Sch.-Dist. No. 42, Pawnee Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Xenia

• Citation: 26 N.W. 912,19 Neb. 89
• Parties: SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 42, PAWNEE CO., v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF XENIA.
• Decision Date: 11 February 1886
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

19 Neb. 89

26 N.W. 912

SCHOOL-DISTRICT NO. 42, PAWNEE CO.,

v.FIRST NAT. BANK OF XENIA.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed February 11, 1886.

Error from Pawnee county.

T. Appleget & Son, for plaintiff.

Humphrey & Lindsay, for defendant.

COBB, J.

This action was brought in the district court of Pawnee county by the defendant in error against the school-district, plaintiff in error, on two papers purporting to be the bonds of said district issued for the purpose of borrowing money to build a school-house. The plaintiff claimed in its petition to be a bona fide purchaser of the bonds for value, before maturity, in the regular course of business, and without notice of any defense to or defect in the said bonds. The defendant made answer, in which it denied that there was a regular or legally constituted meeting of the electors of the district which authorized the issuance of bonds; denied that the school-district made payments on said bonds as set forth in the petition, or authorized any one to make them; denied that the cause of action arose within five years; denied that the plaintiff is an innocent purchaser before due, for value; denied the indebtedness; denied that the person who signed his name to the bonds as treasurer was at the time treasurer of the district; and denied that the defendant executed the bonds in controversy. There was a trial to the court, (a jury being waived by both parties,) which found for the plaintiff. A new trial being refused, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, the cause was brought to this court on error.

Three principal points are relied on: (1) The court erred in admitting the bonds sued on in evidence; (2) the court erred in admitting the books of the county treasurer in evidence; (3) the court erred in admitting the books of the county clerk in evidence.

Under the first point it is not denied that the bonds are fair on their face, and each accompanied by a certificate showing that they were regularly registered according to the requirements of the statute then in force, but the bonds bear date the sixteenth day of October, 1873, and are signed by John G. Winkler, director, Peter Robertson, moderator, and William Richards, treasurer; while it appears at that date N. C. Mayberry was the treasurer of the district. According to the county clerk's certificate the bonds were registered on the twenty-third day of October, 1873, and the evidence is conclusive that they were not in fact issued or parted with by the officers of the district until on or after that date; and it appears, by the records of the school-district, plaintiff in error, received in evidence without objection, that William Richards was appointed treasurer of said school-district on the twenty-second day of October, 1873. This was done at a special meeting, and to fill the vacancy caused by the removal of H. C. Mayberry. As I understand it, the true date of the issuance of bonds by a municipal or other corporation is the day when it actually parts with the control or custody of them pursuant to contract, and not necessarily the date which they bear. There is nothing in the law which requires it, nor is it by any means a universal custom or practice for all the officers of a corporation who sign bonds, or other commercial paper, to sign the same at the same time. And...