Township of Burilington v. Beasley

• Decision Date: 01 October 1876
• Citation: 94 U.S. 310,24 L.Ed. 161
• Parties: TOWNSHIP OF BURILINGTON v. BEASLEY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

94 U.S. 310

24 L.Ed. 161

TOWNSHIP OF BURILINGTON v. BEASLEY.

October Term, 1876

IN error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.

This was a suit brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, by Alfred W. Beasley, against the ownship of Burlington, in the county of Coffey, and State of Kansas, to recover the amount due upon sixty-four coupons, each for the sum of twenty-five dollars, together with interest thereon. Of these coupons, as well as of the bonds to which they had been originally attached, the said Beasley averred himself to have become the true and lawful owner and holder for value before maturity, and also to be such owner at the commencement of his suit.

The bonds to which these coupons had been attached are a part of a series of sixteen bonds, each for the sum of $500, the whole amounting to the sum of $8,000, issued by said township Dec. 3, 1872, to aid one John S. Stow in the construction and completion and to furnish the motive power of a steam custom grist-mill in said township,—the same belonging to the said

Stow, and not being situated on a watercourse, or operated by water-power.

A copy of one of said bonds is as follows, to wit:——

'$500.] BOND OF BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP. [No. 1.

'County of Coffey, State of Kansas.

'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

'Burlington Township, in the county of Coffey, State of Kansas, promises to pay John S. Stow, or bearer, the sum of $500, on the third day of December, A.D. 1877, and interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum, payable semi-annually, upon presentation of the coupons therefor, hereto annexed: both principal and interest payable at the banking-house of Northrup & Chick, in the city of New York.

'This bond is one of an issue of $8,000, made for the purpose of aiding internal improvements in said township, and in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of Kansas, entitled 'An Act to authorize counties, incorporated cities, and municipal townships to issue bonds for the purpose of building bridges, aiding in the construction of railroads, water-power, or other works of internal improvement, and providing for the registration of such bonds, the registration of other bonds, and the repealing of all laws in conflict therewith,' approved March 2, 1872.

'In testimony whereof, the township trustee, clerk, and treasurer have caused this bond to be issued, duly signed, attested, and countersigned, this third day of December, A.D. 1872.

'H. R. FLOOK, Trustee.

'Attest: G. N. McCONNELL, Clerk.

'Countersigned: H. L. JARBOE, Treasurer.'

The following is a copy of one of the coupons sued upon, to wit:——

'$25,00.]

[No. 3.

'The treasurer of Burlington Township, Coffey County, Kansas, will pay to the bearer twenty-five dollars, at the banking-house of Northrup & Chick, in the city of New York, on the third day of June, A.D. 1874, for six months' interest on bond No. 1, issued on the third day of December, A.D. 1872.

'Attest: G. N. McCONNELL, Township Clerk.

H. R. FLOOK, Township Trustee.'- The case comes here on a certificate of division upon the following questions:——

'First, Does the second count of the defendant's answer set up a sufficient defence to the action?

'Second, Said bonds having been issued to aid a steam custom grist-mill, not situated on a watercourse, or operated by waterpower, was there any power or authority to issue the same?

'Third, If there was no such power or authority, are the bonds containing the recital therein appearing valid in the hands of a holder thereof for value before maturity, who has no notice of the purpose for which the same were issued, other than as shown by the face of the bonds?'

The plaintiff recovered judgment, and the town now brings the case here by writ of error.

Mr. A. M. F. Randolph, for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. A. L. Williams, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

The bonds which are the foundation of this action purport upon their face to be issued by virtue of an act of the legislature of the State of Kansas, approved March 2, 1872, of which the title is given in the bonds. They contain no specific statement of the purpose for which they were issued. There is nothing upon their face to indicate fraud, unlawful assumption of authority, or irregularity. If there was, in fact and in law, authority in the town under any circumstances to issue its bonds, and if these bonds bear the impress of such authority, there is nothing to vitiate them when taken by bona fide holders.

The second answer alleges that the bonds were issued to John S. Stow to...