Board of Com Rs of Gunnison County, Colo v. Rollins Sons
Decision Date | 20 February 1899 |
Docket Number | No. 178,178 |
Citation | 43 L.Ed. 689,173 U.S. 255,19 S.Ct. 390 |
Parties | BOARD OF COM'RS OF GUNNISON COUNTY, COLO., v. E. H. ROLLINS & SONS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John F. Dillon and E. F. Richardson, for respondent.
T. C. Brown and C. S. Thomas, for petitioner.
This action was brought by E. H. Rollins & Sons, a corporation of New Hampshire, to obtain a judgment against the board of commissioners of Gunnison county, Colo., a municipal corporation of that state, for the amount of certain coupons of bonds issued by the defendant in 1882. At the close of the evidence the defendant requested a peremptory instruction in its behalf. The circuit court charged the jury at some length, but concluded with a direction to find a verdict for the defendant, which was done, and a judgment in its favor was entered. That judgment was reversed in the circuit court of appeals, and the case is here upon writ of certiorari. 49 U. S. App. 399, 26 C. C. A. 91, and 80 Fed. 692.
The case made by the complaint is as follows:
By the laws of Colorado, boards of county commissioners were authorized to examine, allow, and settle all accounts against their respective counties, and to issue county warrants therefor; to build and keep in repair the county buildings, to insure the same, and to provide suitable rooms for county purposes; and to represent the county, and have the care of county property, and the management of the business and concerns of the county, in all cases where the law did not otherwise provide.
On the 1st day of December, 1882, the defendant board caused to be made and executed certain bonds, acknowledging the county of Gunnison to be indebted and promising to pay to _____, or bearer, the sum therein named, for value received, redeemable, at the pleasure of the county, after 10 years, and absolutely due and payable 20 years after date, at the office of the county treasurer, wit interest at 8 per cent per annum, payable semiannually on the 1st days of March and September in each year, at the county treasurer's office, or at the Chase National Bank in the city of New York, at the option of the holder, upon the presentation and surrender of the annexed coupons as they severally became due.
Each bond contained this recital:
To each bond were attached coupons for the semiannual interest, signed by the county treasurer.
On the 1st day of December, 1882, for the bonds of the county, with coupons attached, as above specified, the defendant board made an exchange with the parties then holding county warrants which before that time, in accordance with the statutes in such case made and provided, had been issued to them in settlement of claims presented by them against the county. In every case when warrants were presented they were exchanged for the bonds of the county at par for their face and interest. In each case the blanks were filled out with the name of the party receiving the bonds or exchanging the warrants, and the blank for the place of payment filled in as the banking house of the Chase National Bank in the city of New York. Thereupon the bonds were signed by the chairman of the board of county commissioners, countersigned by the county treasurer, and attested by the county clerk with the seal of the county; and the coupons attached were also filled out, stating the place of payment to be in the city of New York, at the banking house of the Chase National Bank, and stating also the number of the funding bond, and the series to which it was attached.
The issue of bonds as above set forth was authorized by a vote of the qualified electors to be exchanged for warrants, and the amount thereof was spread upon the records of the county, as provided for by the act of February 21, 1881, entitled 'An act to enable the several counties of the state to fund their floating indebtedness.' In all other respects the terms and conditions of the act were fully complied with. The bonds were duly registered in the office of the auditor of the state.
In every case where bonds were issued and delivered to the payee, or to any person for him, the parties received them in exchange for warrants, the amount of the bonds being the same as the amount of the warrants and interest thereon that had theretofore been issued by the county.
From the 1st day of December, 1882, and up until the 1st day of March, 1886, the county paid the interest on the bonds semiannually in accordance with their terms and of the coupons attached to them.
The defendant board made default in the payment of interest due on the 1st day of September, 1886, and made like default thereafter up to and including September 1, 1892.
The plaintiff was the holder and owner of coupons formerly attached to and belonging to certain bonds of the above issue. It asked judgment for the aggregate amount of the principal of the coupons, with interest on the amount of each coupon as it became due.
The answer of the county contained a general denial of all the allegations of the complaint, and, in addition, set out 11 affirmative defenses, which were chiefly based upon the alleged fact that the county, in issuing the bonds set forth in the complaint, had attempted to incur an indebtedness not authorized by the constitution of Colorado, or by the statute referred to in the bonds.
The provision of the constitution of Colorado prescribing the extent to which counties may become indebted, and to which the bonds referred, is as follows:
The act of February 21, 1881, referred to in the bonds in question, contains, among other provisions, the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hughes County, S.D., v. Livingston
... ... Hughes, by its board of county commissioners, has caused ... this bond to be ... 613, 40 ... L.Ed. 760; E. H. Rollins & Sons v. Board of ... Com'rs, 80 F. 692, 699, 26 C.C.A ... ...
-
State v. Greer
... ... value ( County of Jefferson v. B. C. Lewis & Sons, ... 20 Fla ... Gunnison County Com'rs v. E. H. Rollins & Sons, ... 173 ... statutes ... In ... Board of Commissioners of the County of Knox v ... ...
-
Independent School Dist. of Sioux City v. Rew
... ... resolution of the board of directors of the district ... township; that ... prescribed for county bonds, and the form prescribed for ... county ... City of New Orleans (C.C.) 33 F. 196; Rollins v ... Chaffee Co. (C.C.) 34 F. 91; Wilson v ... 613, 40 L.Ed. 760; E. H. Rollins & Sons v. Board ... of Com'rs of Gunnison Co., 80 F ... ...
-
Board of Com'rs of Stanly County v. Coler
... ... See, also, ... the recent case of Gunnison Co. v. E. H. Rollins & ... Sons, 173 U.S. 255, 19 Sup.Ct. 390, 43 L.Ed ... ...
-
The Municipal Bond Cases Revisited.
...threshold. Id. (94) On the limitation that the record be made authoritative by law, see Gunnison Cty. v. E.H. Rollins & Sons, 173 U.S. 255 (95) See, eg., Lake Cty. v. Graham, 130 U.S. 674 (1889); Dist. Township of Doon v. Cummins, 142 U.S. 366 (1892); Nesbit v. Indep. Dist. of Riverside......