Case ID: us-ct-cl_20/html/0533-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JUNIUS S. MORGAN AND WALTER H. BURNS, COPARTNERS AS J. S. MORGAN & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES v. THE MANHATTAN SAVINGS INSTITUTION. LOUIS A. VON HOFFMAN AND WILLIAM MERTENS, COPARTNERS AS L. VON HOFFMAN & CO., v. THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES v. THE MANHATTAN SAVINGS INSTITUTION.
    (19 C. Cls. R., 386; 113 U. S. R., 476.)
    
      On the Appeals of Morgan <1; Co., Von Hoffman & Go., and the United States.
    
    United States 5-20 coupon bonds, payable to bearer, are stolen from the Manhattan Savings Institution, after they have been called in for redemption, but before maturity of- the call. After such maturity they are purchased by Von Hoffman & Co. of the bearer, in the usual course of business and without knowledge of how he came into possession of them, and are presented to the Treasury for redemption. The Manhattan Savings Institution, claiming to be the lawful owner of the bonds, also demands payment.
    
      Tbe court below decides—
    (I.) Bonds of tlie United States made redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years, and payable twenty years after date, which, after five and before twenty years, are called in for payment in three months after the date of the call, under authority of the Act of July 14, 1870 (oh. 77, 10 Stat. L., 272), become matured bonds at the expiration of the three months.
    12.) Whoever buys such bonds after they are thus matured takes them subject to all defenses which may be set up against overdue commercial paper.
    (¡1) The bona fide purchaser of called bonds after maturity of the calls acquires no title thereto against tho owner from whom they had been previously stolen.
   ■ i.ayiuüwb iu favor of tbe Manhattan Savings Institution.

The Udumeut of tbe court below is reversed on the ground oh at tne maturity of a call for redemption and notice of the cessation of interest did not make the securities overdue or affect iheir negotiable character.

Mr. Justice Matthews delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court. March 2, 1885.