Town of Andes v. Slauson
Decision Date | 15 April 1889 |
Parties | TOWN OF ANDES v. SLAUSON |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Albert Slauson brought two actions against the town of Andes in the circuit court of the United States for the Northern district of New York, alleging in the complaint in each action that he was a citizen of the state of New Jersey, and the defendant was a municipal corporation of the state of New York; that the defendant subscribed to the stock of the Delhi & Middletown Railroad Company, and issued its bonds, with coupons for interest annexed, in payment thereof, in accordance with the law of New York of 1869, c. 907; and that certain of those coupons passed into the possession and became the property of the plaintiff in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, and payment thereof was duly demanded at maturity, and refused. The amount for which judgment was asked in the first action was $2,709 and interest, and in the second action $2,044 and interest. In the answer to each complaint the defendant admitted that it was a municipal corporation of the state of New York, but denied all the other allegations of the complaint, and alleged that the coupons sued on were in fact the property of citizens of New York, in whose behalf and for whose benefit the action was prosecuted; that at the time of its commencement an action was pending in the supreme court of the state of New York, brought by residents and taxpayers of the defendant town against the holders of the bonds and coupons, to restrain their transfer and collection, on the ground that they were illegal and void; and that, if the plaintiff held any of the coupons, he took them without consideration, and for the purpose of avoiding and nullifying the effect of any judgment that might be recovered in that court, and of enabling him to bring an action in the circuit court of the United States. The subsequent proceedings, as shown by the record transmitted to this court, were as follows:
(1) An order, filed June 18, 1884, for trial before the district judge at chambers, in these words:
(2) and (3) Two orders, each entitled and signed by him, and reciting the trial of the two actions together by consent of parties before him at his chambers in Utica,—the one, an order filed November 15, 1884, for the consolidation of the two actions; and the other, an order filed December 4, 1884, by which the judge made a general finding for the plaintiff upon the facts, and found that in the consolidated action there was due to the plaintiff from the defendant the sum of $5,316.46, (being the aggregate of the sums due in both actions at the day of trial, October 1, 1884,) with interest, and directing judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Greenwood v. Humphrey & Co., Inc
...... congressional contemplation. . . Town of. Andes v. Slauson, 130 U.S. 435, 32 L.Ed. 989, 9. S.Ct. 573; Carper v. Fitzgerald, 121 ......
-
City of Cleveland v. Walsh Const. Co.
......296, 28 L.Ed. 835; Dundee Co. v. Hughes, 124 U.S. 157, 159, 8 Sup.Ct. 377, 31 L.Ed. 357; Andes v. Slauson, 130. U.S. 435, 438, 9 Sup.Ct. 573, 32 L.Ed. 989; Spalding v. Manasse, 131 U.S. 65, ......
-
Twist v. Prairie Oil & Gas Co.
...606, 607, 5 S. Ct. 296, 28 L. Ed. 835; Dundee Co. v. Hughes, 124 U. S. 157, 160, 8 S. Ct. 377, 31 L. Ed. 357; Andes v. Slauson, 130 U. S. 435, 438, 9 S. Ct. 573, 32 L. Ed. 989; Spalding v. Manasse, 131 U. S. 65, 66, 9 S. Ct. 649, 33 L. Ed. 86; Campbell v. United States, 224 U. S. 99, 105, 3......
-
Elder v. McClaskey
......The Young tract. continued to be used as a country residence until subdivided. into town lots in 1881. Upon the Boyle tract of 20 acres was. built a mansion house, which was begun in ...Chateaugay Ore & Iron Co.,. Petitioner, 128 U.S. 544, 9 Sup.Ct. 150; Andes v. Slauson, 130 U.S. 435, 9 Sup.Ct. 573; Insurance Co. v. Hamilton, 11 C.C.A. 42, 63 F. 93; ......