Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

payment was to be in unauthorized bonds; Magie v. Union Township, 40 N. J. L. 455, holding defense of ultra vires not to be raised by demurrer, notes being regular on face; Slingerland v. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 68, 23 Atl. 131, holding right of municipality to give sealed non-negotiable evidences of indebtedness, unquestionable. Departed from in Williamsport v. Commonwealth, 84 Pa. St. 496, 497, 24 Am. Rep. 216, 217, holding municipality has implied power to Issue notes to evidence lawful debts.

Municipal corporations.- Warrants, orders, etc., given by city to its creditors as evidence of amount of claims, are valid for that purpose and transferable, p. 477.

Cited and relied upon in Dorian v. Shreveport, 28 Fed. 291, 292, holding bond evidence of indebtedness although not valid as negotiable paper; Thompson v. Searcy Co., 57 Fed. 1036, 12 U. S. App. 618, holding county warrants mere prima facie evidence of valid claim; Johnson v. New Orleans, 46 La. Ann. 715, 15 So. 101, holding holders of city claims entitled to payment only from funds appro priated for payment of such claims; Neely v. Yorkville, 10 S. C 149, holding bond given for valid municipal debt, valid; Soule v Seattle, 6 Wash. 323, 33 Pac. 387, holding city warrants merely show right of holder to participate in special fund when realized; arguendo in Anthony v. Sewing Machine Co., 16 R. I. 572, 18 Atl. 176, 5 L. R. A. 576. See 30 Am. Dec. 193, note on borrowing power of municipalities; 67 Am. Dec. 153, note on rights under illegal contract.

Municipal corporations.- City drafts and orders, while negotlable, depend for validity, even in hands of bona fide holders, upon regularity of issue, p. 478.

Cited and followed in Wall v. County of Monroe, 103 U. S. 78, 26 L. 432, holding bona fide holder of county warrants takes with notice of all defects; Claiborne Co. v. Brooks, 111 U. S. 407, 28 L. 473, 4 S. Ct. 492, holding county voucher examinable as to validity in all hands; Adams v. Republic Co., 23 Fed. 213, holding county warrants negotiable but always subject to original defenses; Aylesworth v. Gratiot Co., 43 Fed. 355, holding holder of county orders takes subject to legal and equitable defenses; Board of Commrs. v. Sherwood, 64 Fed. 107, 27 U. S. App. 458, holding county warrants not conclusive evidence of indebtedness; Goodwin v. East Hartford, 70 Conn. 42, 38 Atl. 885, a similar case; McPherson v. Foster, 43 Iowa, 67, 22 Am. Rep. 230, holding taker of unauthorized city bonds chargeable with notice of infirmities; North Bergen v. Eager, 41 N. J. L. 187, holding improvement certificates, always subject to defenses available against original holder; Fritsch v. Board of Commrs.. 15 Utah, 96, 47 Pac. 1030, holding persons receiving unauthorized county bonds do so at their peril; Bardsley v. Sternberg. 17 Wash. 249, 49 Pac. 501, holding municipal warrants not nego.

tiable in sense of excluding inquiry into legality of issue. Principle applied in Dartmouth Bank v. School Districts, 6 Dak. 343, 43 N. W. 825, holding municipal corporations may always raise defense of ultra vires in actions on their contracts; Newberry v. Fox, 37 Minn. 143, 5 Am. St. Rep. 831, 33 N. W. 334, holding municipality not estopped from denying validity of contract made by its officers without authority; Board of Commrs. v. Nelson, 51 Minn. 86, 38 Am. St. Rep. 497, 52 N. W. 993, holding wrongful acts of municipal officers cannot create estoppel against corporation; Isom v. First National Bank, 52 Miss. 919, 920, holding taker of county warrants chargeable with notice of infirmities; Hall v. Ashby, 2 Mont. 493, holding those dealing with agent of municipality bound to ascertain extent of his authority; Board of Supervisors v. Catlett's Exrs.. 86 Va. 163, 9 S. E. 1001, holding allowance of claim by supervisors no bar to contesting validity thereof.

Municipal corporations. Drafts issued by city upon its treasury, after being received by city in payment of taxes, have no further validity and cannot be reissued, p. 480.

Cited and applied in District of Columbia v. Cornell, 130 U. 8. 661, 32 L. 1043, 9 S. Ct. 695, holding certificates redeemed and cancelled, and subsequently wrongfully issued, invalid; Goodwin v. East Hartford, 70 Conn. 42, 38 Atl. 885, a similar case; Bardsley v. Sternberg, 17 Wash. 251, 253, 49 Pac. 502, holding warrants coming into treasurers' hands henceforth functus officio; dissenting opinion in Bardsley v. Sternberg, 18 Wash. 639, 52 Pac. 259, majority holding purchase of warrants by treasurer not a payment.

