The claim for interest was equitable, as the county could not pay, according to the face of the warrant, but deferred payment. If not legal, still as the interest was a good, equitable claim, the Legislature might authorize the payment. (People v. Burr , 13 Cal. 351.)
The power of the Legislature to authorize a county to fund its indebtedness and postpone creditors, does not appear to be an open question. (Hunsaker v. Borden , 5 Cal. 290; McDonald v. Maddux , 11 Cal. 187.)
JUDGES: Sawyer, J.
OPINION
SAWYER, Judge
Section eighteen of the Act of 1861, authorizing Los Angeles County to fund its indebtedness, provides that no interest shall be paid on any warrant drawn on the County Treasurer after July 1, 1861.
In 1864 another Act was passed authorizing the further funding of the indebtedness of the county, which should accrue prior to July 1, 1864; and the Act provides that on all indebtedness entitled to be funded on that day, interest shall be allowed at the rate of ten per cent. per annum from the date of the protest of the same by the County Treasurer, to said July 1, 1864. This provision embraces warrants that were not to bear interest under the Act of 1861.
The only question made by the appellants is, that the provision authorizing interest to be allowed on those warrants, which, by the Act of 1861, bore no interest when the indebtedness was incurred, and the warrants drawn, is unconstitutional and void. The bonds to be issued were made payable in twenty years, with interest at only seven per cent. The county being unable to pay its warrants as they were issued, the postponement of the payment for a period of twenty years, at the low rate of seven per cent. per annum interest, would seem to be a sufficient consideration for allowing interest from the time of protest for non-payment till the time of funding. At all events, the postponement gave the holders an equitable claim to the allowance of interest which it was competent for the Legislature to recognize, and authorize to be paid. The principles announced in Blanding v. Burr , 13 Cal. 349; Contra Costa Co. v. Super. of Alameda Co. , 26 Cal. 649; and People v. Pacheco , 27 Cal. 176, are applicable to this case. Upon the authority of these cases the provisions of the Act complained of must be held to be constitutional.
Judgment affirmed.