City of Anthony v. Woonsocket Institution for Savings

• Decision Date: 02 December 1895
• Docket Number: 534.
• Citation: 71 F. 97
• Parties: CITY OF ANTHONY v. WOONSOCKET INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

71 F. 97

CITY OF ANTHONY v. WOONSOCKET INSTITUTION FOR SAVINGS.

No. 534.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

December 2, 1895

Geo. B Crooker, F. C. Raney, Kos Harris, and R. R. Vermilion, for plaintiff in error.

W. H Rossington and Charles Blood Smith, for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

THAYER Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought by the Woonsocket Institution for Savings the defendant in error, against the city of Anthony, the plaintiff in error, to recover the sum of $2,850, the same being the amount due as interest on certain municipal bonds that were issued by the city of Anthony on October 1, 1888. The interest sued for was evidenced by certain coupons attached to the bonds, and the present action was founded upon the coupons, which were filed with the petition as exhibits. On the trial of the case the plaintiff below offered the coupons in evidence without proving their execution, and the defendant below objected to their introduction, on the ground that they were 'incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.' The trial court overruled the objection, and subsequently rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount due on said coupons, with accrued interest.

The only error assigned upon the present record, which can be noticed, is the action of the court in overruling the objection to the admission of the coupons in evidence. The Civil Code of Kansas provides that:

'In all actions, allegations of the execution of written instruments and indorsements thereon, of the existence of a corporation or partnership, or of any appointment or authority, or the correctness of any account, duly verified by the affidavit of the party, his agent or attorney, shall be taken as true unless the denial of the same be verified by the affidavit of the party, his agent or attorney.' 2 Gen.St.Kan. 1889, par. 4191.

In the present case the defendant city had denied the execution of the coupons in suit by a plea duly verified by affidavit, and it was therefore incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the coupons before they were admitted in evidence. But the error complained of in admitting the coupons without proving their execution was subsequently cured and rendered immaterial by the action of the defendant city in offering evidence in its own behalf, which was amply sufficient to establish the due execution and delivery of the...