People Ex Rel. James Clemens v. Smith

Decision Date31 January 1867
Citation43 Ill. 219,1867 WL 5013,92 Am.Dec. 109
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. JAMES CLEMENS, JR.,v.GEORGE W. SMITH, State Treasurer, and O. H. MINER, Auditor of Public Accounts.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

THIS was an application to this court for a peremptory writ of mandamus, on the relation of James Clemens, Jr., against George W. Smith, State treasurer, and O. H. Miner, auditor of public accounts. The facts in the case are fully stated in the opinion.

Mr. JAMES C. CONKLING, for the relator. Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is a petition for a mandamus to compel the State treasurer to pay to the relator, James Clemens, Jr., of St. Louis, the interest due upon certain bonds of this State, held and owned by Clemens.

The petitioner states, that he is a resident of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and the owner of a bond of this State, numbered 4983, bearing date July 1, 1847, and payable to petitioner in twenty-three years from date, for the sum of $1,085.76, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, payable in New York, on the first day of January and July of each year; that he is also the owner and holder of a bond of the State, numbered 2150, payable to him in thirty years from July 1, 1847, for the sum of $500, bearing interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from July 1, 1857.

He further states, that on the 23d day of August, 1856, the sum of $192.16, was paid to him for interest on the first mentioned bond, and that is all that he has ever received as interest on either of these bonds. He further states, that on the 12th of February, 1867, he applied by his attorney to the State treasurer, and demanded of him, the balance due him for interest on these bonds, which the treasurer refused to pay.

The demand on the treasurer is fully proved. The treasurer waives the alternative writ, and alleges, in justification of his refusal, that the books and files of his office show, that there was paid to S. Halliday, an agent of the United States Express company, on the fifteenth of December, 1862, all the interest which had accrued on these bonds, from 1856 up to July 1862, amounting to $540.84, the first payment being of the interest due January 1, 1857. That Halliday presented a power of attorney to collect this interest, purporting to have been executed by James Clemens, Jr., of the city of Philadelphia, Pa., on the 8th of December, 1862, and acknowledged before John B. Thayer, a commissioner of the State of Illinois, for that city. We are called upon to say, whether this payment discharged the State.

It is in evidence, that these bonds, described in the petition, are now, and have always been since their issue, in the possession of James Clemens, Jr., of St. Louis, Missouri, that he is an old resident of that city, and he testifies he was not in Philadelphia on the day the power of attorney bears date, and had not been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Kuechler v. Wright
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • 1 janvier 1874
    ...to be unconstitutional. People v. Auditor, 17 Mich. 161;People v. Burridge, 38 Ill. 307;People v. Minor, Auditor, 46 Ill. 384;People v. Smith, 43 Ill. 219;People v. Secretary of State, 58 Ill. 90. The ground upon which its decision is made is thus declared by the supreme court of Georgia, i......
  • Swift v. Martin
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 23 novembre 1885
    ...and the giving of plaintiff's and rejecting of defendant's instruction. Graves v. Exchange Bank, 17 N. Y. 265; People ex rel.. etc., v. Treasurer, 43 Ill. 219; Story on Promissory Notes, sect. 375; Maxwell v. Longnecker, 82 Ill. 308; Seamon v. Whitney, 24 Wend. 260. IV. Notwithstanding she ......
  • Swift v. Martin
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • 23 novembre 1885
    ... ... Graves v ... Exchange Bank, 17 N.Y. 265; People ex rel ... etc., v ... Treasurer, 43 Ill. 219; Story on ... action. Stiles v. Smith", 55 Mo. 363. There is no ... such plea in this case ... \xC2" ... ...
  • People Ex Rel. Harvey B. Hurd v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 10 novembre 1881
    ...does not deprive the order of its negotiability. Bull v. Sims, 23 N. Y. 570. Mandamus is the proper remedy. People ex rel. Clemens v. Smith and Miner, 43 Ill. 219; People ex rel. v. Lippincott, 72 Id. 578; High on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, secs. 110-112. Mr. CONSIDER H. WILLETT, for the......
  • 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