88 U.S. 317 | SCOTUS | 1874
CHAMBERS COUNTY
v.
CLEWS.
Supreme Court of United States.
*321 Mr. R.T. Merrick, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. S.F. Rice, contra.
Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.
The special plea was demurred to specially, and the demurrer was sustained by the court. We have held many times, in relation to bonds of this character, that where the persons appointed by law to certify that the preliminary requisites have been complied with, do so certify, that their certificate is conclusive in favor of the holder who, on the strength of such certificate, pays his money for the bonds without notice of the defect or illegality.[*] We have never, however, held that such defect or irregularity could not be set up by the maker of the bonds where the suit upon them was brought by one who had not paid value for them, or who had notice of the defect or irregularity. In this lies the difficulty with the demurrer to the plea we are considering. The plea alleges in substance that no legal proposal was made to the county by the railroad in question. This proposal is undoubtedly a matter of substance. The statute authorizes a subscription and loan by the county only upon the basis of a proposition in writing, such as it prescribes. The proposition is a necessary preliminary without which there can be no legal action in issuing the bonds. Where a plea avers that there was no such proposition, and avers also that the plaintiffs are not bona fide holders of the bonds without notice, a case is stated in which the validity of the bonds cannot be sustained by any holding of this court.
While we think there was error in the judgment upon this plea, it seems to have been a harmless one. The defendants had another plea which covered the same ground. *322 In Chute v. Winegar,[*] we held that where a plea had been improperly stricken out, but no harm had resulted therefrom, that it was not cause for reversing the judgment.
The parties in this case went to trial on the plea of the general issue, without verification, and a jury was impanelled and sworn to try the issue as joined. The plaintiffs claimed to recover the amount of certain coupons "attached to ninety-three of the bonds of the said corporation." One of the bonds was set forth, purporting that the county of Chambers acknowledged its indebtedness for $1000 as therein stated, the same being recited to be one of a series of bonds issued by the said county of Chambers under authority and in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of Alabama.
To this complaint the defendant answered that it did not undertake and promise in manner and form as the plaintiffs had complained against it, and of this it put itself upon the country, and the plaintiff did the like. This issue involved everything that was involved in the special plea. Neither of them involved the factum of the bonds. The special plea did not purport to deny their execution, but assuming such execution by the professed agents of the county, alleged that it was without authority of law and that the bonds were void. The general issue did not involve it, as by the practice in Alabama the execution of a written instrument cannot be questioned unless the defendant by a sworn plea denies its execution.[]
Both pleas did involve the question of authority. When the plaintiffs alleged that certain persons for the county of Chambers had issued their bonds, that they were the bonds of the corporation, they thereby alleged that the persons issuing them had power and authority to act for the county in issuing them. When the defendant denied that in fact it undertook and promised, as the plaintiffs in their complaint alleged, but not denying that in form its bonds were issued, *323 it denied the authority of the persons who so professed to act in its behalf. The same issue in this respect was presented in the two pleas.
The issue of bonâ fides and notice was also presented by each of said pleas. The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they were the owners and holders of the bonds and coupons mentioned, "and that they were purchased by them for value before any of them fell due." This allegation was specifically denied in the special plea, where it was averred that the plaintiffs were not bonâ fide holders without notice. It was also denied by the general issue, which denied the purchase and holding entirely, as well as the purchase for value before maturity. In assumpsit any matter which shows that the plaintiff never had a cause of action may be proved under the general issue.[*]
The logical and orderly mode of a trial, where it was intended to investigate the issue we have been considering, would be this: To sustain their claim the plaintiffs produce the bonds and coupons. The execution not being put in issue, this establishes the plaintiff's case, and establishes presumptively that they are holders for value before maturity without notice.[] The defendant then produces such proof as it may possess that the plaintiffs were not holders for value, or that they received the coupons after maturity, or that they had notice of the defects alleged. If it establishes either of these points the question of authority in the agent is then open.
The question and the order of proof in these respects would be the same, whether the trial was had upon the general issue or upon the special plea. It seems quite clear that the judgment upon the demurrer to this plea worked no harm to the defendant.
From the evidence given on the trial it would appear that such was the understanding of the parties. This is shown by *324 what is said in the deposition of Mr. Clews, which was read without objection, and in what the defendant proved by Mr. Kennedy, the president of the railroad company.[*]
On the trial the plaintiffs produced the bonds and coupons and offered to read the same in evidence. To this the defendants objected, for the reason that there was no evidence that the bonds were authorized to be issued by the defendants, and that there was no evidence that the seal annexed was the seal of the probate judge, or of the defendants. We have already considered this point, and have shown that the objection was not valid for either of the reasons mentioned. There was no issue upon the execution of the bonds.
It was further objected that there was no revenue stamp upon the bonds, as required by the act of Congress. We have no knowledge whether there were stamps of any amount or to what amount upon these papers. The bill of exceptions is silent upon that point. Its assumption in an objection as a ground of objection is no evidence of the fact.[] The fact must appear by the record as an existing fact in the case. If the objector wishes the point to be passed upon by the appellate court, he must take care that the fact shall sufficiently appear in the record. We do not discuss the question farther.[]
The constitutionality of the act of the legislature authorizing the issue of these bonds has been examined by the Supreme Court of Alabama, and the act has been held to be valid.[§]
These decisions are binding upon us, and we see no occasion to controvert them.
Further evidence in relation to the proposal was offered by the defendant. The defendant's counsel was inquired of whether any other evidence was proposed in connection *325 therewith, meaning to inquire, as we understand, whether evidence of want of ownership or of good faith for value, or a knowledge of the defects alleged was intended to be offered. The question was answered in the negative, and the evidence was excluded. We think this ruling was right.
None of the objections are well taken, and the
JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.
NOTES
[*] Grand Chute v. Winegar, 15 Wallace, 355; Lynde v. The County, 16 Id. 6; Railroad v. Otoe, Ib. 667.
[*] 15 Wallace, 355.
[] Clay's Digest, 340, § 152; Sorrel v. Elmes, 6 Alabama, 706; Lazarus v. Shearer, 2 Id. 718.
[*] Sisson v. Willard, 25 Wendell, 373; Brown v. Littlefield, 11 Id. 467; Edson v. Weston, 7 Cowen, 278.
[] Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters, 1; Goodman v. Simonds, 20 Howard, 343, 365; Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wallace, 110.
[*] See supra, pp. 319, 320.
[] Railroad Company v. Gladmon, 15 Wallace, 401.
[] See, however, Pugh v. McCormick, 14 Wallace, 375.
[§] Selma and Gulf Railroad Company, 45 Alabama, 696; Lockhart v. City of Troy, and Commissioners Court of Limestone v. Rather, 48 Id.
