The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1845-03-21
From the Stark County Democrat.

From the Stark County Democrat.
ENGLISH AUTHORITY FOR REPUD1ATIoN.-
We publish the following decision of tn,
Vice Chancellor of England in case con
cerning fraudulent issue of State Bond
wherein the State of Illinois was party
This decision covers all the ground assumed
by the State of Mississippi for the non-pay
ment of bonds unlawfully issued by the
agents of the State; and in our opinion
shows the English Judge to be man o.
sense, as well as a man of justice. II also
puts dampsr upon all long yarns and
fine spun theories of those who contended
that the States were bound by the acts oi
their agents whether faithful or not-wheth.
er the bonds had been lawfully sold or not
and very plainly directs the spectators in
those bonds to look at the article before they
purchase, and see if the article be genuine
or fraudulent. How many of the States have
had millions added to their public debts by
the unfaithfulness Or dishonesty of their
agents? How is it with Ohio? Would it
not be worth while to look into this business?
We hope the proper authorities will do their
duty.
Form the London Spectator of Nov. 10.
"The Vice Chancellor gave Judgment in
the case of Huxtable Uersus the State of Hi
nois, on Monday. Before July, 1910, Maria
Sarah Langstone, who in that month married
Anthony Huxtable, clerk, by advice of Mr..
John Wright, of the firm of Wright g. Co.,
her bankers, invested considerable sum ofI
money (f6, 6,544) in bonds issued under the
Of nf
Wright were the agents of the State, to
which they were largely indebted when the
bank failed. Messrs. Magniac, Smith g. Co.,
were then appointed agents for the State
that firm subsequently undergoing divers
changes of partnership, and becoming known
as Magniac, Jardine & Co.; while since April
ls42, Messrs. Barring, Brothers g. Co., have
been the agents. In March, lS42, the agents
refused to acknowledge Mrs. Huxtable's
bonds, or pay the dividends upon them, on
the plea that the bonds and sixteen others
had been irregularly sent into the market BY
Messrs. Wright g. Co.; that the coupon had
not been served; and also that the agents
had not sufficient funds.
The plaintiff denied that she was liable ,
for the Irregularities ofthe States agent; and ;
farther alleged that Mr.. Jaudon, as commits
sioner of the State, had proved debt against g
The estate of Messrs Wright g. Co. amoun- q
ting to f17,920; which sum included the a
money she had invested. She therefore 9
fled bill against the State and various per- :,
sons, including the partners to the several 9
irms praying that the dividend upon Wrght's Il
Estate might not be paid over to the State 7
Until her claim should have been satisfied =
The State of Illinois did not appear to =
he bill; but Messrs. Magniac & Co. and i
Asssrs. Barring, Brothers 81 Co., demurred i
Q it, on the score ola general want of equi- h
y as regards them. h
The Vice chancellor observed, in giving "
Judgment, it did not follow that, if the State h
# Illinois had rePudiatsd the transaction, c,
hey repudiated it in the offensive meaning al
o be given to that word, or that they had II
one so without reason; for, if the State is
laced bonds in the hands Of agents with T
ertain directions how to use them, and they n,
Isre improperly dealt with by those agents, Il
would be too much to say that the State dc
cted dishonesty because it refused to sane an
on what it had not authorized He thought tb
le transaction fair one on the part of the Isl
tate. The question was, had the plaintiff
Y her bill made out a sufficient case against
lessrs. Magniac g. Co. as one party, and th
[essrs. Barring, Brothers g. Co. as another ex
lrty? The allegations in the bill were too VIC
distinct as respected the several parties;
Id though they appeared TO be the substra- ~, ,
m of good case, he did not think that it ,tt ,tt
ID been sufficiently made out. The de- ~, -.
urrer, therefore, was allowed. Pa