Distinguished in Little Rock v. National Bank, 98 U. S. 315, 25 L. 110, where State law allowed issuance and reissuance of bonds. Municipal corporations may borrow for legitimate municipal use. issuing their negotiable notes, subject to rules of commercial law when held by bona fide holders, per Hunt, J., p. 483.

Followed in Holmes v. Shreveport, 31 Fed. 118, 119, holding: municipalities authorized to issue promissory notes for credit price of work done, protected by law merchant.

Principal and agent. One retaining money received by an agent for his account cannot repudiate contract on which it is received, per Hunt, J., p. 484.

Cited in Perkins v. Boothby, 71 Me. 95, holding principal retaining benefit of money, borrowed for his use by unauthorized agent, cannot refuse to pay lender.

Miscellaneous. Note to 3 McCrary, 577, as recognizing that laws of State are notice to all; Ralston v. Town of Weston, W. Va. -, 33 S. E. 330, holding estoppel does not apply to destruction of public easements by individuals.

VOL. VIII- 17

19 Wall. 485-486, 22 L. 180, THE MAYOR v. LINDSEY.

Argued with, and decided in accordance with decision in, Mayof v. Ray, supra.

Cited in Fairly v. Nash, 70 Miss. 201 (see 12 So. 152), holding principal cannot repudiate agent's acts and retain benefit thereof.

19 Wall. 486-490, 22 L. 67, UNITED STATES v. ARWO.

Admiralty. Under act of March 3, 1825, one is triable for assault on the high seas in district in which he is delivered to marshal, although first delivered to State officers in another district for safe-keeping, p. 490.

Cited in Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 212, 34 L. 695, 11 S. Ct. 83, holding murder, committed on Guano Island, triable in first district into which murderer is brought.

19 Wall. 490-505, 22 L. 189, TAPPAN v. MERCHANTS' A TIONAL BANK.

Property.- Personal property follows the owner and has its situs at his domicile, p. 494.

Cited and principle applied in Central Trust Co. v. Chattanooga, etc., R. R., 68 Fed. 689, holding, for purpose of jurisdiction, situs of debt follows person of creditor; Jack v. Walker, 79 Fed. 141, holding mortgage taxable only in State where owner resides; Atchison, etc., R. R. v. Maggard, 6 Colo. App. 94, 39 Pac. 987, holding wages can only be garnisheed in State where employee resides, and services were rendered; Goldgart v. People, 106 Ill. 29, holding non-resident creditor not liable for taxation on debts due him from residents; Pullen v. Hillman, 84 Me. 132, 30 Am. St. Rep. 342, 24 Atl. 796, holding Insolvency Court lacked jurisdiction to discharge from debt due resident of another State; Augusta v. Kimball, 91 Me. 609, 40 Atl. 668, 41 L. R. A. 477, holding securities held in trust in another State not taxable, although beneficiaries reside in Maine; Ogden v. St. Joseph, 90 Mo. 529, 3 S. W. 27, holding shares of corporation stock taxable only in jurisdiction to which owner's person is subject; Railroad v. Commissioners, 91 N. C. 457, holding non-resident holder of shares in corporation in State not taxable therein; Grant v. Jones, 39 Ohio St. 514, holding credits owned by non-resident not taxable; Hawk v. Bonn, 6 Ohio C. C. 465, holding property of estate held in another State, one executor being a resident of Ohio, not taxable; Mayor v. Alexander, 10 Lea, 476, holding personal property of estate taxable at executor's domicile; Street R. R. v. Morrow, 87 Tenn. 429, 11 S. W. 353, 2 L. R. A. 860, holding corporation bonds taxable at holder's residence, not location of corporation; arguendo, in Mason v. Beebe, 44 Fed. 559, holding Illinois exemption laws applicable through comity to garnishment of Illinois debt in Iowa.

ANN

Taxation. For purposes of taxation personal property may be separated from its owner, and he may be taxed therefor at place of its actual location, p. 499.

Cited and principle applied in Pullman's Car Co. v. Pennsylvania, 141 U. S. 23, 35 L. 616, 11 S. Ct. 878, upholding tax on cars of foreign corporation used in State; Savings Society v. Multnomah Co., 169 U. S. 427, 42 L. 805, 18 S. Ct. 394, upholding taxation of mortgages in county where land lies, irrespective of mortgagee's domicile, collecting cases; New Orleans v. Stempel, 175 U. S. 320, holding bonds in State, but property of non-resident, taxable therein; Swallow v. Thomas, 15 Kan. 68, and Commissioners v. Nelson, 19 Kan. 245, 27 Am. Rep. 110, upholding power to separate situs of property from domicile of owner for taxation; Fisher v. Commrs. of Rush Co., 19 Kan. 415, holding resident of Kansas not there taxable for notes left in Iowa for collection; Finch v. York Co., 19 Neb. 52, 56 Am. Rep. 743, 26 N. W. 590, holding securities of non-resident left in State for collection taxable therein; State v. Shaw, 21 Nev. 226, 29 Pac. 322, holding cattle taxable in county of habitat, irrespective of owner's residence; Winkley v. Newton, 67 N. H. 83, 36 Atl. 612, 35 L. R. A. 757, holding ice cut and stored in State by non-resident taxable therein; Jenkins v. Charleston, 5 S. C. 402, 22 Am. Rep. 24, holding city stock owned by non-residents taxable in city; St. Albans v. Car Co., 57 Vt. 81, holding stock owned by non-residents in home corporation taxable at location thereof; Greves v. Shaw, 173 Mass. 208, 53 N. E. 372, holding stock in State corporation, owned by non-resident, taxable, although certificates are in another State; Morrison v. Manchester, 58 N. H. 551, holding mortgaged property taxable to mortgagor in possession. See 62 Am. St. Rep. 449, 451, 459, monographic note.

