Selden White, Plaintiff In Error v. the Vermont and Massachusetts Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 01 December 1858
• Citation: 21 How. 575,62 U.S. 575,16 L.Ed. 221
• Parties: SELDEN F. WHITE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE VERMONT AND MASSACHUSETTS RAILROAD COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

62 U.S. 575

21 How. 575

16 L.Ed. 221

SELDEN F. WHITE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE VERMONT AND MASSACHUSETTS RAILROAD COMPANY.

December Term, 1858

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Parker for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Hutchins for the defendant.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts.

The suit was brought in the court below by the plaintiff White) against the company, upon several bonds issued by the same.

The case was presented to the court upon an agreed state of facts, and, among others, that the bonds in question were issued by the company, in regular course, and for a sufficient consideration; and that payment had been demanded and refused. Coupons for the accruing interest, previous to the maturity of the bonds, had been duly paid.

It was further agreed that bonds of this description, issued by the company, were sold in the market, and passed from hand to hand by delivery, at prices varying according to the state of the market; and that those in question were issued at or about their date, to a person a citizen of Massachusetts, and were payable in blank, no payee being inserted; that they came into the hands of the plaintiff through several intervening holders, in regular course; and that he then and since lived in the State of New Hampshire, and, before this suit was brought, filled up the blank by inserting 'Selden F. White, or order,' the name of plaintiff, without the knowledge or consent of the defendants.

The court ruled that the suit could not be sustained, for want of jurisdiction.

The ground upon which this ruling below is sought to be maintained is, that these bonds were issued to citizens of Massachusetts; and as they could not be regarded as negotiaple instruments, or, if negotiable, not payable to bearer, the plaintiff was disabled from suing in the Federal court, within the prohibition of the eleventh section of the judiciary act. (15 Pet. R., 125; 2 ib., 318; 3 How., 574; 8 ib., 441.)

In answer to this ground, we think it quite clear, on looking into the agreed state of facts, in connection with the bonds and the mortgage given to secure their payment, that it was the intention of the company, by issuing the bonds in blank, to make them negotiable, and payable to the holder, as bearer, and that the holder might fill up the blank with his own name, or make them payable to himself or bearer, or to order. In other words, the company intended, by the blank, to leave the holder his option as to the form or character of negotiability, without restriction. If the utmost latitude, in this respect, was not intended, why leave the payee in blank when issuing the bonds, or why not fix the limit of negotiability, or negative it altogether? To adopt any other conclusion would seem to us to be unjust to the company, for then the blank would be wholly unmeaning; or if any, a meaning calculated, if not intended, to embarrass the title of the holder.

Assuming, then, that these bonds were intended to be made negotiable, we do not see the difficulty suggested in maintaining the suit in the Federal court; for, until the plaintiff chose to fill up the blank, he is...