Meyer v. the City of Muscatine

Citation68 U.S. 384,17 L.Ed. 564,1 Wall. 384
PartiesMEYER v. THE CITY OF MUSCATINE
Decision Date01 December 1863
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

$1000.

No. 51.

Be it known that the city of Muscatine owes to Adam Ogilvie, or bearer, the sum of one thousand dollars for money borrowed the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, and which sum the said city of Muscatine hereby promises to pay, at the office of E. W. Clark, Dodge & Co., in the city of New York, on the first day of January, eighteen hundred and seventy-six (January 1st, 1876), with interest on said sum of one thousand dollars at the annual rate of ten per cent., payable semi-annually, on the 1st day of January and 1st day of July in each year; and the faith of the city of Muscatine is hereby pledged for the semi-annual payments of interest and the ultimate redemption of the principal.

Upon the surrender of this bond to A. C. Flagg, treasurer in trust, at any time previous to said 1st January, 1876, the holder hereof will be entitled to ten shares of the capital stock of the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, in satisfaction thereof.

Whereof J. H. Wallace, Mayor of the city of Muscatine, does hereby cerify that by a vote of the legal electors of the said city of Muscatine, at an election held 13th August, 1855, in accordance with an ordinance of the Common Council sanctioning the same, that the said city was authorized to borrow the sum of one hundred and thirty thousand dollars, and to issue its bonds therefor, bearing interest an ten per cent. per annum, and that the above is one of the bonds given for said loan.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said city this thirty-first day of December, A.D. 1858.

J. H. WALLACE, Mayor.

[SEAL.]

Attested by

D. S. JOHNSON, Recorder.

The coupons were in this form:

The city of Muscatine will pay the bearer, on the 1st day of January, 1860, twenty-five dollars, at the office of E. W. Clark, Dodge & Co., in the city of New York, interest due on their bond No. 51.

J. H. WALLACE, Mayor.

A number of the bonds thus issued having got into the hands of the plaintiffs, and the interest being unpaid, they brought suit to recover it. The city set up various defences, as follows:-

1. That there was no authority in the charter of the city of Muscatine under which money may be borrowed to aid in the construction of railroads.

2. Because the interest was made payable in New York city, instead of at the treasury of the city of Muscatine.

3. Because, in the stipulation to pay the interest semi-annually at the rate of ten per cent., the authority conferred by the vote which limited the rate of interest to 'not higher than ten per cent. per annum,' was transcended and a usurious rate agreed to be paid.

4. Because the stock of the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, for which said bonds and coupons were issued, was, without authority from the city, placed in the hands of a trustee and entirely beyond its control.

5. Because, under the authority to borrow a sum of money, no money was ever borrowed by the city, but instead, these bonds were delivered to the officers of the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, and by their agents and brokers sold to the plaintiffs at a price greatly below their par value.

[An amended answer to the claim averred, 'that the said bonds were by the officers of said railroad company, and their agents and brokers, sold to the plaintiffs at a price greatly below their par value; that at the time said bonds and coupons were received by said plaintiffs, they had full knowledge of the fact that said bonds had been issued for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said Mississippi and Missouri Railroad.']

6. Because the ordinance on which the vote for a loan was taken was void, because it submitted three distinct propositions in one, and in such a manner as to cut off an effective opposition from all voters who were against the whole of the propositions.

7. Because, finally, the legislature had no constitutional power to authorize the issue of such bonds, and that hence they are void.

To these defences there was a demurrer, which demurrer the court overruled, giving judgment in favor of the city. On appeal, the questions here were the same as they were below; that is to say, whether the defences set up by the city were sufficient defences to the claim for payment of the coupons in the hands of bon a fide holders for value.

The case was submitted on briefs of Mr. Cook for the bondholders, and of Mr. Richman and Butler for the city of Muscatine; the arguments on both sides being much the same as those in one or the other of the three cases of Gelpcke v. The City of Dubuque, ante, p. 175, or in Mercer County v. Hacket, ante, p. 83. As every reader of this volume, and every inquirer into...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Hughes County, S.D., v. Livingston
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 9 Octubre 1900
    ... ... of this bond are payable at the Chemical National Bank, in ... the city of New York, and state of New York. This bond is ... one of a series of like tenor and date, ... 287, ... 16 L.Ed. 664; Moran v. Commissioners, 2 Black, 722, ... 17 L.Ed. 342; Meyer v. City of Muscatine, 1 Wall ... 384, 393, 17 L.Ed. 564; Lee Co. v. Rogers, 7 Wall ... 181, ... ...
  • Independent School Dist. of Sioux City v. Rew
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 23 Septiembre 1901
    ... ... 208; Bissell v. City of ... Jeffersonville, 24 How. 287, 16 L.Ed. 664; Moran v ... Commissioners, 2 Black, 722, 17 L.Ed. 342; Meyer v ... City of Muscatine, 1 Wall. 384, 393, 17 L.Ed. 564; ... Lee Co. v. Rogers, 7 Wall. 181, 19 L.Ed. 160; ... Pendleton Co. v. Amy, 13 ... ...
  • City of Parkersburg v. Baltimore & O.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 14 Diciembre 1923
    ... ... If the parties are equally guilty of ... delay, neither can avail itself of the delay of the other as ... laches. Nordman v. Meyer, 118 Iowa, 508, 92 N.W ... 693, 694; Mays v. Morrell, 65 Or. 558, 132 P. 714; ... 21 C.J. 215; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Boles, ... 88 ... citing Von Hostrup v. Madison City, 1 Wall. 291, ... 17 L.Ed. 538; Myer v. City of Muscatine, 1 Wall ... 384, 17 L.Ed. 564; James v. Milwaukee, 16 Wall ... 159, 21 L.Ed. 267 ... In ... Wright v. Railroad, 236 U.S. 674, at ... ...
  • City of Casper v. Joyce
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 21 Marzo 1939
    ... ... 218] practice ... thereunder are not unusual, but customary, and are for the ... benefit of all parties concerned. Meyer & Stucken v. City ... of Muscatine, 1 Wall. (U.S.) 384, 17 L.Ed. 564. It has ... been frequently held that in the absence of specific ... ...
  • 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