text:
Texas v. Hardenberg/Opinion of the Court

THIS case, which, in its principal aspect, has been already reported, was now here upon an additional part of it, and under an order made when the main decree was given for further hearing on that additional part, if such hearing should be demanded. The case as presented by that part-a presentation of which, in a full and consecutive way, makes necessary a repetition of some parts of the original case-was thus:

In 1851, the United States issued five thousand bonds for $1000 each, and numbered successively from No. 1 to No. 5000, to the State of Texas. The bonds, which were dated January 1st, 1851, were coupon bonds, payable, by their terms, to the State of Texas or bearer, with interest at five per cent. semi-annually, and redeemable after the 31st day of December, 1864.' Each bond contained a statement on its face that the debt was authorized by act of Congress, and was transferable on delivery,' and to each were attached six-month coupons, extending to December 31, 1864, but no further.

In pursuance of an act of the legislature of Texas, the controller of public accounts of the State was authorized to go to Washington, and to receive there the bonds; the statute making it his duty to deposit them, when received, in the treasury of the State of Texas, to be disposed of as may be provided by law; and enacting further, that no bond, issued as aforesaid and payable to bearer, should be 'available in the hands of any holder until the same shall have been indorsed, in the city of Austin, by the governor of the State of Texas.'

Most of the bonds were indorsed and sold according to law, and purchased in or paid by the United States prior to 1860. A part of them, however, appropriated by act of legislature as a school fund, were still in the treasury of Texas, in January, 1861, when the late Southern rebellion broke out. Texas was one of the rebel States; and the part which she took in the rebellion is sufficiently known. In the particular matter of this case, the legislature of the State, immediately after its so-called 'ordinance of secession' was passed, directed the rebel military board of the State to dispose of any bonds and coupons which may be in the treasury on any account, and use such funds or their proceeds for the defence of the State; and repealed the act which made an indorsement of the bonds by the governor of Texas necessary to make them available in the hands of the holder.

Under these acts, the military board, on the 12th January, 1865, a date at which the success of the Federal arms seemed probable, agreed to sell to White & Chiles a large number of these bonds, then in the treasury of Texas, and the bonds were delivered to White & Chiles on the 15th March following, none of them being indorsed by any governor of Texas.

In February, 1862, after the rebellion had broken out, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States was informed by the Hon. G. W. Paschal, a loyal citizen of the State of Texas, that an effort would be made by the rebel authorities of Texas to use the bonds remaining in the treasury in aid of the rebellion; but that they could be identified, because all that had been circulated before the war were indorsed by different governors of Texas. The Secretary of the Treasury acted on this information, and refused in general to pay bonds that had not been indorsed. On the 4th of October, 1865, this same gentleman acting as an agent of the State of Texas, caused to appear in the money report and editorial articles of the New York Herald, a notice of the transaction between the rebel government of Texas and White & Chiles, and a statement that the treasury of the United States would not pay the bonds transferred to them by such usurping government. In addition to this, on the 10th October, 1865, the provisional governor of the State published in the New York Tribune, a 'Caution to the Public,' in which he recited that the rebel government of Texas had, under a pretended contract, transferred to White & Chiles 'one hundred and thirty-five United States Texan indemnity bonds, issued January 1, 1851, payable in fourteen years, of the denomination of $1000 each, and coupons attached thereto to the amount of $1287.50, amounting in the aggregate, bonds and coupons, to the sum of $156,287.50.' His caution did not specify, however, any particular bonds by number. The caution went on to say that the transfer was a conspiracy between the rebel governor and White & Chiles to rob the State treasury, that White & Chiles had never paid the State one farthing, that they had fled the State, and that these facts had been made known to the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. And 'a protest was filed with him by Mr. Paschal, the agent of the State of Texas, against the payment of the said bonds and coupons unless presented for payment by proper authority.' The substance of this notice was published in money articles of various newspapers of about that date, and men in New York and other places, dealing in stocks, spoke to the agent who had caused it to be inserted in the Tribune, about it. It was testified also, that after the commencement of the suit, White & Chiles said that they had seen it.

The rebel forces being disbanded on the 25th May, 1865, and the civil officers of the usurping government of Texas having fled from the country, the State of Texas, on the 15th February, 1867, filed, with the leave of the court, a bill against White & Chiles, one Hardenberg, and some other persons, as defendants, on account of these bonds.

The bill set forth the issue and delivery of the bonds to the State, the fact that they were seized by a combination of persons in armed hostility to the government of the United States, sold by an organization styled the military board, to White & Chiles, for the purpose of aiding the overthrow of the Federal government; that White & Chiles had not performed what they agreed to do; that they had transferred such and such numbers, specifying them, to Hardenberg, and such and such others to different persons named; that these transfers were not in good faith, but were with express notice on the part of the transferees of the manner in which the bonds had been obtained by White & Chiles; that the bonds were overdue at the time of the transfer; and that they had never been indorsed by any governor of Texas; that they were placed in the hands of the defendants holding them, for the purpose of collecting the proceeds from the United States; and that the defendants designed to collect the proceeds and apply the same to their own use, in disregard of the just rights, and to the great loss and injury of the complainant. And one of the interrogatories required from each defendant, except White & Chiles, to whom somewhat different interrogatories were addressed, a statement whether any other person was interested in any, and, if any, in which of the bonds, or the proceeds thereof.

The prayer of the bill was for an injunction against the defendants or any of them asking, or receiving payment of the bonds from the United States, and that the bonds might be delivered to the State of Texas; and for other and further relief as to the court should seem fit and proper. On the same 15th of February, 1867, that the bill was filed, a motion for injunction was made, and it was ordered to be set down for hearing on the 2d of May following, and that copies should be served on the defendants at least ten days before. Process and subpoena were issued forthwith and served; the service on Hardenberg being made February 27th. He filed his answer May 15th, and on the 16th, the motion for an injunction was granted with leave to the defendants to move to dissolve it at December Term, 1868. The dates are important, as will appear in connection with other dates hereafter stated.

The different defendants answered, and evidence having been taken and the cause argued, a decree was entered affirming the jurisdiction of the court (of which a denial had been made, and which was a main point argued), and finding that the contract of the 12th of January, 1865, between White & Chiles and the military board of Texas, was null and void; and that the indemnity bonds, received by the State from the United States, and transferred under that contract to White & Chiles, remained the property of the State notwithstanding that transfer.

The decree further found that the State of Texas was entitled to recover any of the bonds and coupons, or any proceeds thereof, which had come to the possession of any other defendants than White & Chiles, with notice of the equity of the complainant, and perpetually enjoined Hardenberg, with other defendants, from setting up any claim or title to any of the bonds and coupons, or proceeds, which had come into their possession and control with such notice.

It was further decreed that certain defendants were accountable to make restitution of the bonds and the proceeds received by them; but it appearing that Hardenberg, before the commencement of this suit, had deposited thirty-four bonds with the Secretary of the Treasury, and now alleged that he had received payment from the United States before the service of process, it was ordered that the counsel of those parties should be further heard in respect to such payment and the effect of it.

It was this matter, therefore, a sequel, as already said, of the main case, which made the chief subject of the present hearing; re-argument being also, in fact, allowed on a point argued on the hearing of the main case,-how far Hardenberg was a holder bon a fide, for value and without notice, of the bonds held by him.

The case, as respects both these points, was thus:

1. As to the effect of the payment.-The answer of Hardenberg to the bill filed by the State of Texas, stated, that 'on the 16th of February, 1867, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the payment to the respondent of all said bonds and coupons, and the same were paid on that day.' That the bonds had been taken up was true; and the books of the treasury showed them as among the redeemed bonds; and showed nothing else. As a matter of fact, however, and as regarded the matter of a payment, the case was not so clear. It appeared that the agents of Texas, on the one hand, had been urging the government not to pay the bonds, and that Hardenberg, on the other (who had been advised by Mr. Tayler, December 17th, 1866, that payment was delayed in order that information might be got from Texas), was pressing for payment; it being insisted by him, as also by other bondholders who were pressing for payment of their bonds, that the United States had no right to withhold the money, now overdue, and ceasing to draw interest. The Controller of the Treasury, Mr. Tayler, in this state of things, made a report, on the 29th of January, 1867, to the Secretary of the Treasury, in which he mentioned, that it seemed to be agreed by the agents of the State, that her case depended on her ability to show a want of good faith on the part of the holders of the bonds; and that he had stated to the agents, that as considerable delay had already been incurred, he would, unless during the succeeding week they took proper legal steps against the holders, feel it his duty to pay such bonds as were unimpeached in title in the holders' hands. He accordingly recommended to the secretary payment of Hardenberg's and of some others. The agents, on the same day that the controller made his report, and after he had written most of it, informed him that they would take legal proceedings on behalf of the State; and were informed in turn that the report would be made on that day, and would embrace Hardenberg's bonds. Two days afterwards (January 31st, 1867), a personal action was commenced, in the name of the State of Texas, against Mr. McCulloch, the then Secretary of the Treasury, to compel the detention of the bonds of Hardenberg and others. On the 8th of February, Mr. Tayler informed Hardenberg that his bonds had been reported to the secretary, with a recommendation that they be paid; but that while the clerk in the secretary's office, according to the usual practice, was preparing a statement, the personal action above referred to had been commenced against Mr. McCulloch for the detention of the bonds, and that 'this of course compelled the secretary to postpone the payment.' This personal action was dismissed February 19th. On the 15th of this same February, as already stated, the present bill was filed. On the 16th of the month, no process under the present bill having then, nor until the 27th following, been served on Hardenberg, Mr. Tayler, Controller of the Treasury, and one Cox, the agent of Hardenberg, entered into an arrangement, by which it was agreed that this agent should deposit with Mr. Tayler government notes known as 'seven-thirties,' equivalent in value to the bonds and coupons held by Hardenberg. The seven-thirties were then delivered to Mr. Tayler, and a check in coin for the amount of the bonds and interest was delivered to Hardenberg's agent. The seven-thirties were subsequently converted into the bonds called 'five-twenties,' and these remained in the hands of Mr. Tayler, being registered in his name as 'trustee.' The books of the treasury showed nothing in relation to this trust; nor, as already said, anything more or other than that the bonds were paid to Hardenberg or his agent. But a correspondence, referred to in the opinion of the court below, gave the particulars of the transaction. The correspondence was thus:

[TAYLER TO COX.]

