Combs v. Sullivan County

• Decision Date: 29 June 1891
• Citation: 105 Mo. 230,16 S.W. 916
• Parties: COMBS v. SULLIVAN COUNTY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

16 S.W. 916

105 Mo. 230

COMBS v. SULLIVAN COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

June 29, 1891.

ESTOPPEL — IN PAIS.

Where, at the time of a settlement effected between a county and the agent of its bondholders, one of the largest bondholders is present, and has in his possession past-due coupons given him by the agent a few days before, but says nothing about these coupons, though the agreement was that the settlement should include all past-due coupons, and, in pursuance of the settlement, the county pays the amount agreed on, said bondholder is estopped from recovering on them.

Appeal from circuit court, Adair county; ANDREW ELLISON, Judge.

J. M. Wattenbarger, Pros. Atty., and D. M. Wilson, for appellant. A. W. Mullins, for respondent.

BLACK, J.

This action is based on 22 interest coupons for the sum of $35 each, due on the 1st day of May, 1882. Payment, coupled with estoppel, is the real defense interposed. On the 1st day of November, 1871, the defendant county issued 200 bonds, of the denomination of $1,000 each, in payment of a subscription to the stock of a railroad company. Twenty-two of these bonds were claimed by different persons; the plaintiff having the largest interest in them. The controversy between the parties resulted in a suit in the state court, and the appointment of Brownlee as receiver, and the 22 bonds were turned over to him. That suit seems to have been transferred to the circuit court of the United States, and the bonds were in the hands of the clerk thereof for some time. The rights of the parties having been adjusted by that court, the bonds and all the coupons were again turned over to Brownlee, as receiver, on the 6th of April, 1882. On the 17th May, 1882, there were 11 past-due coupons upon each of the 22 bonds. On that day, Brownlee, as such receiver, and Mr. Hatfield, as the financial agent of the county, made a settlement whereby the county issued new bonds for the 22 then in the hands of Brownlee. As a part of the same settlement, the county agreed to pay at a subsequent date a specified amount for matured coupons. The evidence on both sides shows that these negotiations were continued over two days; that Brownlee and Hatfield were unable to agree; that the plaintiff had the largest interest in the bonds and coupons, and he and the presiding county judge took the matter in hand, and concluded the settlement, which was reduced to writing, signed by Brownlee and Hatfield, and placed in the hands of the clerk of the county court. On the 30th December, 1882, the county treasurer paid to Brownlee $5,505, and received the latter's receipt...