten years, out of any moneys which may be appropriated by Congress to defray the expenses incurred by the state of California, and interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum, in the suppression of Indian hostilities, or out of the proceeds of the sale of any public lands which may be donated or set aside by Congress for that purpose; and should no such appropriation or donation be made, or if an amount sufficient should not be appropriated or donated within the said ten years, then the bonds authorized to be issued by this act shall be good and valid claims against the state, and shall be paid out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay the expenses of the expeditions mentioned in this act.” The bonds issued under this act were in denominations of $100, $250, $500 and $1,000 each, payable in ten years from the date of said act, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum, said interest being represented by coupons attached to said bonds, each coupon representing one year’s interest. Said coupons were alike in general language, and differed only in number, amount and date of maturity. The coupons sued upon in this case were coupon No. 2, for $70, detached from bond 33, and coupons No. 3, for $70 each, detached from one hundred and eighty-one bonds, and coupons No. 4, for $70.each, detached from the same bonds, and coupons No. 5, for $46.66 each, detached from a" like number of bonds; amounting, in the aggregate, to the sum of $39,902.12. The claims were presented to and rejected by the state board of examiners in November, 1894. Findings and judgment went for the plaintiff in the court below, except as to coupons No. 3, detached from bonds numbered 3, 10, 11, [36012] and 13. In reference to these the court found in favor of the plea in bar, set up in the answer, of the judgment in the case of Sawyer v. Colgan, 102 Cal. 283, 36 Pac. 580, 834. One of the contentions on the part of the state on the appeal is that the state never became liable on the coupons in question, for the reason that within the time specified in the act in which the bonds were issued Congress did make an appropriation in an amount sufficient to discharge said bonds and accrued interest thereon. It being the duty of the general government to protect the state against Indian hostilities or insurrections, it was understood on all hands that Congress would provide for paying or reimbursing the state for expenses incurred in suppressing said Indian hostilities; and this appears upon the face of the act of the legislature in question. It declares that the bonds are payable out of any moneys which may be appropriated by Congress to defray the expenses incurred by the state in the suppression of said Indian hostilities, but, should no such appropriation be made, or if an amount sufficient should not be appropriated, within the ten years, then the bonds should be good and valid claims against the state. And Congress did make provision for paying such expenses incurred by the state. Section 9 of the act of Congress of August 5, 1854, making appropriations for the support of the army, reads as follows: “And be it further enacted that the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to examine into and ascertain the amount of expenses incurred and now actually paid by the state of California in the suppression of Indian hostilities within the said state prior to the first day of January, A. D. 1854, and that the amount of such expenses, when so ascertained, be paid into the treasury of said state: provided, that the sum so paid shall not exceed in amount the sum of $924,-259.65, which amount is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the treasury not otherwise appropriated”: 10 Stat. 576. At the time this act was introduced in Congress—in January, 1854—the amount therein specified was estimated to cover all the state’s liability, both principal and interest, incurred in suppressing Indian hostilities covered by the act of 1852, under which the present action is brought, and the act of 1851. But at the time the act passed, to wit, August 5, 1854, interest had accrued on the bonds issued under said acts of 1851 and 1852, so that the amount appropriated by
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)