WASHINGTON, February 19, 1867.

DEAR SIR: In accordance with the understanding between you and me in relation to the Texan indemnity bonds presented for payment by your client, Mr. Hardenberg, you deposited with me $55,000, in 7-30 Treasury notes, and I advised the secretary to pay you the bonds.

You were accordingly paid 34 bonds, $34,

The $55,000 7-30 notes were deposited with and are held by me as indemnity for Mr. McCulloch against any personal damage, loss, and expense in which he may be involved by reason of the payment of the bonds.

I believe this states substantially the arrangement, and the cause and condition of the deposit.

I am, very sincrely, yours,

R. W. TAYLER.

HON. S. S.C.ox, New York.

[TAYLER TO HUNTINGTON.]

WASHINGTON, February 26, 1867.

SIR: Herewith I hand you $55,000 dollars U.S. 7-30 notes, which were delivered to me by S. S.C.ox for a purpose explained in my letter to him of the 19th inst. In lieu of these 7-30's I have received from you $55,000, 5-20 registered bonds of 1865, which are taken, as advised by Mr. Cox, and are to be held for the purpose above referred to. The bonds are registered in my name as trustee.

I am, very respectfully,

R. W. TAYLER.

W. S. HUNTINGTON,

Cashier of the First National Bank, Washington.

[TAYLER TO COX.]

WASHINGTON, March 2, 1867.

DEAR SIR: Referring to my letter of the 19th February, to yours of the 20th, and to our conversation a few days since, I have to inform you that W. S. Huntington, cashier of the First National Bank, Washington, placed in my hands $50,000 registered 5-20 bonds of 1865, in lieu of the 7-30's mentioned in my letter, and that I handed the 7-30's to him. The bonds are registered in my name as trustee, and carry interest from January 1, 1867.

I am, very respectfully,

R. W. TAYLER.

HON. S. S.C.ox, New York.

Besides these letters, which were exhibits to depositions of Tayler, a letter and memorandum were in the record, being papers addressed by Mr. Tayler, the one to the Chief Justice, in consequence of some inquiry from the Bench, at an early stage of the case, whether the secretary had paid bonds after a bill was filed on the order to prevent payment; the other an explanatory memorandum to counsel. The letter and memorandum were thus:

[TAYLER TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.]

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

WASHINGTON, January 22, 1868.

SIR: In the answer of Mr. Hardenberg, in the case of 'The State of Texas v. White et al.,' it is stated that 'on the 16th day of February, 1867, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the payment to the respondent of all said bonds and coupons, and the same were paid on that day.' I am told the court think this action of the secretary disrespectful toward them; but I am sure nothing disrespectful was intended, and I know that no act of the secretary in relation to these bonds disregarded any order or decree of the court. In form the bonds were paid; in fact the proceeds have been withheld from Mr. Hardenberg, because of the legal proceedings, which the secretary did not desire to defeat.

I am, very respectfully,

R. W. TAYLER.

HON. S. P. CHASE, Chief Justice.

[MEMORANDUM GIVEN TO COUNSEL.]

WASHINGTON, January 24, 1868.

The particular form in which the matter of Hardenberg, referred to in my letter of the 22d to the Chief Justice, was arranged, is as follows: At the time, the agent of Hardenberg claimed that the personal action against the secretary having been withdrawn, and the decree enjoining the collection of the bonds not having been served upon Hardenberg, there was no legal objection against the payment of the bonds. The secretary, however, while not disputing this, was not inclined under the circumstances to pay them. It was then insisted that the United States had no right to withhold the money, thus depriving the holder of interest upon it; and upon this suggestion it was arranged that 7-30 notes, equivalent in value to the bonds and interest, should be deposited with an officer of the department to secure the secretary against any claim growing out of the litigation, in whatever shape it might come, and from any censure in the matter. The 7-30's were accordingly deposited, and then a check in coin, for the amount of the bonds and interest, was delivered. This arrangement was not made by Hardenberg in person, but by a gentleman representing him The 7-30's were subsequently converted into 5-20 bonds, which are in the hands of the same officer.

R. W. TAYLER.

As to the bona fides, &c., the case seemed much thus:

In the beginning of November, 1866, after the date of the notices given by the State of Texas and her agents, and after the date from which the bonds by their terms were 'redeemable,' and after which the coupons ran out; some coupons then, of course, overdue and unpaid being on the bonds, one Hennessey, residing in New York, and carrying on an importing and commission business, sold to Hardenberg thirty of these same bonds, originally given to White & Chiles; and which thirty, a correspondent of his, long known to him, in Tennessee, had sent to him for sale. Hardenberg bought them 'at the rate of $1.20 for the dollar on their face,' and paid for them. Hennessy had 'heard from somebody that there was some difficulty about the bonds being paid at the treasury, but did not remember whether he heard that before or after the sale.'

Hardenberg also bought others of these bonds near the same time, at 1.15 per cent., under circumstances thus testified to by Mr. C. T. Lewis, a lawyer of New York:

'In conversation with Mr. Hardenberg, I had learned that he was interested in the Texan indemnity bonds, and meditated purchasing same. I was informed in Wall Street that such bonds were offered for sale by Kimball & Co., at a certain price, which price I cannot now recollect. I informed Mr. Hardenberg of this fact, and he requested me to secure the bonds for him at that price. I went to C. H. Kimball & Co., and told them to send the bonds to Mr. Hardenberg's office and get a check for them, which I understand they did. I remember expressing to Mr. Hardenberg the opinion that these bonds, being on their face negotiable by delivery, and payable in gold, must, at no distant day, be redeemed according to their tenor, and were, therefore, a good purchase at the price at which they were offered.

'My impression is, that before this negotiation I had read a paragraph in some New York newspaper, stating that the payment of the whole issue of the Texas indemnity bonds was suspended until the history of a certain portion of the issue, supposed to have been negotiated for the benefit of the rebel service, should be understood. I am not at all certain whether I read this publication before or after the date of the transaction. If the publication was made before this transaction I had probably read the article before the purchase was made. My impression is, that it was a paragraph in a money article, but I attributed no great importance to it. I acted in this matter simply as the friend of Mr. Hardenberg, and received no commission for my services. I am a lawyer by profession, and not a broker.'

Kimball & Co. (the brokers thus above referred to by Mr. Lewis), testified that they had received the bonds thus sold, from a firm which they named, 'in perfect good faith, and sold them in like good faith as we would any other lot of bonds received from a reputable house.' It appeared, however, that in sending the bonds to Kimball & Co., for sale, the firm had requested that they might not be known in the transaction.

Hardenberg's own account of the matter, as declared by his answer, was thus:

'That he was a merchant in the city of New York; that he purchased the bonds held by him in open market in said city; that the parties from whom he purchased the same were responsible persons, residing and doing business in said city; that he purchased of McKim, Brothers & Co., bankers in good standing in Wall Street, one bond at 1.15 per cent., on the 6th of November, 1866, when gold was at the rate of $1.47 1/4, and declining; that when he purchased the same he made no inquiries of McKim, Brothers & Co., but took the bonds on his own observation of their plain tenor and effect at what he conceived to be a good bargain; that afterwards, and before the payment of said bonds and coupons by the Secretary of the Treasury, and at the request of the Controller, Hon. R. W. Tayler, he made inquiry of said firm of McKim, Brothers & Co., and they informed him that said bonds and coupons had been sent to them to be sold by the First National Bank of Wilmington, North Carolina; that he purchased on the 8th of November, 1866, thirty of said bonds, amounting to the sum of $32,475, of J. S. Hennessey, 29 Warren Street, New York city, doing business as a commission merchant, who informed him that, in the way of business, they were sent him by Hugh Douglas, of Nashville, Tennessee; that he paid at the rate of 120 cents at a time, to wit, the 8th of November, 1866, when gold was selling at 1.46 and declining; that the three other bonds were purchased by him on the 8th of November, 1866, of C. H. Kimball & Co., 30 Broad Street, brokers in good standing, who informed him, on inquiry afterwards, that said bonds were handed them to be sold by a banking house in New York of the highest respectability, who owned the same, but whose names were not given, as the said firm informed him they could 'see no reason for divulging private transactions;' and that he paid for last-mentioned bonds at the rate of 120 cents, on said 8th day of November, 1866, when gold was selling at 1.46 and declining.

