In re Leland

S.D. New York

In re Leland

15 F. Cas. 278, 6 Ben. 175

DecidedOctober 15, 1872

StatusPublished

This text of 15 F. Cas. 278 (In re Leland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Leland, 15 F. Cas. 278, 6 Ben. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1872).

Pincite

Opinion

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

I think that, on the authority of the decisions of the highest courts of this state and of the United States, the bonds and coupons in question are negotiable instruments, although issued by an individual, under his seal, and not by a corporation, and are not specialties, so as to make them subject, in the hands of their as-signee, to equities existing against their assignor. Although under seal, they were issued, as they show on their face, to secure the payment of money on time, and they contain, on their face, expressions showing that they are expected to pass from one person to another by delivery. Therefore, the attributes of commercial paper attach to them. Their character cannot be controlled or varied by the mere fact that their maker put a seal after his name. Brainerd v. New York & H. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 496; White v. Vermont & M. R. Co., 21 How. [62 U. S.] 575; Mercer Co. v. Hackett, 1 Wall. [68 U. S.) 83.

Such bonds and their coupons pass by delivery, a purchaser of them, in good faith, is unaffected by want of title in their vendor, and the burden of proof, on a question as to such good faith, lies on the party who assails the possession. Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. [69 U. S.] 110.

The evidence in this case shows, that the Union Square National Bank became, to all substantial intents, the purchaser of these bonds and coupons, in good faith, for a full and fair consideration, in the usual course of business, and without notice of any possible defect in the title of their assignor.

These views proceed on the assumption that the claim of the bank will absorb all dividends on the bonds and coupons, and they apply only to the interest of the bank therein. If there shall be a surplus beyond paying the claim of the bank, questions as to the title and position of their assignor may become material.

The interrogatories which the witness declined to answer were irrelevant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BLATCHFORD, District Judge.

I think that, on the authority of the decisions of the highest courts of this state and of the United States, the bonds and coupons in question are negotiable instruments, although issued by an individual, under his seal, and not by a corporation, and are not specialties, so as to make them subject, in the hands of their as-signee, to equities existing against their assignor. Although under seal, they were issued, as they show on their face, to secure the payment of money on time, and they contain, on their face, expressions showing that they are expected to pass from one person to another by delivery. Therefore, the attributes of commercial paper attach to them. Their character cannot be controlled or varied by the mere fact that their maker put a seal after his name. Brainerd v. New York & H. R. Co., 25 N. Y. 496; White v. Vermont & M. R. Co., 21 How. [62 U. S.] 575; Mercer Co. v. Hackett, 1 Wall. [68 U. S.) 83.

Such bonds and their coupons pass by delivery, a purchaser of them, in good faith, is unaffected by want of title in their vendor, and the burden of proof, on a question as to such good faith, lies on the party who assails the possession. Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. [69 U. S.] 110.

The evidence in this case shows, that the Union Square National Bank became, to all substantial intents, the purchaser of these bonds and coupons, in good faith, for a full and fair consideration, in the usual course of business, and without notice of any possible defect in the title of their assignor.

These views proceed on the assumption that the claim of the bank will absorb all dividends on the bonds and coupons, and they apply only to the interest of the bank therein. If there shall be a surplus beyond paying the claim of the bank, questions as to the title and position of their assignor may become material.

The interrogatories which the witness declined to answer were irrelevant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 F. Cas. 278, 6 Ben. 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-leland-nysd-1872.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack