Coffin v. City of Indianapolis
Decision Date | 06 January 1894 |
Docket Number | 8,888. |
Parties | COFFIN et al. v. CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS et al. |
Court | United States Circuit Court, District of Indiana |
Miller Winter & Elam, for complainants.
John E Scott and Elliott & Elliott, for defendants.
The questions for consideration are presented by the demurrer interposed by the city of Indianapolis to the bill of complaint. The complainants, after showing the requisite diverse citizenship of the parties, allege, in substance That they are bankers and brokers, doing business in the city of New York, and as such are dealers in municipal bonds and other securities. That, by the charter of the city of Indianapolis, provision is made for the borrowing of money the making of loans, and the selling of bonds, as follows:
That on the 24th day of May, 1893, said city was indebted in the principal sum of $600,000, evidenced by 600 bonds of $1,000 each, to become due and payable July 1, 1893. That on or about April 1, 1893, said city was indebted in a certain other sum of $21,000, evidenced by 21 other bonds, of $1,000 each, known as the 'Sellers Farm Issue' of bonds, which $21,000 of bonds were by said city, on April 1, 1893, duly paid, discharged, and canceled, so that after that date the same were no longer an indebtedness of the city. That on the 23d day of May, 1893, an ordinance known as 'General Ordinance 30, 1893,' was enacted by the common council of said city, and approved by the mayor. The ordinance authorized the head of the finance department to refund certain of the indebtedness of the city, amounting to $600,000, represented by certain outstanding bonds, known as 'Series A' and 'Series B,' which would become due July 1, 1893; 'and to issue and sell bonds of said city to replace in the treasury the sum of $21,000, used in paying the bonds of said city, known as the 'Sellers Farm Issue,' which became due April 1, 1893. The head of the finance department was authorized, for the purpose of refunding said indebtedness, and replacing in the city treasury said sum of $21,000, to prepare and sell 621 bonds of the city, of $1,000 each, which should bear the date of July 1, 1893, and should be designated 'Indianapolis Refunding Bonds of 1893.' The head of the finance department was required to advertise for bids for the sale of said bonds. It was ordered that the city comptroller should award such bonds, or, if he should see fit, a part thereof, to the highest and best bidder therefor, and that he should have the right to reject any and all bids or proposals, or any part thereof, and should have the right to accept a part of any bid, he being the sole judge of the sufficiency or insufficiency of any bid. It was further ordered that the person to whom the bonds, or any part thereof, should be awarded, should, within 10 days thereafter, deposit with the city comptroller a certified check on some reliable bank, payable to the order of the treasurer of said city, for a sum equal to 5 per cent. of the face of the bonds so awarded; and that said check should, upon the completion of the sale of the bonds for which it was deposited, be returned to the successful bidder; and, in case the successful bidder should fail to complete the purchase of the bonds so awarded, he should forfeit the check so deposited to the city. That on May 24, 1893, the city, in pursuance of said ordinance, caused public notice to be given that sealed bids would be received by said city until Friday, May 26, 1893, at 9 o'clock A. M., for the whole or any part of said $621,000 of bonds of said city; said notice being as follows: '$621,000.
That complainants presented to said city a bid for said bonds, as follows:
That the complainants were the highest and best bidders, and thereupon said $621,000 of bonds were awarded to them by said comptroller. That on May 26, 1893, the complainants, assuming that it would be shown that all of said bonds were refunding bonds and were legal, deposited with the Merchants' National Bank of Indianapolis, Ind., the sum of $31,050 being 5 per cent. upon said sum of $621,000, the total amount of said bonds then and there so assumed to be awarded to complainants, and received therefor a certificate of deposit, bearing date May 26, 1893, payable to the order of the city treasurer of said city, and delivered the same to the comptroller of said city, who was the head of the department of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Saleno v. the City of Neosho
... ... 81; ... Reineman v. Railroad, 7 Neb. 310; Millerstown v ... Frederick, 114 Pa. St. 435; Bank v. School ... Dists., 57 N.W. 787; Coffin v. Indianapolis, 59 ... F. 221; Company v. City, 59 F. 327. (13) The ... monopoly attempted to be created by ordinance 113 is contrary ... to ... ...
-
City of Huron v. Second Ward Sav. Bank, 980.
... ... Doon Tp. v. Cummins, 142 U.S. 366, 378, 12 Sup.Ct ... 220; Shaw v. School Dist., 62 F. 911; Coffin v ... City of Indianapolis, 59 F. 221, and Aetna Life Ins ... Co. v. Lyon Co., 44 F. 329, 342. The case in hand, ... however, is clearly ... ...
-
Montgomery v. Martin
...This scheme of debt liquidation, set up by the Constitution, cannot be departed from either directly or indirectly (Coffin v. Indianapolis, 59 F. 221, 230); and, point of fact, the legislature has made no attempt to do so. Taking advantage of the released borrowing capacity under the amendm......
-
Bd. of Ed v. Am. Nat'l Co.
...be canceled by operation of law, for the bonds would then cease to be an outstanding obligation of the municipal subdivision. Coffin v. Indianapolis, 59 F. 221; Bank of N.Y. v. Grace (N.Y.) 7 N.E. 162; Branch v. Comm. (Va.) 66 Am. Rep. 596; Walker v. State (Bond Debt Cases) 12 S.C. 200; 2 D......