'Further answering, he saith that he had no knowledge at the time of said purchase, that the bonds were obtained from the State of Texas, or were claimed by the said State; that he acted on information obtained from the public report of the Secretary of the Treasury, showing that a large portion of similar bonds had been redeemed, and upon his own judgment of the nature of the obligation expressed by the bonds themselves, and upon his own faith in the full redemption of said bonds; and he averred that he had no knowledge of the contract referred to in the bill of complaint, nor of the interest or relation of White & Chiles, nor of any connection which they had with said complainant, or said bonds, nor of the law of the State of Texas, requiring indorsement.'

The answer of White mentioned, in regard to Hardenberg's bonds, that they were sold by his (White's) broker; that he, White, had no knowledge of the name of the real purchaser, who, however, paid 115 per cent. for them; 'that at the time of the sale, his (White's) broker informed him that the purchaser, or the person acting for the purchaser, did not want any introduction to the respondent, and required no history of the bonds proposed to be sold; that he only desired that they should come to him through the hands of a loyal person, who had never been identified with the rebellion.'

It appeared further, in regard to the whole of the Texas bonds, the subject of this suit, that, in June, 1865, Chiles, wanting to borrow money of one Barret, and he, Barret, knowing Mr. Hamilton, just then appointed provisional governor of Texas, but not yet installed into office, nor apparently as yet having the impressions which he afterwards by his caution made public, went to him, supposing him well acquainted with the nature of these bonds, and sought his opinion as to their value, and as to whether they would be paid. Barret's testimony proceeded:

'He advised me to accept the proposition of Chiles, and gave it as his opinion that the government would have to pay the bonds. I afterwards had several conversations with him on the subject, in all of which he gave the same opinion. Afterwards, (I can't remember the exact time), Mr. Chiles applied to Birch, Murray & Co. for a loan of money, proposing to give some bonds as collateral security; and at his request I went to Birch, Murray & Co., and informed them of my conversations with Governor Hamilton, and of his opinion as expressed to me. They then seemed willing to make a loan on the security offered. In order to give them further assurance that I was not mistaken in my report of Governor Hamilton's opinion verbally expressed, I obtained from him a letter [letter produced]. It reads thus:

'NEW YORK, June 25th, 1965.

'HON. J. R. BARRET.

'DEAR SIR: In reply to your question about Texas indemnity bonds issued by the U.S., I can assure you that they are perfectly good, and the gov't will certainly pay them to the holders.

'Yours truly,

'A. J. HAMILTON.'

The witness 'mentioned the conversations had with Governor Hamilton, and also spoke of the letter, and sometimes read it to various parties, some of whom were dealing in these bonds,' and, as he stated, had 'reason to believe that Governor Hamilton's opinion in regard to the bonds became pretty generally known among dealers in such paper.' The witness, however, did not know Mr. Hardenberg.

Messrs. Evarts and Carlisle, for Hardenberg:

1. As to the effect of the payments.-When the bill was prepared, and indeed when it was filed, a wholly different state of facts existed from that against which it is now sought to have relief. The bonds were then in the hands of Hardenberg, and unpaid. Assuming that he was not a holder bona fide, &c., a prayer for injunction against receiving payment was proper, and the only prayer which was proper, or indeed possible. Before, however, any process was served on us, or bound the parties in any way, the bonds were paid and surrendered. A wholly new state of facts arose, and the case assumed by the bill is discovered to have no existence. And what is now wanted is a bill that shall set forth, along with the former alleged facts of purchase, the fact of payment, substitution, &c., and a prayer to have the substituted securities. Some such bill, in some form, is indispensable, unless we are to violate all rules of equity proceeding. The prayer for general relief cannot be so interpreted as to apply to a state of things which is the reverse of the true state of things, to the state of things alleged in the bill, and to the only state of things which was in the complainant's mind at all. The difficulty of the complainant's case is not that his bill does not set forth his now case directly and with distinctness, and does not pray for the proper relief in the most specific way; but that it does not set forth his now case at all, nor pray, in any way, relief suitable to it; though it does set out another case, and assuming that case to be true pray proper relief for it.

The reliance of the other side will have to be on Mr. Tayler's letter to the Chief Justice, and his memorandum to counsel, after he thought that he had made a mistake; an exculpatory paper and memorandum. He had no capacity, when he wrote that letter and made that memorandum, to say what the transaction was in fact as distinguished from form. That is a point to be judged of as a question of law on a view of the thing done.

2. As to the bona fides, &c.-Hardenberg knew nothing of the bonds except what appeared on their face, and from the published official treasury reports, that similar bonds, of the same issue, had been paid and redeemed at the Treasury of the United States, notwithstanding the secession of Texas, and the civil war and rebellion, which had been suppressed, in point of fact, long before his purchase. He had no knowledge or information that Texas had at any time assumed to alter the terms of the contract of the United States, as expressed on the face of the bonds, so as to expunge from them the express declaration that they were payable to bearer,' and the repeated declaration to the same effect, that the bonds passed by delivery.' He, therefore, was not affected by the fact that the bonds were not indorsed by the governor of Texas (if that alteration of the tenor of the bonds had any legal efficacy), and was wholly ignorant that such indorsement had been authorized or required by Texas, for her security against fraud, or for any other purpose.

He had no knowledge or information that the bonds purchased by him had ever been held or claimed by White & Chiles, or either of them; or that any such contract as that set up by the bill had been made. In brief, he was a perfect stranger to all and singular the matters alleged by the bill, as affecting the title to the bonds.

He found them in open market, in the city of New York, in the month of November, 1866, and bought them in good faith, and for their full market value, of brokers and others of high standing, in the usual and regular course of business, not only without knowledge or notice, but without suspicion, or reason to know or suspect, that there was any infirmity in the title of his respective vendors, or any of them.

All this appears by his answer. It is plainly stated, is responsive to the bill, is uncontradicted, and is, therefore, the case of Hardenberg.

Against this case, in matter of fact, nothing can be opposed but an alleged constructive notice of the dishonor of the bonds, derived from the language on the face of the instruments, that they were 'redeemable after the 31st day of December, 1864,' which day had passed when he purchased; and the further fact that there were unpaid and overdue coupons attached to the bonds. This, it will no doubt be insisted, for the complainant opens the bonds in the hands of Hardenberg 'to all equities,' and lets in the complainant to the relief claimed by the bill.

That coupon bonds, payable to bearer, are negotiable securities, passing by delivery, like bank notes, and that the possession is sufficient evidence of title, and that nothing short of knowledge of the infirmity of title, even in the case of stolen bonds of this description, will defeat the title of a bon a fide purchaser for value, is now settled.

Will it be insisted for the complainant, that when Hardenberg purchased these bonds they were overdue, and that this circumstance defeats his title?

Suppose they were, in all respects, like a promissory note, indorsed after it was due? What would be the legal consequence? Such an instrument does not cease to be negotiable when it is past due and unpaid. It is now settled, both in England and in this court, as we have seen, that circumstances which would have put a prudent man upon inquiry, are not enough to affect the title of a bon a fide holder for value. And there is not, and cannot be, the slightest imputation to Mr. Hardenberg of mala fides. The most that can be said of the fact, apparent on the face of a negotiable instrument, that it is overdue, is that it implies, prim a facie, that the bill or note has been dishonored; that the maker or acceptor (the party primarily liable) refuses to pay.

In point of fact, in the case at bar, no such thing is pretended. On the contrary, the whole ground for the suit, which is an invocation of the equity powers of the court, is that the maker, the United States, will certainly pay the bonds to the holder, according to the face and tenor thereof, unless the court will interfere and forbid such payment. It is not perceived how such a fact could have any such significance upon the question, whether the holder is, as his possession imports, really the owner; and that is the principal question made by the complainant here, upon the first proposition above considered.

Nor can it have any significance as to their second proposition, which is in effect the want of consideration for the transfer. At most, the fact of the transfer, when overdue, of a bill or note, is to subject it in the hands of the holder to all its equities; to all the equities with which it is incumbered at the time of the transfer.

An original absence of consideration is not one of those equities which attach on the instrument, and defeat the title of an indorsee for value of an overdue bill, although with notice of the fact.

But it is a mistake to say that these bonds were 'overdue.' It is only necessary to read the bonds themselves, to see that there is no analogy, in this respect, between them and a promissory note, payable to order on a certain day. They were issued as stock, not payable to bearer on any certain day, but 'redeemable after fourteen years from their date.' They certified that interest would be paid semi-annually for that period; but thereafter the bonds might be redeemed by the United States at its pleasure and convenience. The fact that the day had passed after which the bonds might be redeemed, and that they had in fact not been redeemed, signified nothing inconsistent with the obligation on its face. The bonds had never been called in. The fiscal condition of the country, and its unsettled political relations with the rebel States, suffiently explained the fact that they had not been redeemed at the earliest day, when, by their tenor, they were redeemable.

Upon this question of bona fides, considerable weight is due to the opinion and action of Mr. Controller Tayler, who upon the whole case, which he necessarily examined, considered that the bonds held by Hardenberg ought to be paid, and who in fact did pay them.

Messrs. Paschall and Merrick, contra.

The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.

It is asserted, in behalf of Hardenberg, that he can, in no event, upon the pleadings in this suit, be held to account for the proceeds of the bonds which came to his possession, because the bill prays only relief by injunction against receiving payment of the bonds or coupons, and by decree for delivery of them specifically to the State.

It is not denied that the bill also prays for such other and further relief as to the court shall seem just and proper; but it is insisted that there is nothing in the frame of the bill which will support a claim for relief as to proceeds where payment of the bonds and coupons had been actually received before service of process.