Property. Shares of stock of national banks are personal property, p. 500.

Cited in Manns v. Brookville Bank, 78 Ind. 245, holding bank stock mortgageable as personal property.

Taxation.-State in which national bank is located has power to tax shares of stock therein, whether held by residents or nonresidents, p. 500.

Cited and relied upon in McIver v. Robinson, 53 Ala. 458, holding national bank shares taxable where bank is located; National Commercial Bank v. Mayor, 62 Ala. 296, 34 Am. Rep. 21, holding State may require national banks to pay taxes for stockholders; State v. Travellers' Ins. Co., 70 Conn. 603, 66 Am. St. Rep. 144, 40 Atl. 468, upholding taxation of corporate stock held by nonresidents; Burke v. Speer, 59 Ga. 355, affirming levy of execution under judgment for like tax; State v. Newark, 39 N. J. L. 384, holding mode of assessment of such stock within discretion of legislature; De Baun v. Smith, 55 N. J. L. 111, 25 Atl. 277, holding

stock in national bank located in another State not taxable; Williams v. Weaver, 75 N. Y. 36, upholding statute assessing shares in county of bank's location; Buie v. Commissioners, 79 N. C. 271, 274, holding such shares owned by residents taxable at place of owner's residence or of bank's location; Lemby v. Commissioners, 85 N. C. 382, holding State may tax such shares where there is no discrimination against them; Bradley v. Bauder, 36 Ohio St. 35, 38 Am. Rep. 549, holding resident owner of shares in foreign corporation taxable therefor; Stockholders v. Supervisors, 88 Va. 295, 13 S. E. 408, upholding statute taxing bank shares without regard to residence of holders. See the following valuable notes: 56 Am. Dec. 530, 96 Am. Dec. 292, 293, 295, 296, and 62 Am. St. Rep. 459, 469.

Cited, but not applied, in Baldwin v. City Council, 53 Ala. 439, holding taxation of bank shares not delegated to municipalities. Distinguished in Linton v. Childs, 105 Ga. 572, 32 S. E. 619, holding tax on bank presidents inoperative as to national banks; Carthage v. First National Bank, 71 Mo. 509, 36 Am. Rep. 495, holding municipal license tax on national banks void.

Taxation. Illinois Constitution of 1848 contained no provision prohibiting taxation of shares of national bank stock at place of bank's location, irrespective of owner's place of residence, p. 505.

Cited generally in State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 612, 23 L. 673, holding tax in proportion to assessed value of road in each county, valid.

Miscellaneous.- City National Bank v. Paducah, 2 Flipp. 63, F. C. 2,743, as impliedly upholding jurisdiction in like cases; Dubuque ▼. Chicago, etc., R. R., 47 Iowa, 199, as to impossibility of exactly equal taxation; Douglass v. Harrisville, 9 W. Va. 168, 27 Am. Rep. 551, and Williams v. County Court, 26 W. Va. 530, no application.

19 Wall. 505-514, 22 L. 205, EX PARTE ROBINSON.

Contempt.- Power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts, p. 510.

Cited and principle applied in Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 303, 32 L. 408, 9 S. Ct. 79, reprinted in 13 Sawy. 462, upholding power of Circuit Court to imprison for contempt; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth Co., 134 U. S. 37, 33 L. 804, 10 S. Ct. 426, holding summary proceedings for contempt, without jury trial, due process of law; Interstate Commerce Commn. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 489, 38 L. 1061, 14 S. Ct. 1138, holding contempt not triable, of right, by jury; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 596, 39 L. 1106, 14 S. Ct. 1138, holding enforcement of injunction by contempt proceedings not an execution of criminal laws; Fischer v. Hayes, 19 Blatchf. 22, 6 Fed. 72, upholding power to com mit until fine for contempt be paid; In re Neagle, 14 Sawy. 267, 268, 39 Fed. 857, 5 L. R. A. 91, holding power to punish for contempt in

ANN

« ForrigeFortsett »