Statement of the Case.

then, according to the theory of the order, the bill of complaint should be dismissed. But, even assuming the right of the court to make the order, as well as its validity, the circumstances under which the bill of complaint is to be dismissed or the relief granted to the complainants named therein, and the sum to be paid, are matters which are yet to be determined, which may turn out either one way or the other, and which, when ascertained, will be the foundation for a final decree. There is no final decree as the matter now stands.

The appeal is therefore dismissed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

DE SAUSSURE v. GAILLARD.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 205. Argued and Submitted April 4, 1888.

Decided April 30, 1888.

It appearing that, before reaching and deciding the federal question discussed here, the Supreme Court of South Carolina had already decided that the plaintiff's action could not be sustained according to the meaning of the provisions of the statute of that State under which it was brought, this court dismisses the writ of error for want of jurisdiction, under the well settled rule that, to give this court jurisdiction of a writ of error to a state court it must appear aífirmatively not only that a federal question was presented for decision to the highest court of the State having jurisdiction, but that its decision was necessary to the determination of the cause, and that it was actually decided, or that the judgment as rendered could not have been given without deciding it. When a State grants a right of remedy against itself, or against its officers in a case in which the proceeding is in fact against the State, it may attach whatever limitations and conditions it chooses to the remedy; and its own interpretation and application of its statutes on that subject, given by its own judicial tribunals, are conclusive upon the parties seeking the benefits of them.

THE Court stated the case as follows:

The complaint in this case filed in the Court of Common Pleas in the County of Charleston, South Carolina, alleged

Statement of the Case.

that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of three bonds of the State of South Carolina, two designated by the numbers 850 and 851, for $500 each, and one by the number 2290, for $1000; that thereby the State of South Carolina promised to pay to the bearers the sums therein named on the 1st day of July, 1893, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum payable semi-annually, on the 1st day of January and July of each year, on the presentation of the proper coupons thereto annexed bearing the signature of the State Treasurer, said coupons being receivable in payment of all taxes due the State during the year in which they mature, except for the tax levied for the public schools, the words following being indorsed on each of the said bonds, viz.: "The payment of the interest and the redemption of the principal of this bond is secured by the levy of an annual tax of two mills upon the entire taxable property of the State. The faith, credit, and funds of the State are hereby solemnly pledged for the punctual payment of the interest and redemption of the principal of this bond by the act of the General Assembly approved December 22d, 1873;" and upon each of said coupons was indorsed the following: "State of South Carolina. Receivable in payment of all taxes except school tax;" that the plaintiff became the holder for value of the three bonds mentioned in the year 1878, and of all the coupons thereto annexed, including the coupon which matured on each, respectively, on the 1st day of January, 1882; that notwithstanding the contract of the State expressed in the act of December 22, 1873, recited in said consolidation bonds, the General Assembly of South Carolina, by an act entitled "An act to raise supplies and make appropriations for the fiscal year commencing November 1st, 1881," approved February 9, 1882, has prohibited the county treasurers of the State from receiving the coupons of said bonds in payment of the taxes levied by the said act, which last mentioned act the plaintiff charges to be void as repugnant to article 1, section 10, of the Constitution of the United States, forbidding the States to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.

The complaint further alleges that the defendant is the

Statement of the Case.

county treasurer for Charleston County, whose duty it is to collect and receive the taxes due to the State of South Carolina upon the property situate in that county; that the plaintiff is the owner of property in said county upon which taxes were levied under the provisions of the act to raise supplies for the fiscal year commencing November 1, 1881, in the sum of $153.86, of which sum $29.34 were levied by the said act for the public schools; that on the 18th day of December, 1882, the plaintiff tendered to the defendant, as county treasurer, in payment of said taxes, $131.97 in cash, and the remainder, viz., $60, in the coupons of the said consolidated bonds Nos. 850, 851 and 2290, which matured on the 1st day of January, 1882; that the defendant wrongfully and illegally refused to receive the said coupons, and assigned as a reason therefor that he was forbidden so to do by the provisions of the said act; whereupon the plaintiff paid to the defendant, under protest, the sum of $191.97 in legal tender notes of the United States, in pursuance of the provisions of an act of the General Assembly of said State, approved the 24th of December, 1878, entitled "An act to facilitate the collection of taxes."