It is undoubtedly true that no relief can be granted under the general prayer except such as is agreeable to the case made by the bill.

And it is plain enough that the principal object of the bill in this case was to prevent the collection of the bonds by the defendants, and to compel the surrender of them to the State of Texas. But there are averments and interrogatories which look to the proceeds as well as to the bonds themselves. For example, it is charged that the bonds were placed in the hands of the defendants holding them, for the purpose of collecting the proceeds from the United States; and again, that the defendants design to collect the proceeds and apply the same to their own use, in disregard of the just rights, and to the great loss and injury of the complainant. And one of the interrogatories requires from each defendant, except White and Chiles, to whom somewhat different interrogatories are addressed, a statement whether any other person is interested in any, and, if any, in which of the bonds, or the proceeds thereof.

It may be admitted that these allegations and interrogatories do not assert the right of the complainant to the proceeds with absolute directness and distinctness. The bill might have been better drawn. But we think it would savor of extreme technicality to refuse to see in the bill enough in relation to the proceeds of the bonds to warrant relief in this respect under the general prayer.

It is proper to observe here that this objection to relief, in respect to the proceeds of the bonds, was not taken on the former hearing, and that the decree heretofore made distinctly finds that the State of Texas is entitled to restitution of such of the bonds, and coupons, and proceeds as have come into the possession or control of the defendants-among whom Hardenberg is expressly named-with notice of the equity of the State. It might well be held, therefore, that this question is concluded by the former decree; but willing to allow this defendant the benefit of any defence consistent with the rules which govern proceedings in equity, we have looked into the question as if it were still open. Having thus looked into it, we find no sufficient ground for altering the conclusion embodied in the decree.

We come then to the real question upon which further hearing was allowed, namely, what was the nature and effect of the payment received by Hardenberg from the Secretary of the Treasury, before service of process in this suit?

The bill was filed on the 15th of February, 1867, in pursuance of leave granted by the court. On the same day a motion for injunction was made, and it was ordered that this motion be set down for hearing on the 2d of May, 1867, and that copies of the order be served on the defendants at least ten days previously. Process was ordered, and subpoenas were issued on the same day, and copies of the subpoena and of the motion for injunction were served on Hardenberg on the 27th of February. The answer of Hardenberg was filed May 15th, and on the following day the motion for injunction was allowed, with leave to defendants to move for its dissolution at the next term.

In the interval between the filing of the bill and the service of process, as Hardenberg avers in his answer, the Secretary of the Treasury ordered the payment to him of all his bonds and coupons deposited for redemption, being the same bonds and coupons alleged in the bill to be the property of the State of Texas, and they were paid accordingly on that day.

What was this payment? On the 17th of December, 1866, Hardenberg had been advised by Controller Tayler that payment was delayed for information from Texas. On the 8th of February he was further advised by the same official that the bonds and coupons had been reported to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment, but that payment had been postponed in consequence of a personal action in the name of the State of Texas against the secretary for their detention.

It is clear that Hardenberg was now informed that the bonds and coupons, deposited by him for redemption, were claimed by the State of Texas.

Subsequently, on the 16th of February, thirty-eight thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, being the amount of the bonds and coupons, was paid to the agent of Hardenberg in a coin check, and at the same time treasury 7-30 notes to the amount of fifty-five thousand dollars were deposited with Controller Tayler, according to his statement, made in a letter to the agent, dated February 19th, 'as indemnity for Mr. McCulloch' (the Secretary of the Treasury) 'against any personal damage, loss, and expense in which he might be involved by reason of the payment of the bonds.'

This payment was made on the day after the bill of the State was filed in this court and subpoenas issued. That the institution of the suit, thus begun, was known to the secretary at the time is apparent from the letter of Mr. Tayler to the Chief Justice, dated January 22d, 1868, in which he says: 'In form the bonds were paid; in fact the proceeds have been withheld from Mr. Hardenberg because of the legal proceedings, which the secretary did not desire to defeat.'

And all this is still further apparent from a memorandum statement made by Mr. Tayler on the 24th, and handed to one of the counsel in the cause.

These statements Mr. Tayler in his deposition reaffirms; but for additional particulars refers to his letter to the agent, already quoted, and to a letter addressed by him on the same day to the cashier of the First National Bank.

From these letters, this memorandum, and the deposition of Mr. Tayler, we do not think it difficult to collect the substantial facts of the transaction. Hardenberg was naturally solicitous to collect the amount of his bonds and coupons, which had ceased to bear interest; or, at any rate, to make some arrangement by which the loss of interest pending the liquidation might be avoided. The controller seems to have thought that he was entitled to payment, and the secretary was willing to order payment to be made, but not willing to incur any risk of consequential loss or injury. It was his duty, in any arrangement that might be made, to protect the government, and through the government the parties really entitled to the bonds, as well as himself. And the statements of Mr. Tayler, taken together, satisfy us fully that it was the intention of the secretary, and his own, that these objects should be accomplished.

With these views it was arranged that Hardenberg should deposit with the controller the 7-30 treasury notes, and receive the amount of the bonds and coupons in coin, as already mentioned. And further, that on the deposit with the controller of fifty-thousand dollars in registered 5-20 bonds upon the same trust, the 7-30 bonds should be delivered to him or his agent.

That this arrangement was carried into effect appears from Mr. Tayler's letter of March 2d, 1867, addressed to Hardenberg's agent at New York. The letter concludes with these words: 'The bonds are registered in my name as trustee, and carry interest from January 1, 1867.'

Trustee for whom? Equity looks through forms to substance; and the substance of this transaction clearly was the substitution of one set of securities in the hands of the Controller of the Treasury for another, for the benefit of the parties really entitled. In no other way could the object of the trust, namely, the security of the government and the secretary against loss, be attained. At the beginning, he held bonds or coupons of the United States issued as indemnity to Texas. At the end, he held registered bonds of the United States in their place. And he held both for Hardenberg, subject to the same eqities. The net result of the transaction to Hardenberg was the putting of the debt in a shape to bear interest. If the coin received for the indemnity bonds exceeded the amount invested in the 5-20 bonds deposited in their stead, he may have also gained that excess.

In this view of the case, it is not important to inquire whether the delivery of the coin check to Hardenberg took place before or after the service of process. That transaction was correctly described as 'a payment in form,' the proceeds having been, in fact, withheld. It was not designed, on the part of the Secretary of the Treasury, to defeat the legal proceedings already commenced by filing the bill and issuing the subpoenas in the cause. We will not presume that any one else entertained such a design. Certainly no such effect, if designed, can be accomplished through the aid of a court of equity. We are obliged, therefore, to say that the delivery of the coin check to the agent of Hardenberg was not payment. There was, indeed, no real payment at all. There was a transaction beginning with the delivery of the coin check, and ending with the substitution of the 5-20 bonds in place of the indemnity bonds, which was to be perfected into actual payment by the delivery to Hardenberg of the substituted bonds whenever this could be safely done. During the progress of this transaction, process in this suit was served on Hardenberg. No real payment, therefore, was made before service of process.

Our conclusion on this part of the case is, that the so-called payment on the 16th of February, 1867, did not affect the equities of the complainant, except by transferring them from the indemnity bonds to the 5-20 bonds substituted in their place, so far as may be necessary to satisfy to the complainant the amount then due upon the former.

This conclusion leaves but one question for consideration, namely, whether Hardenberg, at the time he purchased the bonds, had notice of the equity of the State of Texas? This question was not concluded by the decree, but it was fully considered by the court upon the former argument, and our conclusion was stated in the opinion then delivered, that Hardenberg, as well as the other purchasers of indemnity bonds about the same time, was affected by such notice. We will not restate what we then said. It is only necessary to say that we have reconsidered the grounds of that decision, and are still satisfied with it.

It follows that, upon the whole case, our decree must be for the complainant as to the bonds claimed by Hardenberg.

STRONG and BRADLEY, JJ., had not yet taken their seats when this case was adjudged.


text: Talk:Texas v. Hardenberg/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: The Schools v. Risley

title: The Schools v. Risley


text: Talk:The Schools v. Risley

title: Talk:The Schools v. Risley


text:
The Schools v. Risley/Opinion of the Court

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, the case being this:

The city of St. Louis, as is known, is situated on the west side of the Mississippi River and faces the stream. It was formed by the French and Spanish in times as early as 1764; and passed to the sovereignty of the United States by the cession which Frence made December 20, 1803, of the large region then known as the province of Louisiana. French subjects being already in possession of various rights throughout the town, Congress by statute of 1812 enacted that 'the rights, titles and claims to those town or village lots, out-lots, common field lots and commons, in, adjoining, and belonging to the towns which had been inhabited, cultivated or possessed, prior to the 20th of December, 1803, should be, and the same were thereby, confirmed to the inhabitants of the town according to their several right or rights in common thereto.' The act proceeds, in its first section:

'And it shall be the duty of the principal deputy surveyor of the said territory to survey the out-boundary lines of the said town, so as to include the out-lots, common field lots and commons thereto belonging. And he shall make out plats of the surveys, which he shall transmit to the surveyor-general, who shall forward copies of the said plats to the commissioner of the General Land Office and to the recorder of land titles. The expense of surveying the said out-boundary lines shall be paid by the United States.'

The second section of the act provided that 'all town lots, out-lots or common field lots included in such surveys, which were not rightfully owned or claimed by any private individuals, or held as commons belonging to such towns and villages,. . . should be reserved for the support of schools.'

