AMERICAN LOAN &: TRUST CO, t7; ST: LOUIS &: Co RY. 00.
819
value' of the taxable property in .the· county could only be ascertained by reference to the records of 'the county containing it, and that it was the duty of the purchaser to look to the records, and, if he failed todd so, the recitals in the bonds that they were issued in conformity to the stlltute did not estop the county from showing that the bonds were issued contrary to the inhibition contained in the constitution, of which provision in the constitution the purchaser was required to take notice. The constitution of this state does not refer to any public record to ascertain the number of voters in: the county; and, indeed, there is no rec()idshowing conclusively this fact. In the case of Hawkins v. Carroll Co., tMcourt holds that the registration books are competent evidence of the numberofqualified voters in the county, but not conclusive, and that it is competent to show deaths, removals, and 'disqualifications, etc. So that the rule laid down by the court in the Case of Lake County, relied upon by counsel, does not apply to this case. If other reference were necessary to BU pport the validity of the bonds in this suit, it would be found in·· the opinion of the supreme .court of the United States 'in· the case'of TO'Wn8hip of Bernards". MorriBon,10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 333, (decided atth'e present term of that court,-reported in the Supreme Court Re:porter.) The cases of Bank lif Commerce, and that of Mrs. Condet Smith are submitted'together·on demurrer, and are'governed by the same rules. The bonds in:both'cases were issued before the decision of Hawki·ns v. Carroll Co., 50 Mies. 735. The holders in both ettses are bona flde purchasers for value, without notice, and entitled tQ recover the amount of the interest coupons held by them, and will be entitled to recover the amount of the bonds when due. The result is that the demurrer to the bill in ellchcasemust be sustained, the injunction diseolved, and the bill dismissed, 'at complainant's' Msts.
&: TRUST Co. , (O!.icuit
'1'.
CmCA,GO Ry. Co. et al.
Court, S. D. mtnois. ' .tune 10, 1890.)
lUILROAD BONDs-BoNA FIDE HOLDER.
Where overdue railroad mortgage honds, which belong to the railroad company, are bought at 40 cents on the clollar from the vice-president of the company after BUit to foreclose has been begun, and a receiver has taken possession of the mortgaged property, the purchasers of such bonds are uot bonn }ide holders where inqUiry on their part would have shown that the Vice-president had no authority to sell the bonds.
In Equity. W. A-l. Safford and
a.
H. Aldrich, for defendants.
GRE9HAM, J., (orally.) The bill was filed to foreclose the first mortgage, on January 5, 1889; and a receiver was appointed two days later, who
.82ft:
QDERAL .RErO.RTER,
vol. 42·
'Yent into possessionof,the prop\lrty. The bill to foreclose thecoQsolidat. was filedpnJppuary 7, 1889, and the twosuitswere afterw..rds "Tl,le real controversy before the master appears to hllvebeen overtbe bonds numbered from 1,401 to 1,600, inqhlsive. The e.vidence in the recordclearlv that when the two suits were commenced, and later, theae:bonds wereaH in the handsofF. C. Hollins &Co., agents of the con!1olidated company. F. C. Hollins, of Hollins & was vice-president and director of the consolidated company, and a of the committee. he and D. L. Wing, who absolutely contrqlled the action of the corporation. and twenty-one of tqebonds, numbered abpve 1,400, were prf,lsented by Mrs. Celena Hollins, wi,fa of F. C. Hollins, and. 14 of them were by F ·.C. H;o}lins& Co. the master, qew:qsJustified in F. C" as the, holder of these )35 to hav:e 5 of, t,he remaining 65 claiUls to have bought 10 of them B. WaQ,swqrth, .to have bought 19 of theqlA:rom F. O. HoHins, William P .. Dixo,n, claims to· have. bopght .lO, F. ()laims toha,ve pqught 10 of: them from F. C. Hollins, and the holders of the remaining 11 claim to hlj.ye !?pught them fl'Om',otbers. p\lrchaseq, H;ollills. ,Not nw.re tpaIl,;40 cents, on th;e,doHar paid, ;llonds, ftJ;ld ,them were at ,.than ,30 cen1:j:l on t,ha" dO,Hlp'. As already unqElf a qlalj!1e the m9rtgflgf3· ;fPe bopds hap,,@ ,becorne at which time, these 200 to l,'aH'Yay COlllp,&uyj ,and of hold,1 eTI:liPJu,rch!tsed even the . decreE! :foreclosing ,the ,qrst ID9l:tgage,. had, llf!ll3Jl ,tlH1tel,'ed. .is, that, Hollins .b.ad no authority to dispose of, these bonds; and, even if bonds may ,QPugbi as commercial paper after suit to foreclose has been commenced, and after the court has taken possession of the mortgaged property by a receiver, the facts in the record were sufficient to put purchasers upon inquiry; and inquiry would have revealed the fact that Hollins had no authority t9. dis'p0se of tql{ 1:Ionds. . T4e holdf,lrs of 200 bonds are not entitled'to share ill tlie 'distrihu'tion of the fund- arising from :thti saleM the mortgaged an<i a decree be entered that basis. "'.'.' , "\ _. J ·
,
. i,
£ ::;
STEVES. tI. CARSON.