Plaintiff therefore demands judgment "that it be adjudged that the amount of sixty dollars in United States currency paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the eighteenth day of December, 1882, was wrongfully and illegally collected and ought to be refunded, and that a certificate of record thereof be issued accordingly to the plaintiff; that he have such further relief in the premises as the nature of the case may require and to the court may seem meet and proper."

The answer of the defendant set forth the history of the legislation of the State of South Carolina on the subject subsequent to the passage of the act of December 22, 1873, known as the consolidation act as follows:

"II. Defendant, further answering, alleges that subsequent to the passage of said act the General Assembly of the said State, by a 'Joint resolution to raise a commission to investigate the indebtedness of the State,' approved June 8, 1877, provided a commission to make a complete and thorough investigation of

Statement of the Case.

the entire amount of consolidated bonds and certificates of stock which had been issued under the 'consolidation act' aforesaid, and of the bonds, coupons, and certificates of stock which had been surrendered to the state treasurer in exchange for the consolidated bonds and certificates of stock issued under said act, and to report to the General Assembly any illegality or non-conformity to law in the issue of consolidated bonds and certificates of stock, and the grounds of the same, which commission is known as the bond commission.'

"That the said commission made a report to the General Assembly of the result of the investigation made by them under the joint resolution aforesaid, with schedules annexed showing the different classes of bonds and certificates of stock which had been surrendered in exchange for consolidated bonds and certificates of stock, Schedule 6 showing the consolidated bonds and certificates of stock which, in the judgment of the said commission, were not issued in accordance with law and were not authorized to be consolidated under the 'consolidation act.'

"And thereupon the General Assembly, by a 'Joint resolu tion providing a mode of ascertaining the debt of the State and of liquidating the same,' approved March 22, 1878, created a special court, known as the 'court of claims,' to hear and determine any case or cases made up or brought to test the validity of any of the consolidated bonds or certificates of stock or of any of the various classes of bonds or certificates of stock mentioned in the said report of the 'bond commission' as not issued in accordance with law.

"It was further-provided by the joint resolution aforesaid that there should be the same right of appeal from the said 'court of claims' to the Supreme Court of South Carolina as from the Circuit Courts of the said State, and with a right of appeal by writ of error or otherwise as provided by law to the Supreme Court of the United States.

"That said special court should have the same right to enter judgment, issue execution, punish for contempt, and enforce its mandates as was then possessed by the Circuit Courts of the State of South Carolina.

Statement of the Case.

"That the State should be represented in said special court by the attorney general and two associate counsel to be selected by the joint vote of the General Assembly.

"That the attorney general and his associates, with the consent of the creditors of the State, or so many of them as shall be necessary, might make up a case or cases to be heard and determined in said court, in which, if practicable, the State should be the defendant, to test the validity of the said consolidated bonds, coupons, and certificates of stock mentioned in Schedule 6 of the report of the 'bond commission,' bringing before the court the various classes of vouchers which it is stated in the said report impair the validity of the said consolidated bonds, coupons, or certificates of stock or any of them.

"The said joint resolution further provided for the levy for the current year of a tax sufficient to pay the coupons and interest orders maturing on the outstanding consolidated bonds and certificates of stock during the said fiscal year, the interest on the consolidated bonds and certificates of stock mentioned in Schedule 5 of the report of the 'bond commission' as subject to no valid objection to be paid, and the payment of the interest on the several classes of consolidated bonds and certificates of stock mentioned in Schedule 6 of said report whenever there should be a final adjudication as to the validity of the several classes of bonds and stocks in the manner therein provided, and none other.

"That in pursuance of the provisions of the said joint resolution, actions in which the State of South Carolina was the defendant were, with the consent of the attorney general and his associates, brought in the said 'court of claims' on coupons of the bonds of the various classes mentioned in Schedule 6 of the report of the 'bond commission.'

"That after trial and hearing of the said causes, the said 'court of claims' rendered judgment in favor of the State. "From the judgments of the court of claims,' in these several cases, appeals were taken to the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina, as provided in the joint resolution establishing the said court of claims.'