In 1803, and indeed till the year 1844, there was a street running nearly parallel to the Mississippi River and within less than two hundred feet of it (the river rather eating into the bank, year by year), known as Second Street, or sometimes (in its extension), Prairie- a-Catalan or Carondelet. On the east side of this street, a block of ground, No. 44, ran eastward-ran, therefore, towards the river or to it; but whether 'towards' only or 'to' was a matter of dispute. On the north side of this block, for many years prior to the cession of 1803, one Madame Charleville had been settled, inhabiting and cultivating it; and on the south side, a free negro, named Charles Leveille.

In 1844, an extraordinary flood in the Mississippi River brought down such an immense quantity of sand that the river edge, which had previously, as above said (though apparently with some irregularities herein), kept itself within less than 200 feet of Second Street, now was left 600 or 700 feet away from it. The diagram will illustrate sufficiently the facts:

The result was that the city caused to be extended down to the new edge of the river those streets (Hazel and Lombard) which, running at right angles to the old stream, formerly met it at their extremity; and it made a new street (New Main Street) parallel to old Second Street. The idea will be better understood from a diagram:

A new block (No. 856) was thus formed out of the alluvion, immediately in front of old 44, the block formerly occupied by Madame Charleville and Leveille. To whom did this new block belong?

That was the question in this case. And as the riparian owner, whoever he might be, took the accretions, the answer depended obviously enough on the fact whether the old block (No. 44) had run down to the river or whether it had stopped short of the river, leaving a strip not owned by any private person, and which, therefore, either belonging to the city itself or else was property of the United States, and under the act of 1812, was reserved for the public schools.

In this state of facts the directors of the public schools of St. Louis brought ejectment, in one of the State courts, against a certain Risley, who had succeeded to the rights of Madame Charleville, and also against Fritz, who had succeeded to the rights of Leveille, to recover the block The former case (No. 27 on the docket) is here reported; it being understood that the latter case (No. 28) should follow any decision given in the other.

THE PLAINTIFF, relying on the act of 1812, introduced a large amount of documentary evidence, and among other concessions one to a certain Louis Ride, and a confirmation of it, with a survey of the same by the surveyor-general. According to this survey, the claim was located in the northwest corner of block No. 44 and extended eastwardly no further than 150 feet. He introduced also several plots of the town, among them especially one known as Chouteau's map, with the opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri given in the case of St. Louis Public Schools v. Erskine. In that case, where apparently objection had been made to the reception of the map at all, the court said:

'The first question that arises in this case is the propriety of the action of the Land Court in admitting in evidence the plat of the town of St. Louis, placed in the office of the record of land titles by Auguste Chouteau in the year 1825. The plat was made in 1764, about the period that the village of St. Louis was founded. Chouteau is reputed as one of the founders of the village. The recorder of land titles, who had been in the office since 1837, testified that it was a public paper and as such had been inventoried. August Chouteau has been dead many years. Mr. Geyer testified that he had seen the plot in the recorder's office several times; that this map was produced in a case he tried for the schools twenty-four or twenty-five years ago.

'When we consider that in matters of public concern, traditionary evidence is admissible as to boundaries, we are at a loss to conceive the ground on which the objection to the evidence is based. Chouteau was not the owner of the land on which the village was laid out, nor does it appear that he had any previous authority to do the act. But his conduct and that of his colleagues, in laying off the town, was sanctioned and adopted by the Spanish government. For many years the map has been placed in the public office where all the papers and documents relating to the early land titles in this territory were deposited. It has been exposed to the examination and scrutiny of all, so that its errors might have been detected. The map was made at a time and in a manner which show that its execution could not have been prompted by any sinister motive.

'We know that it has frequently been in use in this court, to show the plans and extent of the ancient village as originally laid out by its founders. For such purposes, when all the circumstances attending this map are considered, it is not easy to conceive more satisfactory evidence of facts of so ancient a date. If authority is wanted, in support of this view of the subject, it may be found in the cases of Morris v. The Lessees of Harmer's Heirs (7 Peters, 560), and The Commonwealth v. Alburger (1 Wharton, 469).'

Chouteau's plat represented the place thus; leaving a broad strip between block No. 44 and the river:

THE DEFENDANT, on the other hand, introduced a concession by the Spanish governor, dated March 1, 1788, to the negro Leveille, for a lot in St. Louis of 60 by 150 feet, described in the concession as bounded on the one side by the heirs of Louis Ride, on the other by his Majesty's domain; on the rear by the Mississippi, and on the main front by the road which follows from the second main street to the Prairie- a-Catalan.

He also introduced a concession by Governor Manuel Perez to Augustin Amiot, dated September 2, 1788, of a lot in the southern part of St. Louis, described in the concession as '120 feet front by 150 feet deep, bounded on the north side by the lot of the free negro called Charles, on the other side by the royal domain, on the rear by the Mississippi, and on its principal front by the royal road leading to the Prairie- a-Catalan.'

BOTH PARTIES introduced parol evidence tending to show:

On the defendant's side, that in Spanish times the lots ran to the river; that there was never any street between the east end of the lots and the river; that the ends of the fence would sometimes have to be moved back on account of the abrasion or falling in of the river bank; that the river, for some years prior to 1844, occasionally slightly receded from the east bank, in low water, but that in consequence of high water in 1844, and of accumulations caused by the materials used in constructing cross streets out in the river, the ground afterwards increased rapidly eastwardly.

On the plaintiff's side the parol evidence tended to prove that there was always a path or road between the lots and the river, in Spanish times, and that the road extended the whole length of the town; that the government always left a strip of land along the river for voyagers, but that the road along the river was repaired by the voluntary act of the people living along the road and not by public authority or public taxes.

THE DEFENDANT gave in evidence a resolution of the board of aldermen of the city of St. Louis, authorizing a survey and map of the city, and a lithographic copy of a map known as Paul's map of 1823, which was proved to be a true copy of the original made under such resolution. It was admitted that the field-notes of the survey and the original map were lost. From this map it appeared that the main street extended at the date of the map no further south than Plum Street, and that the river covered all the eastern part of Block 44. The defendant then introduced the ordinance of

the city, passed in 1851, opening Main Street south of Plum and through Block 44, and proved that defendant, in conformity with the ordinance, relinquished the right of way; also a tax sale of the lot of Leveille for the city taxes of the year 1820. The certificate of sale of the assessment describe the lot as bounded east by the river.

The defendant also showed in evidence the tax receipts for his real property for the years 1837, 1838, 1839, 1845, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1849, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857. From these receipts, it appeared that up to 1853 the defendant was taxed for a lot in Block 44, as bounded on the east by the river. The depth of the lot was described as increasing from 150 feet in 1837 to 800 feet in 1854. In 1854 and following years the defendant was taxed for the property in dispute as lying between Main and Front Streets. The defendant also showed that he had been assessed by the city, and had paid in 1854 a tax on the property in question for opening streets, and then introduced a map of Risley's Addition, recorded in 1855.

The defendant then introduced one Marshall as a witness, who testified that he was an examiner of titles to lands; that he had examined almost all titles to lands in the city of St. Louis, and he gave it as his conclusion, that the land of Ride was north of Elm Street, that is to say, was nowhere in the neighborhood of Madame Charleville's lot, but was in fact in a different and distant part of the city. He also read in evidence a deed to Tayon to Papin in 1832, in which the lot was described as bounded eastwardly by the Mississippi River, or street if any there be; also the deed of Papin to Stearne and Risley, containing the same boundaries; also the deed of Stearne to Risley in 1836, with the same boundaries.

There was much other testimony on both sides, but that above stated constituted the controlling parts, and the residue was merely auxiliary or cumulative.

Upon this case the plaintiff's counsel asked the court to give fourteen instructions, the purpose of which, in the general, and so far as insisted on here, was to charge the jury as to the effect in law of the evidence; and that the plan of the town by Chouteau should be taken as a conclusive muniment of title. The court gave none of these instructions. But it did instruct the jury in effect,

1. That calls for the river, in the deeds or conveyances read in evidence, from one private individual to another, did not give or create riparian rights.

2. That the eastern boundary of the corporation of St. Louis of 1809, and the eastern line of the out-boundary of December, 1840, both extended to the eastern boundary of Missouri, which is the middle of the river.

3. That if the jury believed that a street, tow-path, or passage-way, or other open space, was permanently established, for the public use, between the river and the most eastern row of blocks (of which 44 was one) when the town was founded and laid out, then that the owners of that block were not riparian proprietors of the land between the block and the river.

1. That if the jury believed that the original claimant, prior to the cession, inhabited, cultivated, and possessed the land described in the petition, claiming title to the same, and that she and those claiming title under her continued to inhabit, cultivate, and possess the premises to the passage of the act of 1812, and that the land in controversy is a part of the accretions made to that lot along the eastern line extending to the river in its present position, then that the verdict must be for the defendant.

2. That the evidence that a passage-way or tow-path existed along the river bank would not affect the rights of the parties if the jury found that the same was kept up at the charge and risk of the proprietor of the lot, and that it followed the changes of the river, going to the east or west as the river receded from or encroached upon the lot, and the the inclosure of the proprietor was advanced or set back with such changes.

3. That the claim confirmed to Louis Ride could not affect the rights of the parties if the jury found that the claim was located on a different block from that of Madame Charleville.

The jury found for the defendants, and judgment having been entered accordingly and afterwards affirmed in the Supreme Court of Missouri, the case was brought here under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.

Messrs. M. Blair and F. A. Dick, for the plaintiff in error:

The court refused to instruct the jury for the plaintiff as to the effect of evidence, but left the case to the jury on their construction of it. It refused to give any effect in law to the plan of the town made by Chouteau, and to the confirmations and surveys by the United States of the lot in question, fixing the extent and boundaries of the lot, and treated the case as one to be left exclusively to the opinion of the jury on the weight of the parol evidence against the documentary evidence. In fact, the court left the jury to treat testimony of witnesses as of more effect than all the documentary proof offered by the plaintiff; and, indeed, allowed the record title of the plaintiffs to be overturned by oral testimony which did not conflict with it.

Now it is matter of common knowledge that there is, in the public archives, in the recorder's office and surveyorgeneral's office, in St. Louis, and in the land office here, full evidence of the establishment of St. Louis as a Spanish town, with streets and blocks, public places, and lots used for cultivation, called common field lots, and town lots, and barn lots. There were public authorities, who regulated streets, commons, bridges, and all general matters.

What had been public property when the town plan of Chouteau was settled upon in 1764 for the common use of the town, descended to the public when the country was ceded in 1803; and even though in 1812 the land which embraced the lot in controversy was under water, yet, if by the plan of the town there was a margin of public ground in front of this block, and this block had by such plan an actual boundary on a line in common with the blocks further north, then such public plan must control the private property, and such public space is the actual limit of the blocks and the lots composing them.

If there ever was a vacant public space reserved for common use as a landing or street by the public plat in front of these lots, such as marked on Chouteau's map, the public title would not pass to private lot-owners, even though the encroachments of the river might wear away that part of the soil above water. The river bottom within such lines would remain still subject to the same title. Now, Chouteau's map is an ancient document which establishes the line of this Block 44 in the relative position that it occupied in 1764 with reference to the blocks north of it, and we thus can certainly fix the precise line of the front of Block 44 as indicated on Chouteau's map, and as it was in 1764. The blocks to the north, remaining as they were in 1764, and giving a uniform and permanent front line to the old town where they lie, thus serve to fix the precise position of such front line of Block 44. Now the block there in 1764 had a front line not touching the river, and there was this same public wharf that then and still exists to the north, extending along the entire front of the town. It was by Chouteau's map actual ground above the surface of the water. This was public property, established by a title-paper of conclusive effect, if admissible at all.

The question, then, of controlling importance is, whether Chouteau's map and the other documentary evidence was evidence of what was the plan of the town, showing the blocks, streets, and lines of public and private property.

This depends upon the construction of the act of 1812. This act required the United States surveyor 'to survey the out-boundary lines of said towns so as to include the out lots, common field lots, and commons;' and he was directed to make out plats of the surveys, and transmit the same to the commissioner of the General Land Office and recorder of land titles. The expense 'of surveying the said out-boundary lines shall be paid by the United States.'

Section 2d says that all town lots 'included in such surveys, which are not rightfully owned by private individuals, are reserved for the support of schools.'

This act is in all its provisions binding upon individual owners, and they must take their titles subject to the survey it calls for; what it reserved to the United States was, and continued to be, public land, and the surveys it required became, when made, muniments of title.

By the construction of the act of 1812 given by the defendant, a public survey of a reservation which the President might have chosen to make out of the public lands of St. Louis, would not prevail over verbal proof of title such as is offered here. This is contrary to the whole current of decisions of this court respecting surveys of grants of land made under the laws providing for such grants.

A grant of title, that Congress reserved the power to locate by survey, and promises to so locate, is not available as a title, if the very same act be interpreted to mean that such location, when made, may, at any length of time, be overthrown by parol evidence. This places the plaintiff's title at the mercy of a single witness; for the act of Congress provides for no other evidence of title in the plaintiff; and we see the effect of this construction of the law in practice when a jury decides in support of the views of the court below, against the survey, on the recollection, perhaps, of one single witness, testifying to what years before he thought as to the description of the premises.

The possibility that a regular survey and assignment, of the validity and effect given to this by this court in Kissell's case, can be overthrown by the recollections of a child as to a matter that perhaps he had the slightest means of observing, and not become material until he was perhaps eighty years of age, shows a construction of this act by the court below contrary to good sense, to security of titles, and to the current of decisions of this court.

The surveyor-general, under the act of 1812, was charged with a duty that he then could readily and accurately perform, and this was to gather together all the archives and documents which had been before the boards of commissioners, and were recorded in the recorder of land title's office, and determine where the different kinds of property were located. The Spanish concessions were open to him, Chouteau's map, and all that could furnish him with information; and also innumerable intelligent witnesses, including the large landowners, the proprietors of large tracts of land, the members of the boards of commissioners, who had investigated officially all these public facts. In the light of all these investigations, Chouteau's plat was filed in the recorder's office, and no error in it has ever been pointed out. It is from such material as all this that the assignment to the schools is made up. On this material the surveyor-general was made a special judge, and it was for him to ascertain and decide what was public land and what not, and in Kissell v. Schools, this court say: 'We are of opinion that the certificate of the surveyor-general. . . is record evidence of title,' &c.

It could have been consistent only with the rulings of this court to have declared that this survey was authoritative and conclusive against another title under the same act, not sustained by a survey.

The defendants, to avoid this result, attempt to prove another plan of the town, by showing that the street along the rear of their lots shifted east and west as the river receded or encroached. But the little passage-way spoken of by the witnesses was not the public space marked on Chouteau's map. The court below made the decisive question of fact the nature of this little pass-way as it was within the knowledge of the witnesses. But this was turning attention to a small and almost immaterial matter, and excluding the public space shown by Chouteau's map, which established the character of the land, from the jury.

The viv a voce testimony of old witnesses proved nothing contradictory of the map and record offered by us, but only the fact within their recollection, which was nearly, if not altogether, after 1803, that the land above water did not reach as far east as the east line of Block 44. If, therefore, the jury believed the testimony of these witnesses, they would find for the defendant, notwithstanding they might believe that, far east of the water-line, on the plan first established for the town, there was a public wharf reserved permanently for public use.

There was a direct and irreconcilable contradiction between the instructions given for plaintiff and defendant. An instruction declaring on the proof that, as a matter of law, the lots did not rightfully extend across this public wharf, under the act of 1812, ought to have been given.

If the fact that the river was the boundary of the lot in 1803, carried the owner of it to the medium filum aquae, the lot, up to the middle thread of the stream, was confirmed by the first section of the act of 1812. This was the whole matter in dispute in this cause. And the case lies within ordinary and narrow limits. The instructions given were proper on this question.

The plaintiff assumes that the authorities of the Spanish government had a fixed and ascertained plan for laying off the town of St. Louis in 1764, and that this plan was not only immutable, but that a paper called 'Chouteau's map,' which was first filed in the office of the recorder of land titles, in St. Louis, in 1825, was the authentic, exclusive, and infallible evidence of this scheme. These assumptions are unwarranted. If we accept Chouteau's map as the scheme or plan for laying off the town of St. Louis, which he recommended to the authorities in 1764 (we have no sort of authority for assuming that he ever did this), nothing is plainer than that one of two things must be true: either Chouteau did not, in making this sketch, go upon the ground and ascertain carefully whether natural obstacles interfered with the plan sketched in his diagram; or else he attempts to make these natural obstacles bend to his theory of what the town should be. Chouteau was not proprietor of the land to be covered by the town, nor an officer of the crown of Spain, in 1764, when this plan is supposed to have been made. We see plainly that the Spanish governor did not pay any attention to this plan. Either he never heard of it, or, knowing of it, he treated it as worthy of no heed; for the grant to Leveille, the grant to Amiot, and the possession of many others, permitted by the authorities, were inconsistent with Chouteau's plat. The refused instructions declared that the presumption of fact was that the Spanish government sanctioned a particular plan of St. Louis; whereas, the only evidence we have on the subject proves clearly that all the limitations of the supposed scheme were disregarded by the Spanish government. Chouteau's map was deposited by Chouteau, in 1825, in the recorder's office. There is no certificate upon it by him. Its character, whatever it was, must have rested upon Chouteau's parol statement, without any sanction of either an oath or official duty. We do not know what his statement, if any, was. But whatever it was, it could be no more than a mere statement, which is admitted as tradition. If the instructions refused should have been given, it would follow, among other things, that the general plan of a town may be proved by parol, but that particular deviations from that plan cannot be proved by parol.

The whole instructions given are consistent, and were the right ones.

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

Possession of the colony or province of Louisiana, ceded by France to the United States under the treaty of cession of the thirtieth of April, 1803, was formally delivered to the United States on the twentieth of December of that year; and on the thirteenth of June, 1812, Congress passed the act making further provision for settling the claims to land in the Territory of Missouri, the first section of which provides to the effect that the rights, titles and claims to town or village lots, out-lots, common field lots and commons in, adjoining and belonging to the several towns or villages therein named, including St. Louis, in that Territory, 'and which have been inhabited, cultivated, or possessed' prior to the date of that formal delivery, 'shall be and the same are hereby confirmed to the inhabitants of the respective towns or villages aforesaid, according to their several right or rights in common thereto.'

Lands confirmed by the board of commissioners were not included in that section, and the further provision is that the principal deputy surveyor of the Territory shall survey or cause to be surveyed and marked, where the same has not been legally done, the out-boundary lines of the said towns or villages, so as to include the out-lots, common field lots, and commons thereto respectively belonging.

Provision having been made in the first section for such surveys, the second section provides that all town or village lots, out-lots, or common field lots included in such surveys, which are not rightfully owned or claimed by private individuals or held as commons belonging to such towns or villages, or selected by the President for military purposes, 'shall be and the same are hereby reserved for the support of schools in the respective towns or villages aforesaid,' not to exceed, however, one-twentieth part of the whole lands included in such general survey.

Part of block numbered eight hundred and fifty-six, situated in the city of St. Louis, is claimed by the plaintiffs in this case under the second section of that act, as appears in the description of the tract set forth in the petition, which is in the nature of an action of ejectment to recover possession of the premises. Process was duly issued and served, and the defendant appeared and filed an answer in which he denied that the plaintiffs, at the commencement of the suit, were entitled to the immediate possession of the same, and he also denied that he, the defendant, did, at the time mentioned, unlawfully withhold from the plaintiffs the possession thereof as alleged in the petition.

Application for change of venue was subsequently made by the plaintiffs, and the cause, in pursuance of such application, was transferred into the St. Louis Circuit Court, where the parties went to trial, and the verdict and judgment were for the defendant, and the plaintiffs excepted and removed the cause into the Supreme Court of the State.

Subsequent to the removal of the cause into the Supreme Court the defendant deceased and his legal representatives became parties to the suit, and after hearing, the judgment of the Circuit Court of the State was in all things affirmed, and the plaintiffs sued out a writ of error under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act, and removed the cause into this court.

By the bill of exceptions it appears that the plaintiffs in the trial before the jury in the Circuit Court of the State introduced the following evidences of title in support of their claim to the immediate possession of the premises: (1) A copy of the ordinance dated November 9, 1809, incorporating the town of St. Louis. (2) Survey and plat of the boundary of the town, which purport to have been made in conformity to the requirements of the first section of the before-mentioned act of Congress. (3) School assignment numbered four hundred, and dated December 10, 1855, as more fully set forth in the transcript. (4) An act of the State legislature, approved November 23, 1857, which it is agreed may be read from the printed volume. (5) Copy of the deed from the city of St. Louis to the plaintiffs relinquishing to them the land in controversy. (6) Quit-claim deed from the plaintiffs to the city of St. Louis relinquishing their title to certain tracts therein specified. (7) An act of the legislature of the State, approved March 3, 1851, entitled 'An act respecting swamp lands in St. Louis County.' (8) Three acts of Congress upon the subject, to wit, the act passed June 13, 1812, also the act passed May 26, 1824, and the act passed January 27, 1831, to which reference is made. (9) A stipulation waiving objections to certain depositions, and agreeing that the defendant was in the possession of the premises at the commencement of the suit.

Separate examination of the respective evidences of title introduced by the plaintiffs will not be necessary, for two reasons: (1) Because the defendant concedes that the assignment of the land to the schools under the act of May 26, 1824, vested a good title in the plaintiffs, unless the title to the same was confirmed by the first section of the prior act to those under whom the defendant claims a superior title. (2) Because the questions to be determined are presented in the exceptions to the refusals of the court to give the instructions as requested by the plaintiffs and to the instructions given by the court to the jury.

Both parties agree that the land in controversy adjoins block forty-four, which belongs in part at least to the defendant and is not claimed by the plaintiffs. They also agree that prior to 1844 block forty-four was the front block facing the river, and that the land of the entire block in controversy has been formed since that time by alluvial deposits, but the theory of the plaintiffs is that block forty-four, as originally located and marked on the plan of the town, never extended to the river, that there was in fact a margin of shore between that block and the river, which was reserved for public use as a way for voyagers or a tow-path for persons engaged in propelling boats, and that such way or tow-path never was a part of the block possessed and claimed by the defendant and his associates.

Suppose the fact to be so, then it is not pretended by the defendant that the land described in the petition was confirmed by the first section of the act of June 13, 1812, but he denies the entire theory of the plaintiffs and insists that there never was any such public reservation between the block possessed and claimed by him and the river, as is supposed by the plaintiffs; that the use of the supposed margin by voyagers and other persons as a way or tow-path, if any, was permissive and by consent of the owners of the block, and that the block as laid out, inhabited, cultivated and possessed was always understood to extend to the river, and consequently that the same was confirmed by the first section of the before-mentioned act of Congress, as contended by the defendant.

Conceded, as the fact is, that the title to block forty-four was in those under whom the defendant claims, prior to the alluvial deposits which formed the land described in the petition, the principal contest in the State court was and still is as to the extent and boundaries of that block antecedent to the time when the land in controversy was formed by such alluvial deposits and accretions. Beyond doubt, block forty-four, if it was inhabited, cultivated, and possessed prior to December 20, 1803, as claimed by the defendant, was confirmed by the first section of the act of June 13, 1812; and if it extended to the river at that time it is clear that the owners thereof were riparian owners; and if so, it is equally clear that they were entitled, as such to all the accretion thereto occasioned by alluvial deposits or by the gradual recession of the waters of the river from the usual water-mark.

On the other hand, unless that block extended to the river, as supposed by the defendant, it is certain that he has no title to the land in controversy, as those under whom he claims in that state of the case were not riparian proprietors, and the act of Congress referred to as confirming the title to that block could not and did not have the effect to enlarge its boundaries.

Evidence, written and oral, was introduced by the defendant to show that the northern half of block forty-four was inhabited, cultivated, and possessed by Madame Charleville and her children several years before the treaty of cession was ratified, and the witnesses testify that there was a house and barn on the lot and other improvements, and that it extended to the river. She and her family occupied and cultivated the northern half of the block, and the witnesses also testify that it was fenced in on all sides excepting the side bordering on the river, and the evidence to that effect is full and satisfactory. They admit, however, that there was a passage-way on the shore or bank of the river kept by the owner for her own convenience, where people used to pass as on a street or alley, but they generally agree that it was not a public way, and that it was frequently interrupted by fences built by the owner of the premises.

Parol evidence was also introduced by the defendant, showing that Charles Leveille inhabited, cultivated, and possessed the southern half of that block prior to the ratification of the treaty of cession, and the defendant introduced the original concession to him of that part of the block, dated March 1, 1788, and also a translation of the same, and the proofs show that his lot was sixty by one hundred and fifty feet, and that it was inhabited, cultivated, and possessed by the donee of the tract some eight years before the date of the concession.

As there described, the lot is 'bounded on one side by the land of Louis Ride, on the other by His Majesty's domain, on the rear by the Mississippi, and on the main front by the road which follows from the second main street to the Prairie- a-Catalan.' He also introduced a concession from the governor to Augustin Amiot, dated September 2, 1788, of a lot in the southern part of St. Louis, described in the concession as follows, to wit: '120 feet front by 150 feet deep, bounded on the north side by the lot of the free negro called Charles, on the other side by the royal domain, on the rear by the Mississippi, and on the principal front by the royal road leading to the Prairie- a-Catalan.' Other exhibits were also introduced by the defendant as fully set forth in the record, and the parties agreed that Prairie- a-Catalan and Carondelet, as used in the record, mean the same thing.

Defendant also introduced a resolution and ordinance of the city, adopted in 1823, in relation to the survey of the city, and also a lithographic copy of the map made by the city surveyor in accordance with that ordinance; also the revised ordinances of 1843, concerning streets. Proof was also introduced by him to show that the original map was lost and that the copy was correct, and it appears that it was put in evidence to show that Main Street, at that date, extended no further south than Plum Street, and that the eastern part of block forty-four, as now claimed, was a part of the bed of the river.

By the record it also appears that the defendant introduced a tax sale of the lot occupied by the colored man, Charles Leveille, for the non-payment of the taxes for the year 1826, and the assessment shows that the lot was therein described as bounded east by the river. Tax receipts for ten or fifteen years, given for the taxes paid by the defendant, as assessed on his property, commencing in the year 1837 and ending in the year 1857, were also introduced by the defendant, and it appears that prior to the year 1853 he was taxed for a lot in block forty-four, described as bounded on the east by the river.

Rebutting evidence, written and oral, was then introduced by the plaintiffs, tending to show that there was a public passage-way or street between block forty-four and the river, and that no part of that block ever extended easterly beyond that passage-way. Chouteau's map is one of the written evidences referred to as having been introduced by the plaintiffs, and they insisted, and still insist, that their title to the land in controversy is conclusively shown by that document.

When the plaintiffs rested, the defendant was permitted to rejoin, and he introduced new evidence to show that the block as originally inhabited, cultivated, and possessed did extend to the river, and that there never was any such public passage-way or street as that described by the plaintiff's witnesses.

Both parties resting, instructions were given by the court to the jury, first at the request of the plaintiffs, and secondly at the request of the defendant, but the finding of the jury was adverse to the plaintiffs, affirming the theory of the defendant, that there was not any such public passage-way or street between the river and block forty-four, as is supposed by the plaintiffs, and that the block referred to, as originally located, did extend to the river, as claimed by the defendant.

Five instructions presented by the plaintiffs were given by the court to the jury as requested, and three presented by the defendant were also given without any qualification, but the plaintiffs presented at the same time fourteen other prayers for instruction which were refused by the court. Reference is made to the record for the precise form of the instructions as requested and given or refused, as they fill too much space to be reproduced without abbreviation. Those given at the request of the plaintiffs are in substance and effect as follows: 1. That calls for the river, in the conveyances read in evidence, do not give or create riparian rights. 2. That the eastern boundary of the city and the eastern line of the out-boundary, as read in evidence, extended to the middle of the channel of the river. 3. That if the jury believe from the evidence that a street, tow-path, or passage-way, or other open space, was permanently established, for the public use, between the river and block forty-four when the town was founded and laid out, then, and in that case, the owner or owners of that block were not riparian proprietors of the land between that block and the river. Two other instructions were given at the request of the plaintiffs, but they are omitted as not material in this investigation, because they are the same in principle as those already reproduced.

Instructions were then given to the jury as requested by the defendant, which are in substance and effect as follows: 1. That if the jury believe from the evidence that the original claimant, prior to December 20, 1803, inhabited, cultivated, and possessed the land described in the petition, claiming title to the same, and that she and those claiming title under her continued to inhabit, cultivate, and possess the premises to the passage of the act of June 13, 1812, and that the land in controversy is a part of the accretions made to that lot along the eastern line extending to the river in its present position, then the plaintiffs cannot recover, and the verdict must be for the defendant. 2. That the evidence that a passage-way or tow-path existed along the river bank will not affect the rights of the parties if the jury find from the evidence that the same was kept up at the charge and risk of the proprietor of the lot, and that it followed the changes of the river, going to the east or west as the river receded from or encroached upon the lot, and that the inclosure of the proprietor was advanced or set back with such changes. 3. That the claim confirmed to Louis Ride cannot affect the rights of the parties if the jury find from the evidence that the claim was located in another and different block from that inhabited, cultivated, and possessed by Madame Charleville.

Obviously the third instruction given at the request of the plaintiffs is in substance and effect the same as the first instruction given at the request of the defendant, and it is clear that those instructions fairly presented the whole merits of the controversy to the jury as it is exhibited in the pleadings and evidence.

No attempt is made by the plaintiffs to call in question the instructions given at their own request, nor could they be permitted to do so if the attempt was made, as such errors, if any, are to be imputed to the party making the request rather than to the court.

They do insist, however, that the instructions given at the request of the defendant are inconsistent with those given at their request, but the court, after having carefully examined and compared the respective instructions referred to, is of the opinion that the proposition finds no support in the record.

Where the instructions given to the jury are sufficient to present the whole controversy to their consideration, and they are framed in clear and unambiguous terms, it is no cause for the reversal of a judgment to show that one or more of the prayers for instruction presented by the losing party and not given by the court were correct in the abstract, as the refusal of the court to give the instructions as requested, under those circumstances, would not work any injury to the party making the request, and therefore cannot be regarded as error.

Apply that rule to the present case and it is not necessary to add another observation in respect to the prayers for instruction presented by the plaintiffs, and which were not given by the court. Certainly the instructions given, as well those given for the plaintiffs as those given for the defendant, are clear and unambiguous, and they expressly concede that the plaintiffs must recover if block forty-four was bounded on the east by a street, passage-way, or tow-path, which is all that the plaintiffs now ask, if the case is one to be submitted to the determination of a jury. They contend that Chouteau's map is conclusive in their favor, but the court is of a different opinion, and acordingly affirms the correctness of the other branch of the instructions, in which the jury were told that their verdict must be for the defendant if they found from the evidence that there was no such street, passage-way or tow-path between that block and the river, and that the river, when the town was laid out and when the act of confirmation was passed, constituted the eastern boundary of that block.

Suffice it to say, without pursuing the argument further, that the court is of the opinion that the instructions were, in all respects, proper, and that they were clear and unambiguous, and amply sufficient to enable the jury to dispose of the whole controversy as exhibited in the pleadings and evidence.

Complaint is also made by the plaintiffs that the court erred in not regarding Chouteau's map as a muniment of title conclusive in their favor; but the court is of the opinion that the view taken of it by the State court is correct, and that it was properly regarded as evidence of title, and not as a muniment of title conclusive in itself, and that as such it was regular to submit it to the jury with the other evidence introduced by the parties. Neither party can justly complain, as the action of the court in giving the instructions was in accordance with their respective requests.

Ejectment was also brought by these plaintiffs in the same court, at the same time, against Mary Fritz, to recover possession of the southern part of the same block. Before trial the venue was changed, as in the preceding case, to the same Circuit Court, where the parties went to trial, and the verdict and judgment were for the defendant or her legal representatives. Appeal was taken by the plaintiffs to the Supreme Court of the State, and the judgment in that court was affirmed. They then removed the case into this court, where it is numbered twenty-eight on the calendar, and it was argued and submitted to the court here at the same time with the case just decided. Since that time it has been carefully examined, and it should be remarked that the facts of the case are in many respects different from the case just decided, but the differences are not of a character to affect the result in this court, and as both parties agree that the decision of the case must follow that in the preceding case, it is not thought necessary to point out those differences.

DECREE IN EACH CASE AFFIRMED.


text: Talk:The Schools v. Risley/Opinion of the Court


text:
Stimpson v. Woodman

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.

Woodman sued Stimpson, in the court below, to recover damages for an infringement of a patent granted on the 29th March, 1864, for 'a new and useful machine for ornamenting leather,' as stated in the letters patent. In the specification the plaintiff stated that he has 'invented a new and useful improvement in boarding or pebbling leather,' and describes how this process was formerly carried on. He says:

'What is known as a boarded or pebbled grain or finish, has hitherto been given to leather by what is called the boarding operation, which consists in doubling the skin over on to itself on a table, so that the flesh side shall be out, and then forcing or rucking one part over the other, in different directions, by means of a flat 'cork-board,' which breaks or wrinkles the grain, and gives it a rough, checkered, or pebbled appearance. This operation is performed by hand, and is very slow and laborious, and produces only one particular kind of finish.'

He then observes:

'The nature of my invention, therefore, consists in producing this 'pebbled' or 'boarded' grain or finish on leather, by subjecting it to the pressure of a short revolving cylinder or roller of steel, or other suitable metal, having the required design or figure engraved or sunk on its periphery. . . . My improvement further consists in combining with said roller a certain new and useful combination of mechanical devices for carrying my invention into practical operation, so as to accomplish the object desired with great rapidity and cheapness.'He further observes:

'It is obvious that my 'pebbled' roller may be combined with various mechanical devices, whereby it can be rolled with sufficient pressure over a skin of leather. I will, however, now describe a combination of devices which I find to answer every purpose required.'

The plaintiff then describes with great minuteness the machine, and every part of it, and closes with his claims:

'First. Boarding or pebbling skins or leather by means of a single short cylinder rolling over a table with the requisite pressure, substantially as described.

'Second. I also claim raising and lowering the table 'A' by means of the toggles 'Q,' arm 'S,' spring 'U,' arm 'T,' and cam 'P,' or their equivalents, substantially as set forth, and for the purposes described.'

The second claim was not in the case, as the arrangement or contrivance was not found in the defendant's machine. The first was the only one in question. That, as already stated, was 'boarding or pebbling' skins or leather by means of a single short cylinder rolling over a table with the requisite pressure, substantially as described, which means, as this court stated that they understood the claim, finishing or figuring the leather, by means of a revolving roller, the design or figure engraved or sunk on its periphery, and worked over the grain of the leather by the use of the machinery described, or by machinery substantially like it.

It was admitted, in the bill of exceptions, that evidence was given on the trial, by the defendant, tending to show that prior to the plaintiff's invention, boarded or pebbled grain or finish, described in his patent as produced by him, had been produced on leather by subjecting it to the pressure of a short revolving cylinder of steel or other metal, having the required design or figure engraved or sunk on its periphery, and rolling over a table upon which the leather was placed; and that the said revolving figured cylinders, which are known in the case as 'pebbling rollers,' were operated with the requisite pressure by means of hand devices.

It was also admitted that the defendant gave evidence tending to show that prior to the plaintiff's improvement there was known and used a machine (made by one Green) which, in its substantial combination or arrangement of its parts, co-operating together for the purpose of impressing the surface of leather, differed in no material respect from the machine described in the letters patent, whereof a model was produced, except in respect to the mechanism for raising and lowering the table (not in the defendant's machine), and except that instead of operating a short revolving roller like the plaintiff's, having a figured surface for the purpose of producing the pebbled grain on leather, it operated a short revolving metallic roller, having a smooth surface, for the purpose of giving to the leather a closer natural grain; that this was the only diversity between the two machines; and that having the smooth roller instead of the roller with the ornamented surface, made no difference in the substantial combination or arrangement of machinery co-operating together in said machines for the purpose of doing the work.

On this case the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as a second instruction, thus:

'If they find that the form of the surface of the rollers in the plaintiff's machine is not material to the mechanical action of the roller in combination with the other devices, and their arrangements, by which the roller is moved, the leather supported, and the pressure made; and if they find that before the plaintiff's invention a machine was known and used not differing substantially from the plaintiff's machine in any other respect, but having a roller for giving a finish to leather, the surface of which roller was different from that specifically shown and described in plaintiff's patent; and if they find that, before the plaintiff's invention, rollers having such a surface as the plaintiff's, substantially, were known and used in other machines for the same purpose, the plaintiff's patent for the first claim is void.'This was refused, and the jury found in favor of the plaintiff. The other side now brought the case here.

Messrs. B. R. Curtis and G. L. Roberts, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. Wakefield, contra.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Stimpson v. Woodman


text: Talk:Stimpson v. Woodman

title: Talk:Stimpson v. Woodman