Stephen Johnson Field

Name: Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court
Author: Stephen Johnson Field

Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Stephen Johnson Field. It explores elements such as coupons, bonds and State.

Quotes from Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court (Stephen Johnson Field)

Stephen Johnson Field, Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court

“ Whatever may be the wise rule-looking at the necessity in a commercial country for its prosperity that its public credit should never be impaired-as to the taxability of the public securities, it is settled that any tax levied upon them cannot be withheld from the interest payable thereon. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court

“ It is enough for our jurisdiction that the judgment is by the highest tribunal of the State in which a decision could be had in the suit. When such a judgment is brought before us for review, involving in its rendition a decision upon a Federal question, we do not look beyond the action of that court. It is enough that we have its final judgment in the case, whether it be one of original jurisdiction or heard by it in the exercise of its own appellate power over the inferior courts of the State.
We proceed, therefore, to consider the legislation of the State upon her indebtedness. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court

“ The judgment denying the writ of mandamus was a final determination against the claim of the petitioner to have the coupons held by him received for taxes without a deduction from their face value of the amount of the tax levied on the bonds. A mandamus in cases of this kind is no longer regarded in this country as a mere prerogative writ. It is nothing more than an ordinary proceeding or action in which the performance of a specific duty, by which the rights of the petitioner are affected, is sought to be enforced. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court

“ And surely it is not necessary to argue that an act which requires the holder of one contract to pay the taxes levied upon another contract held by a stranger cannot be sustained. Such an act is not a legitimate exercise of the taxing power: it undertakes to impose upon one the burden which should fall, if at all, upon another.
The Funding Act stipulated that the coupons should be receivable for all taxes and dues to the State, that is, for taxes and dues owing by the holders of the coupons, and for their full amount ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court

“ It appears from the statutes to which we are referred-and we know the fact as a matter of public history-that prior to the late civil war Virginia had become largely indebted for moneys borrowed to construct public works in the State. The moneys were obtained upon her bonds, which were issued to an amount exceeding $30,000,000. Being the obligations of a State of large wealth, which never allowed its fidelity to its promises to be questioned anywhere, the bonds found a ready sale in the markets of the country. Until the civil war, the interest on them was regularly and promptly paid. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court

“ The Constitution of Virginia of 1870 declar d that the General Assembly should 'provide by law for adjusting with the State of West Virginia the proportion of the public debt of Virginia proper to be borne by the States of Virginia and West Virginia,' and should 'provide that such sums as shall be received from West Virginia shall be applied to the payment of the public debt of the State.' Art. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court

“ Coupons for different instalments of interest are usually attached to such bonds in the expectation that they will be paid as they mature, however distant the period fixed for the payment of the principal. These coupons, when severed from the bonds, are negotiable and pass by delivery. They then cease to be incidents of the bonds, and become in fact independent claims; they do not lose their validity if for any cause the bonds are cancelled or paid before maturity, nor their negotiable character, nor their ability to support separate actions. ”

Stephen Johnson Field

Summary

Quotes from Hartman v. Greenhow — Opinion of the Court (Stephen Johnson Field)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature