Jerome v. Commissioners of Rio Grande County

• Decision Date: 01 December 1883
• Citation: 18 F. 873
• Parties: JEROME v. WILDER v. SAME. COM'RS RIO GRANDE CO.1
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

18 F. 873

JEROME v. WILDER v. SAME. ^[1]

COM'RS RIO GRANDE CO.1

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

December, 1883

John L Jerome, for plaintiffs.

L. C Rockwell, for defendant.

HALLETT J.

These actions are upon warrants signed by the chairman of the board of county commissioners and the clerk of the county, on the county treasury, for different sums, and payable to different persons or bearer. All of them excepting two (to be mentioned hereafter) appear to have been issued for the current expenses of the county. The warrants were not issued to the plaintiff, and the citizenship of the persons to whom they were issued is not averred. A question has arisen whether upon such warrants payable to a person named, or to bearer which circulate from hand to hand without indorsement, an action may be maintained by a holder, a citizen of another state, against a county in this state, without showing that the persons to whom they were issued are qualified to sue in this court. It cannot be contended that such warrants are negotiable as bills of exchange or promissory notes, and free from all equities in the hands of an innocent holder. All holders take them subject to any defense that may be made against the payee, even when they are payable to bearer. Dill. Mun. Corp. (3d Ed.) Secs. 487, 503. Nevertheless, as they are payable to bearer, the property therein passes by delivery, and 'a note payable to bearer is payable to anybody, and not affected by the disabilities of the nominal payee. ' Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet. 318. Such instruments are not assignable within the meaning of the act of congress of 1875, regulating the jurisdiction of this court. 18 St. 470. They are taken to be due on an original and direct promise from the maker to the bearer, and not by assignment from the payee or first holder. Thompson v. Perrine, 106 U.S. 589; (S.C. 1 S.Ct. 564, 568.) This is true only when the plaintiff becomes the owner of the paper by the delivery thereof. If his title is colorable only, and procured for the sole purpose of enabling him to bring suit in a federal court, the action will be dismissed. Williams v. Nottawa, 104 U.S. 209. But of that we have no information at present.

Objection is also made that the demands for which the warrants were issued, having been allowed by the board of county commissioners, cannot be the subject of an action against the county. The remedy of plaintiff, if any, is by...