Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh
| Decision Date | 01 October 1879 |
| Citation | 25 L.Ed. 923,101 U.S. 572 |
| Parties | COWDREY v. VANDENBURGH |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
This was a bill in equity, filed by J. W. V. Vandenburgh, H. L. Crawford, and L. S. Filbert, trading as J. W. V. Vandenburgh & Co., against Rudolph Blumenburgh, to compel the surrender of a certain certificate, of which the following is a copy:——- 'No. 4441.]
OFFICE OF AUDITOR, BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS,
'I hereby certify that I have this day audited and allowed the account of J. V. W. Vandenburgh & Co., for work on Columbia Street, amounting to eight thousand four hundred and fifty-one dollars and eighty-eight cents.
'$8,451.88.
'J. C. LAY, Auditor.'
N. A. Cowdrey was subsequently made a party. A decree was rendered against him, from which he appealed to this court.
The remaining facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Joseph H. Bradley for the appellant.
Mr. James G. Payne, contra.
The complainants, composing the fi m of Vandenburgh & Co., of the District of Columbia, had, previously to Dec. 6, 1863, entered into contracts with the Board of Public Works of the District for grading, paving, and improving certain streets in the city of Washington. On that day, their account, amounting to $8,451.88, for work on one of the streets, was audited and allowed, and a certificate of the auditor to that effect was issued to them. On the 17th of February following the complainants borrowed of the defendant Blumenburgh the sum of $3,160 for six months, and deposited with him as collateral security the certificate, to be returned upon the payment of the money. The certificate was at this time indorsed by them in blank. When the money became due they called with the amount and accrued interest at the former place of business of Blumenburgh to pay the debt and take up their certificate; but he had disappeared, and no one there knew when he had left or whither he had gone. The complainants could not find him, nor any one representing or acting for him; and, what was of more consequence, they could not find their certificate either. He had clandestinely departed from the city; and they charge in their bill, in substance, that he always intended to cheat and defraud them; and that without their knowledge he has disposed of the certificate to some one, who in conjunction with him is attempting to wrongfully use it, and thus deprive them of their property.
By the legislation of Congress relating to the District of Columbia, certificates of allowed and audited accounts, like that in question, could be surrendered to a board of audit, and certificates of indebtedness against the District received for them; and these latter certificates could be exchanged for interest-bearing bonds of the District. The complainants, informed that the certificate belonging to them had been presented to the board of audit by agents of Blumenburgh, or of persons to whom it had been passed, for the purpose either of obtaining money therefor or bonds of the District, filed the present bill to arrest the further use of the certificate, and compel its restitution to them. Learning afterwards that the appellant, N. A. Cowdrey, of New York, claimed to be owner of the certificate, and was seeking to obtain for it from the board of audit a certificate of the indebtedness of the District, for which an interest-bearing bond could be issued, they amended their bill, and brought him in as a defendant.
In his answer he admits the possession of the certificate, and avers, in substance, that he purchased it in the ordinary course of business of a broker in Washington for value with other certificates of a similar character, but does not state what amount he paid for it; that he was at the time ignorant of the transaction between complainants and Blumenburgh stated in the bill, and that the certificate had the blank indorsement of the complainants, which justified him in concluding that they had parted with their interest; and he insists that he is therefore entitled to protection as a bona fide holder for value without notice. To the answer a replication was filed, and its affirmative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank v. Mayor and City Council
...face of the certificate states that it is transferable only in person or by attorney on the books of the debtor. In Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, 101 U.S. 572, 576, 25 L.Ed. 923, the court points out the distinction between a completed assignment naming the assignee and one merely in blank, with ......
-
King Cattle Co. v. Joseph
... ... Great North. Ry. Co. 139 Minn. 316, ... 166 N. [158 Minn. 487] W. 331; Cardozo v. Fawcett, ... supra page 60, 196 N.W. 809; Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, ... 101 U.S. 572, 25 L.Ed. 923; National Safe Deposit, S. & F. Co. v. Hibbs, 229 U.S. 391, 33 S.Ct. 818, 57 L.Ed ... ...
-
Sumpter v. Arkansas National Bank
...98; 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), 431; 108 Ind. 419; S. C. 9 N.E. 392; 109 Ind. 457; S. C. 9 N.E. 585; 110 Ind. 552; S. C. 11 N.E. 453; 101 U.S. 572; 92 Pa.St. 390; 82 N.Y. 327; 31 N.Y. OPINION BATTLE, J. This suit was brought by the creditors of John J. and William Sumpter against John ......
- Planters Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Matthews