Case ID: nys_19/html/0044-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Martin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Armfield v. Town of Solon.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.
    
    April, 1892.)
    Municipal Bonds—Seal—Affixing by Stranger.
    Bonds issued by a tovzn are not invalidated by the affixing, after their issue, by a stranger, to them of wafer seals opposite the name of the officers signing them, who had neglected to affix the seals as required by law.
    Appeal from circuit court, Cortland county.
    Action by William W. Armfield against the town of Solon on coupons representing interest payable on bonds issued by defendant in aid of the construction of the Utica, Chenango & Cortland Bailroad Company, to recover damages, with compound interest, for refusal to pay the same. From a judgment entered for plaintiff on a decision of the circuit court, a jury having been waived, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before Hardin, P. J., and Martin and Merwin, JJ.
    
      Bouton Champlin and Louis Marshall, for appellant. H. D. Newton, for respondent.
   Martin, J.

All the questions presented by the appellant in this case arose and were considered by this court in Beattys v. Town of Solon, 19 N. Y. Supp. 37, except that relating to the effect of seals or wafers having been attached to the bonds held by the respondent. Thus the only question we need at all consider in this case is whether the fact that, after the bonds were issued, wafer seals were, by a stranger, attached to the bonds opposite the names of the officers signing them, rendered them void, so that the respondent was not entitled to recover from the coupons attached. This question has been quite fully discussed both by the court of appeals and this court in Town of Solon v. Williamsburgh Sav. Bank, 35 Hun, 1, 114 N. Y. 122, 21 N. E. Rep. 168, and any further discussion of it at this time seems unnecessary. We are of the opinion that, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence, the affixing of seals did not invalidate the bonds, and constituted no valid defense to this aeffbn. Hence the decision in this case should be governed by the opinion in the case of Beattys v. Town of Solon. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.