821-
STEVES
et al. v· .cARSON et al.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Ootorado. July 1, 1890.) MINES AND :MINING-PATENT-AnVERSE SUITS-LIMITATIONS.
Rev. Bt. U. S. § 2326, provides that. a suit upon an adverse claim to a mining locA.tion must be begun within 30 days after the claim is filed. Gen. St. Colo. 1883, p. 673, § 18, provides that, in case of failure of a suit from certain causes, the plaintiff' mav renew his suit at any time within one year. Beld, that the fact that an adverse suit had failed for a reason within the purview of said statute did npt authorize the· plaintifi' to begin another suit after the expiration of such 30 days, since said United States statute could not beafi'ected by state l.egislat.ion.'
At Law. On demurrer to complaint. Wilbon «Sti'1fl8on, for· plaintiffs. Porter Plumb, for defendants. Before and HALI,ETT, J J. HALLETT, J. ' March 6, 1889, defendants applied in the land-office at Glenwoo4; Springs to enter the Star Lode claim in Pitkin: county, to a portion of which plaintiffs ,made adverse claim, May :10,,: 1889, under a location called the, "Jay Gould Lode.?l , This suit: w,as< broughtjn ,support ofJP!l April 29,1890,neni'ly one y.ear; after filing the adverse claim in the land-office. The act of congress (Rev. St. § 2326) plainly requires the adverse thirty days after filing hil; claim, to commence proceedings in a court of competent right of possession," and jurisdiction to determine this suit was not brought within that time. Plaintiffs aver, by way of excuse for the delay, that a suit in all respects similar to this was brought by them, in due time, in the districtcourt,Qf Pitkin county, which was afterwards dismissed by the court "for a matter of form," in that no .summons was issued within one month after filirig,the' complaint; and plaintiffs rely on a section ofthe statute oflimitations of the state (section 18, p. 673, Gen. 1883) which provides that, in case oitbe faii- ' ure of a suit from insufficient service,l;lnavoidable. ;ll.ccidelit, 'lind the like, plaintiffs may renew their sutt "at liny time withili one year after the ahatement or other determination of the original suit." This proposa,l to ingraft a statute of the state upon an act of congress does not appear to be within any recognized principle of construction. It is true that state statutes of limitation 'are often enforced in federal ,courts, when, l,ike other laws of the state, they enter into the contract, ,and become binding on the parties. But they have no a proceeding'fordisposing,Qf public land, of which congress has exclusive jurisdiction. In respect to the manner of making locations, it is provided in the act of congress that it may. be supplemented 'by looal i)aw, ,and the rules and customs of minerE'. ,But· iii proceeding in the landoffice, and, upon a controversy in that ofIice,suits.in court to settle the title are to be begun and conducted as declared in the act of congress, which fl\ust be as rull 'and complete on that subject., ' There'wereob",i,ous the application for title,when mac;le.illthe