Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Jones

Decision Date29 December 1900
Citation105 F. 459
PartiesFARMERS' NAT. BANK OF HUDSON v. JONES, Governor of Arkansas, et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas

The act of the legislature of the state of Arkansas approved May 8 1899, entitled, 'An act to fund the debt of Arkansas and for other purposes, ' contains the following provisions:

'Section 1. That the state debt board is hereby authorized and directed to fund the valid bonded indebtedness of the state of Arkansas, excepting the one hundred and sixty (160) bonds of the series of 1870, now owned and held by the United States, and to call in the outstanding script and treasurer's certificates of this state.'
'Sec 3. Each bond at the time of its delivery or exchange shall be signed by the governor and sealed with the great seal of the state, be countersigned by the treasurer and registered by the auditor of state, and the date of each registration shall be endorsed on the bond and signed by the auditor. The signature required above shall be in the personal handwriting of the official making the same. The coupon attached to each bond may be signed by the treasurer alone, which signature may be engraved thereon at time of preparation of the blank bonds by the printer.'
'Sec. 5. Immediately after the passage of this act the state debt board, by its president, shall publish for sixty days, in each, in a daily paper in Little Rock and New York City, a notice to all private holders of valid bonds of this state, to present same for exchange for new bonds provided for by this act. The basis of exchange shall be an amount of new bonds equal to the aggregate amount of old bonds and matured coupons thereon attached.'

On the 4th day of May, 1900, the plaintiff in this case presented to the state debt board its petition requesting the board to issue to it, under the act quoted, funding bonds in lieu of certain state bonds which it alleged belonged to it, and had by mistake been burned by the burning board of the state on December 11, 1896. The state debt board, upon consideration of the plaintiff's petition and the evidence presented in support thereof, made the following finding of facts:

'And upon consideration of the recitals thereof, and the matter and question arising thereon, in connection with the evidence offered in support thereof, and an examination and inspection by the board of the records in the office of the auditor and treasurer relating thereto, the board reached the conclusions, and made and hereby declares the following finding of the facts, as the same exist and relate to the said matter, namely:
'(1) That the said Farmers' National Bank and its predecessor in interest, the Farmers' Bank of Hudson, New York, became the owner prior to June 14, 1839, of the following described non-Holford Real-Estate Bank bonds of the said state of Arkansas, issued under authority of the act of legislature of said state to aid in establishing what was known as the 'Real-Estate Bank', together with coupons thereto, the numbers of said bonds being Nos. 482, 487, 488, 489, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 657, 658, 676, and 698, being eighteen bonds; that said bank remained continuously the owner of said bonds until September 12, 1871.
'(2) That on the 12th day of September, 1871, the officers of said bank caused the said described bonds and coupons and others owned by it to be surrendered to the financial agent of the state of Arkansas, at the office of the Union Trust Company in the city of New York, to be exchanged for new funding bonds under the provisions of the act of April 6, 1869, which authorized and directed such exchange.
'(3) That in exchange for said Real-Estate Bank bonds and others, and by way of funding same in manner provided for in said act of 1869, said funding agents of the state of Arkansas wrongfully caused to be delivered to said Farmers' National Bank, either fraudulently or through mistake, the following described pretended bonds of said state, namely, Nos. 1,451 to 1,480, both inclusive, 1,496 to 1,508, both inclusive, 1,511 to 1,512, 1,753, 1,794, 1,795, 1,809, and 1,810, being fifth bonds, and equivalent in amount of the aggregate sum of bonds and coupons so surrendered by said band for exchange.
'(4) That the said fifty bonds were of the date and denomination of bonds issued by said funding agents to F. W. Caper, as attorney for Holford, on the 22d day of September, 1869, and the delivery thereof in exchange for the non-Holford bonds described in finding No. 1, on the 12th day of September, 1871, was either a mistake or a fraud upon the rights of the Farmers' National Bank.
'(5) That there appears upon the record of detailed receipts kept by said funding agents an entry purporting to have been made on January 31, 1872, reciting the fact that on said date the bonds described in finding No. 1 were presented by one W. P. Denkla for funding into new bonds under said act of 1869, and on said day the said funding agent awarded in exchange for said bonds the following described funding bonds of the series of 1869, and of these Nos. 796, 797, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802, 803, 804, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 818, 819, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, twenty-nine bonds, each of said bonds bearing interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, and having coupons attached for same from January 1, 1872; that, notwithstanding the said twenty-nine bonds were so ordered to be issued in exchange for the said twelve non-Holford bonds and the coupons thereon, only four thereof, namely, Nos. 796, 805, 823, 824, were in fact issued, and the same have been duly redeemed and paid, and that, therefore, no claims, legal or equitable, exist against the state of Arkansas for said four bonds.
'(6) That the remaining twenty-five bonds, and all coupons aforesaid thereto attached, although duly prepared and signed and registered, were never in fact delivered to said W. P. Denkla, or to any one else, but apparently remained continuously in the hands of the funding agents until 1896, when the same were taken into possession of the treasurer of Arkansas, and on the 11th day of December, 1896, listed, and destroyed by burning, by the tribunal known as the 'Burning Board of the State of Arkansas,' and that at the same time, and under the same circumstances, the aid twelve original non-Holford Real-Estate Bank bonds surrendered by the said Farmers' National Bank for funding and exchange as aforesaid were received from said funding agent by said treasurer and likewise burned.'
'(8) That the said twenty-five bonds so coming into the possession of said state treasurer, and destroyed as aforesaid, were not the property, legal or equitable, of the said W. P. Denkla or the state of Arkansas, but belonged in fact to the Farmers' National Bank.
'(9) That said Farmers' National Bank has offered to surrender to this board the Holford bonds described in finding No. 3, disclaiming any right thereto.
'(10) That this board, notwithstanding it concedes to the said Farmers' Bank the ownership of the claim and debt represented by the twenty-five (25) funding bonds and coupons destroyed on December 11, 1896, declines to issue and deliver to said bank in exchange therefor the bonds of the state of Arkansas under the funding act of 1899, for the reason that in the judgment of the board the authority conferred by said act limits its powers to the funding and exchange of bonds and coupons in existence and capable of an actual manual delivery and exchange, and does not extend to or include claims based on bonds and coupons destroyed, even if the same was done erroneously.
'Because of the ground stated in this paragraph, the board now declines to fund the claim of the said Farmers' National Bank.
'Dan W. Jones, Governor. 'Alex C. Hull, Secretary of State. 'Thos. E. Little, Treasurer of State.'

Upon the refusal of the state debt board to issue refunding bonds to the plaintiff for the bonds so burned, this bill in equity was filed, setting out, at length and in detail, the facts found by the state debt board, and concluding with these prayers: 'Wherefore the said complainant prays that the said official defendants may be held to be estopped to insist upon an actual tangible presentation of the bonds and coupons belonging to the defendant, in the face of the admitted fact that the same were destroyed by the officers of the state when there was no claim that the same belonged to the said state of Arkansas, but the record showed that they belonged to the owners of the bonds that they were directed to be exchanged for. (2) But, if complainant shall be mistaken as to its right to relief of this character under the facts stated, it prays that, under the language of the statute authorizing and directing the defendants composing the state debt board to fund the valid bonded indebtedness of the state, be held to include the power to fund as such bonded indebtedness the destroyed bonds and coupons of this complainant burned by the officers of said state, treating the said bonds and coupons as still in existence, in furtherance of justice and to accomplish the plain equities of this complaint, and to prevent the officers of the state from taking advantage of their unauthorized act in burning bonds and coupons which did not belong to the state at the time of the destruction thereof, it being a fact that the funding board could not lawfully destroy the property of any person under its powers. (3) If complainant should be mistaken as to its rights to relief in either aspect stated then it prays that the said defendants re-execute the said bonds and coupons so destroyed, and when so re-executed, or treated as so re-executed, that the said defendants...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Hampton v. State Board of Education
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1925
    ...742; Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52, 6 S.Ct. 608, 29 L.Ed. 805; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Andrews (C. C.) 154 F. 95; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Jones (C. C.) 105 F. 459; McDowell v. Warden of Michigan Reformatory at 169 Mich. 332, 135 N.W. 265; State ex rel. Davis v. Mortensen, 69 Neb. 376, 95 ......
  • McConnell v. Arkansas Brick & Manufacturing Co.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1902
    ...for appellants; George W. Murphy, Attorney General, of counsel. The decree is too vague and ambiguous to be enforceable. 123 U.S. 443; 105 F. 459; 117 U.S. 52, 71; 31 S.E. 191, 192. An injunction is not grantable where it could not be enforced. 3 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 1341, 1405; High, Inj. § 73......
  • Pitcock v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • July 12, 1909
    ... ... McGhee, 172 U.S. 516, 43 L.Ed ... 535, 19 S.Ct. 269; Farmers [91 Ark. 536] ... National Bank of Hudson v. Jones, 105 F. 459; ... of the State." ...          In ... Farmers Nat. Bank v. Jones, ... supra , Judge Caldwell said: "As a State ... ...
  • Huntt v. Government of Virgin Islands
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • April 7, 1967
    ...error dismissed, United States ex rel. Slayton v. Paschall, 17 F.2d 1021 (CCA 8 Cir. 1926); Farmers' National Bank of Hudson v. Jones, 105 F. 459, 464-465 (E.D.Ark.1900). Although many of these cases were mandamus actions, the principle is the same whether mandamus is sought, or whether, as......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT