Gerber

Mandamus to compel the respondent, as treasurer of the city of Sacramento, to pay interest on overdue coupons of certain bonds of said city.

The court below sustained the demurrer to the complaint, and rendered judgment for the defendant thereon. The plaintiff appeals.

The precise question presented here was decided adversely to the appellant in Davis v. Porter, 66 Cal. 658 . On the authority of that case the judgment of the court below must be affirmed, not alone because it has been so decided by this court, but because it was correctly decided, for the reasons stated in the opinion.

In this case a demand was made on the treasurer for the payment of the annual interest provided for by the coupons, and interest on the amount due on such coupons from the time the same matured. The treasurer offered to pay the amount called for by the coupons, on delivery of such coupons to him, but declined to pay interest on the interest, or to pay any part of the indebtedness, unless the coupons were surrendered as fully paid and satisfied.

It is earnestly contended by the appellant that, conceding that mandamus would not lie to compel the treasurer to pay interest on the annual interest,…

I concur in the judgment. Even if these coupons bear interest after maturity, or after non-payment for want of funds at or after maturity (which is not conceded), the treasurer did all that he was required or authorized to do when he offered to pay the face of the coupons upon condition of their surrendei to him; and the condition was one which he was not only authorized, but which it was his duty, to impose.

The bond from which each coupon was severed, as well as the act under which it was issued, was a part of the contract made between the municipality and the person to whom the bond was issued, at the time it was issued, and all the conditions of that contract followed the bond, and every coupon attached to it, into whoseso *553 ever hands it might thereafter go. The act was a special one for the incorporation of a municipality, the funding of the indebtedness of its predecessors, for which it would be liable, and providing for the general government of the new municipality. It constituted the whole law of the state on the special subjects with which it dealt, and for which it provided, — taking those subjects out of the operation of all general laws which might otherwise have…

I concur in the judgment, for the reasons stated in the decision in Davis v. Porter, 66 Cal. 638 . In that case the main question presented in this case was fully argued by counsel, considered, and decided. I am of opinion that the decision there made was correct in every particular, aúz., that mandamus would not lie to command the payment of interest on the interest mentioned in the coupons. The prayer in the petition for the mandate herein is for a writ commanding the payment of both coupons and interest on them. It was properly refused, for the reason that, as asked for, it would include interest on coupons, which the court could not lawfully grant. The demand on the treasurer also included both coupons and interest on coupons. It was, therefore, proper to refuse the writ. (Price v. Riverside Land & I. Co., 56 Cal. 436 .) While it would have been error to refuse the writ for the payment of the coupons, it was not error to refuse it for the payment of coupons and interest on them.

*557 I am, however, of opinion that the holder of overdue coupons has the right to have, under the statute, as it has stood from the date of the first statute on the subject of interest enacted in…