South Carolina v. Gaillard
Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
Parties | SOUTH CAROLINA v. GAILLARD |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina.
The facts of this case are as follows:——
In December, 1812, the State of South Carolina established a bank in the name and for the benefit of the State, and pledged the faith of the State to supply any deficiency in the funds specially set apart as its capital, and to make good any losses arising from such deficiency. The bank was authorized to issue notes and bills for circulation, and by sect. 16 it was provided 'that the bills or notes of the said corporation originally made payable, or which have become payable on demand in gold and silver coin, shall be receivable at the treasury of this State, either at Charleston or Columbia, and by all tax collectors, and other public officers in payment of taxes and other moneys due the State.' The original charter was extended from time to time, and the bank continued in successful operation until the late civil war. At the close of the war it stopped business, and in 1868 the charter was repealed and provision made for winding up its affairs. Under the operation of this law a large amount of the circulating notes was surrendered to the State and bonds of the State taken in exchange therefor. The time for presenting bills to be exchanged expired Jan. 1, 1869, and only such bills as were issued prior to Dec. 20, 1860, the date of the adoption of the ordinance of secession by South Carolina, could be presented at all. A considerable amount of bills issued before the repeal of the charter are still outstanding.
When the charter was granted mandamus was an existing remedy in the State for compelling public officers to perform their public duties, and in that way, under the practice which prevailed in the courts, tax collectors could have been required to receive the bills of the bank in payment of taxes.
On the 9th of June, 1877, the General Assembly of South Carolina passed an act entitled 'An Act to provide the mode of proving bills of the bank of the State tendered for taxes, and the rules of evidence applicable thereto.' Sect. 1 of that act is as follows:——
During the fiscal year commencing Nov. 1, 1877, and while this act was in force, William L. Trenholm, as executor, tendered the treasurer of Charleston County certain bills of the bank in payment of taxes charged against him. This tender being refused, the bills were enclosed in a package, sealed and signed by Trenholm and the treasurer, and deposited with the clerk of the court of common pleas of the county, he giving duplicate receipts therefor, to abide the decision of the court in any proceeding that might be instituted in regard to them. All this was done...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pen-Ken Gas & Oil Corp. v. Warfield Natural Gas Co.
...and if final relief has not been granted before the repeal went into effect, it cannot thereafter be granted. State of South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U.S. 433, 438, 25 L.Ed. 937. This rule has no application to the case at Under the plain terms of the Statute, the judgment of forfeiture wa......
-
Home Building Loan Ass v. Blaisdell
...U.S. 168, 24 L.Ed. 423; Terry v. Anderson, 95 U.S. 628, 24 L.Ed. 365; Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U.S. 69, 24 L.Ed. 610; South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U.S. 433, 25 L.Ed. 937; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102 U.S. 203, 26 L.Ed. 132; Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Cushman, 108 U.S. 51, 2 ......
-
Kemp v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc.
...2nd. Ed. 544, Sect. 284, 548 Sect. 284; Phil H. Pierce Co., v. Watkins, 114 Tex. 153, 263 S.W. 905; * * *South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U.S. 433, 25 L.Ed. 937; 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 223 p. 646; 6 R.CL. 309 Sect. 296.’ (Italics supplied.) The above quotation is set out with appro......
-
Kemp v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc.
......284, 548 Sect. 284; Phil H. Pierce Co.,. v. Watkins, 114 Tex. 153, 263 S.W. 905; * * * South Carolina. v. Gaillard, 101 U.S. 433, 25 L.Ed. 937; 16 C.J.S.,. Constitutional Law, § 223 p. 646; ......