Coquard v. Indian Grave Drainage Dist.

• Decision Date: 07 October 1895
• Docket Number: 225.
• Parties: COQUARD v. INDIAN GRAVE DRAINAGE DIST. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

69 F. 867

COQUARD v. INDIAN GRAVE DRAINAGE DIST. et al.

No. 225.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 7, 1895

H. E Mills, Lee W. Grant, P. R. Flitcraft, and Thomas M. Hoyne for appellant.

James N. Sprigg, Geo. A. Anderson, and Wm. L. Vandeventer, for appellees.

Before WOODS, JENKINS, and SHOWALTER, Circuit Judges.

WOODS Circuit Judge.

The amended bill, after alleging the names and citizenship of the parties, the organization, under the law of May 29, 1879 (Starr & C. Ann. St. . 919 et seq.), and amendatory acts, of the Indian Grave drainage district, as a municipal corporation, the issue by that body of two series of bonds and the recovery by the complainant, May 24, 1892, of judgment against the district upon bonds and coupons of the second series for $10,709.73, to be discharged out of the proceeds of assessments already levied, or thereafter to be levied, on the assessable property within the district, in conformity to the statute, and that the judgment remains unappealed from and unsatisfied, charges that all coupons upon the bonds from July 1, 1886, to the bringing of the bill, have remained unpaid; that since that date 'the district and the commissioners and treasurer, defendants herein,' continually, from year to year, collected a large proportion of the assessments which were made upon the lands in the district, to an amount to the complainant unknown, and that the commissioners and treasurer, disregarding their duty have applied the assessments to other purposes than the payment of the principal and interest on said bonds; that they have collected sufficient sums to have paid the coupons and bonds upon which complainant obtained judgment, but that, contriving to hinder, delay, and defraud the plaintiff, and for the avowed purpose of compelling him to receive less than the sum due, they have refused to pay his judgment, or any part thereof, and have conceived the purpose of ignoring and repudiating his right or claim to participate in the proceeds of assessments; that there is now in possession of the commissioners, and treasurer a large sum of money, the proceeds of collections made by the defendants upon lands within the district; that they are proceeding to collect other sums for the purpose of paying themselves and other creditors of the district to whom they desire to extend favors, to the exclusion of the complainant; that, as the complainant is informed and believes, a large sum has been collected by defendants, as such commissioners, and has been paid out to other coupon holders, complainant being denied any share in the same; 'and that the coupons of other coupon holders (have been received) in payment of the assessments and levies due on said lands within said district, for the purpose of evading payment to the complainant, and in denial of his rights,' 'contrary to equity and good conscience. ' After propounding a series of interrogatories, the bill further charges that the defendants Nickerson and Thompson and the drainage district, instead of collecting the taxes in cash, directed and encouraged the land holders to present, and did themselves, as to their own lands within the district, present to the treasurer, in payment of their taxes due on the second assessment, coupons detached from certain bonds owned by parties who had consented to a compromise, which coupons the land holders and Thompson and Nickerson obtained for 65 cents on the dollar, and turned into the treasury at par, whereby the lien of the complainant on the second assessment became, to that extent, impaired and destroyed; that complainant is owner of 41 out of 200 bonds secured by the second assessment, and entitled to that proportion of the amount collected for interest thereon; that defendants Nickerson and Thompson are chargeable with the following amounts collected by them and their treasurer, to wit, $7,821.95, $7,654.63, and $7,696.50, as appears by their treasurer's report; that the defendant commissioners received into their possession and canceled coupons from second assessment bonds other than those held by complainant, to the amounts last specified, the same representing the aggregate amount of interest tax on the second assessment, for which receipts were given to land holders within said district. The prayer of the bill is that defendants be decreed to...