Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Board of Com'rs of Hamilton County

• Decision Date: 01 March 1897
• Docket Number: 834.
• Citation: 79 F. 575
• Parties: AETNA LIFE INS. CO. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF HAMILTON COUNTY.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

79 F. 575

AETNA LIFE INS. CO. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS OF HAMILTON COUNTY.

No. 834.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 1, 1897

This action was brought in the United States circuit court for the district of Kansas, Second division, to recover the amount of a large number of overdue coupons, pertaining to two issues of finding bonds of Hamilton county, Kan. One of such issues of 20 bonds for the sum of $1,000 each, purported to have been made on May 7, 1887, at Kendall, in said county, under the seal of the county, and to be signed by J. M. Neeland chairman of the board of county commissioners, and attested and registered by J. M. Hicks, county clerk, by John S Speer, deputy, and made payable at the fiscal agency of the state of Kansas in the city of New York, upon May 7, 1917. The other issue, of 40 bonds of like amount, purported to have been made on May 16, 1888, at the same place, under the seal of said county, and to be signed by C. H. Griffith chairman of the board of county commissioners, and by James M. Hicks, county clerk, and were made payable at the said fiscal agency on May 1, 1918. Interest coupons were attached to the bonds of both issues for the semiannual interest at the rate of 6 per cent., payable at said fiscal agency. Those pertaining to the first issue matured on the 1st days of February and August; and those pertaining to the last issue, on the 1st days of January and July of each year. The bonds, upon the face thereof, contained a reference to the statute under which they purported to have been issued, and full recitals of compliance with all requirements precedent to their issue, and appeared to be regular and valid, and it was not disputed that the plaintiff was a bona fide holder, for value, of the bonds and coupons, without notice of any infirmity or defect. The defense pleaded and relied upon at the trial by the court (jury trial having been duly waived) was that the persons acting as, and assuming to be, the board of county commissioners of said county, and holding their meetings at Kendall during the time from April, 1887, until after June, 1888, and of which Neeland and Griffith successively claimed to be chairman, did not constitute, and were not during that time, the legal board of county commissioners of said county of Hamilton, and had no right to act as such, nor any authority to issue any such bonds; and hence that said bonds were not valid obligations of said county of Hamilton.

From the agreed statements of facts presented on the trial, it appears that Hamilton county was organized by a proclamation of the governor, January 29, 1886, designating Kendall as the temporary county seat, and appointing a temporary board of county commissioners and county clerk; that an election was called for April 1, 1886, to permanently locate the county seat and elect county officers; and that, upon canvass of the votes, it was declared that Syracuse was selected as such county seat, and thereupon the board of county commissioners removed their sessions to Syracuse. Later, in October, 1886, it was determined by the supreme court of Kansas that no town had been selected at said election as the permanent county seat, and that Kendall remained the temporary county seat. The question of locating the permanent county seat was again submitted to the voters of the county at the general election in November, 1886, and, upon a canvass of the votes, the election was again declared to have resulted in favor of Syracuse. This decision was not acquiesced in, and still another election to determine the selection of the permanent location of the...