Schmidt v. City of Defiance
| Decision Date | 10 February 1902 |
| Citation | 117 F. 702 |
| Parties | SCHMIDT et al. v. CITY OF DEFIANCE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Doyle & Lewis, for plaintiffs.
W. H Hubbard and Harris, Cameron & Shaw, for defendant.
In the suit at law, in which a jury has been waived and trial had by the court, it appears that on April 1, 1889, the city of Defiance, a municipal corporation of the fourth grade, second class, issued its bonds in the sum of $50,000, one-half thereof to mature April 1, 1899, and one-half April 1, 1909 with interest, represented by coupons attached. There are 200 causes of action set forth in the petition, each cause of action being a coupon for the payment of $25 as interest. One of the allegations of the answer is as follows:
'And said defendant further says that at all times since said 19th day of March, A.D. 1889, said city of Defiance was, by the terms and provisions of the general laws of the state of Ohio relating to municipal corporations, required to have, and did have, a corporate seal, whereof the mayor of said city was, by said general laws, required to have, and in fact did have, custody and control; yet, notwithstanding the fact that said city of Defiance had a corporate seal, in the custody and control of its said mayor, as aforesaid, and notwithstanding the provisions of the general laws of the state of Ohio relating to municipal corporations, * * * the said so-called bonds mentioned in the petition were not and are not, nor were nor are, either of them, sealed with the seal of said corporation; by reason whereof, and for the want of such seal of said corporation, said so-called bonds are not, and never became or were, negotiable, and are not, and never became or were, obligations of said city.'
In reply to this defense the plaintiffs, in substance, say that the seal attached to the bonds was recited in the bond to be the corporate seal of the city, and placed thereon by the mayor and clerk, as such seal, to induce parties to buy the bonds, and was so relied upon, and is the same seal used as a corporate seal both before and after the issuance of these bonds; and that, therefore, the defendant is estopped to deny the validity of the seal. From an inspection of the bonds it appears that a seal was impressed upon each bond, which had in its center the words 'City of Defiance,' and, in the margin, the words 'City Clerk' and 'Ohio.' This form of seal is the one prescribed for the use of the city clerk, except that it has the additional word 'Ohio' in the margin with the words 'City Clerk.' There is testimony introduced by the defendant to the effect that the mayor had a seal, in the center of which was the same device as that of the seal of the state of Ohio, and around said device the words 'Mayor of the City of Defiance. ' Section 1764, Rev.St. Ohio, provides that: 'The council shall cause to be provided for the clerk's office a seal, in the center of which shall be the name of the corporation, and around the margin the words 'City Clerk.' ' Section 1745, Rev.St., provides that the mayor 'shall be furnished by the council with the corporate seal of the corporation, in the center of which shall be the words, ' Mayor of the city of * * *.' ' It therefore appears from the proof that the city of Defiance, at the time of the issuance of these bonds, had no seal which complied with this provision of the statute. Section 1552, Rev.St., provides, among other things, that 'municipal corporations' may 'have a common seal, and change or alter the same at pleasure. ' The seal used upon the bonds in question had been used many times before to authenticate bonds of the city of Defiance. I have no doubt, from the proof, that it was intended by the officers of the city of Defiance that this seal should be used as the seal of the city in the issuance of the bonds to which these coupons were attached. It is recited in the bonds themselves that the seal is the seal of the city of Defiance.
A bill is filed by the plaintiffs, on the equity side of the court setting up these facts with respect to the seal used on these bonds, and praying that the defendant, the city of Defiance, be compelled to affix the city seal to these bonds, or that it be enjoined from setting up the want of a seal as a defense. Both cases are before me. The defense in the case at law, which alleges that the bonds are not sealed with the seal of the city of Defiance, is without merit. In one view of the testimony, the allegation of the answer is unsupported, because it may be assumed that, the city having no seal, the use of the seal which was used on these bonds and the prior issues is evidence of the adoption of that seal as the seal of the city. Another view might be taken of the testimony, which would result in finding that, for the purposes of these bonds, the seal attached must be held to be the seal of the city of Defiance, because of the recital contained in the bonds. Upon either view of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Defiance v. Schmidt
...and appellees. In Error to and Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. For opinion below, see 117 F. 702. cases are before us-- one at law, and the other in equity. Both were heard and decided by the court below, without the intervention of a ju......
-
Troy Nat. Bank v. Russell County
...173 U.S. 255, 19 Sup.Ct. 390, 43 L.Ed. 689; Bernard, etc., v. Morrison, 133 U.S. 523, 10 Sup.Ct. 333, 33 L.Ed. 766; Schmidt v. City of Defiance (C.C.) 117 F. 702; Town of Brewton v. Spira, 106 Ala. 230, 17 So. Town of Pana v. Bowler, 107 U.S. 529, 2 Sup.Ct. 704, 27 L.Ed. 429. Independent, h......
-
BOARD OF EDUCATION, ETC. v. Woodmen of the World
...v. Springport, 104 U. S. 501, 26 L. Ed. 812; Bernards Township v. Stebbins, 109 U. S. 341, 3 S. Ct. 252, 27 L. Ed. 956; Schmidt v. Defiance (C. C.) 117 F. 702, affirmed (C. C. A.) 123 F. 1. Defendant selected the United States Bond Company as its escrow agent to accomplish the exchange of t......
-
Cuddy v. Sturtevant
... ... by E. D. Cuddy, Vera M. Cuddy substituted as plaintiff, ... against the City of Centralia, etc., Carstens & Earles, Inc., ... and C. K. Sturtevant and another. From ... be solved in favor of the innocent purchasers. Schmidt v ... City of Defiance (C. C.) 117 F. 702. The bonds in ... question have all the ... ...