? U. 8. A?um?t ?or Complainant. fore her dismemberment, who have deposited these bends with her. These certificates are in the nature of a declaration of trust by VirEi?'ni,? , that she holds said bends (so far as they have not been funded in the new securities which the Commonwealth has given for about two-thirds of the aggregate amount thereof, principal and interest), for the benefit of the ownere of the bonds deposi .t?i with her. Those transactions cannot in any way affect any question in the cause. The only function of those certifica tes is to show who are now entitled to the bonds which were so deposited with V'n?- ginia, and which she holds in her treasury for the benefit of these certificate holders, awaiting a settlement with West Vir- ?i?. These inquiries are unnece?ary and useless. The same objection applies to par. VI, defendant's draft. That relates to the obligations which were issued by Vir?nia? as now constituted, in settlement of the two-thirds of the old bonds funded, and payment of which w? assumed by her. That is a matter with which West Virginia has nothing to do, and which does not affect the fights or obligations of either party in respect to the claims asserted in complainant's bill. Those new bonds given by Vir?ni?, for the two-thirds of the old bonds assumed by her, and accepted. by the owners of the old bonds so deposited with Vir?'ni? operated as a pay- ment and discharge of the old bonds to the extent of the two- thirds thereof so funded. West V'wginia is not sued here to pay any part of that two- thirds so settled by Vir?ni?. She is sued to have her assume and pay so much of the remaining unfunded third of the com- mon debt of the undivided State, as may be West Virginia's equitable portion of the whole of the debt represented by the bonds of the original State. It has never been claimed or sug- gested that there was any liability on Wes? Virginia beyond said unfunded third of the bonds of the original State which have been funded; or that West Virgi?'nia sh0uki .pay more than
�
