Hoxie v. Scott

• Citation: 63 N.W. 387,45 Neb. 199
• Decision Date: 22 May 1895
• Docket Number: 5007
• Parties: WILSON HOXIE ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BARRETT SCOTT, TREASURER, ET AL., APPELLEES
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

63 N.W. 387

45 Neb. 199

WILSON HOXIE ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BARRETT SCOTT, TREASURER, ET AL., APPELLEES

No. 5007

Supreme Court of Nebraska

May 22, 1895

APPEAL from the district court of Holt county. Heard below before CRITES, J.

REVERSED.

H. E Murphy, for appellants.

Seevers & Seevers, M. F. Harrington, and E. W. Adams, contra.

OPINION

RYAN C.

The appellants, by their petition filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Holt county, sought to enjoin the collection from themselves of certain taxes levied to pay upon the interest and a part of the principal of certain bonds issued for Gratton township, in Holt county, by the authorities of said county. These bonds, thirty-six in number, for $ 1,000 each, were issued August 1, 1890, to the Nebraska & Western Railway Company, or bearer. The facts upon which the cause was determined in favor of the appellees were agreed upon and stated in a written stipulation signed by both plaintiffs and defendants. There seems to be some reliance by appellees upon the conceded fact that before the maturity of the first coupon which fell due these bonds were sold and transferred by the railroad company to purchasers who bought with only such notice as by the records and the law was of necessity imputable to them. If the status of these purchasers is such that the irregularity hereinafter referred to could not affect their rights as bona fide holders of the above bonds, our conclusion will in no way conclude them. If, on the other hand, the result must be such that the validity of the bonds for any purpose, and by whomsoever held, shall of necessity be declared impossible, the question of purchase of these bonds in good faith may incidentally become one of little or no practical importance. We shall not assume to pass upon the rights of holders of the bonds as bona fide purchasers, because these parties are not in court. The proposition upon which this appeal must be determined must be considered as though there had been no sale of the bonds by the railroad company, for, under the stipulation of facts which must govern, this is the only proper subject of inquiry. The following language is quoted from this stipulation of facts: "It is admitted by the defendants in this case that the fifty-two names signed to the petition requesting the county board to submit to the electors of Gratton township the proposition to issue these bonds," and that "only thirty-five of said fifty-two persons were actually freeholders in Gratton township," etc. It is not perceived why the word ...