The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1870-05-26
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
NO. 142.-DEcEMBER TERM, 1869.

M.ar STATES.
NO. 142.-DEcEMBER TERM, 1869.
The City of Kenosha, In error to he Circuit
Plaintiff in Error Court of the United
r VI. States for the Dis rict
Joshua F Lamson. of Wisconsin
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion
OF the Court.
This is writ OF error to the Circuit Court
of the United states for the District of Mis-
cousin.
The suit was brought against the city of
Kenosha to recover the Interest upon several
coupons annexed to bonds issued by the city,
September l, 1857, and which had accrued in
the wears 1860 and 1861. The bonds were,
each for $500. ana TO an amount, in the ag-
gregate, of 100000.
They are headed Issued according TO law
to the Kenosba aud Rockford r. r Company,
TO aid in the construction of their railroad"
and, were payable twenty years from date, at
the Peoples Bank, in the city of New York,
with interest, at the rate of ten per cent per
annum. to be paid semi-annually, upon The
presentation of tie proper coupons for said
interest. For the payment of the bonds and
Interest, the faith OF he city is pledged.
| The bonds are certified by the mayor and city
! clerk TO have been issued under an act ofleg
islature, passed March 2, 1857. giving to the
city aui hority to loan its credit tor the sum
specified and. also in pursuance of a vota of
the trecholders the city, taken.for the pur-
pose ofthe loan of the 100000 to the rail
road company.
The following is copy of one of this cou-
pons $ $50. The city OF Ken Osha, Wis, will
pay to the bearer twenty Ave dollsrs. on the
! first day of September, 1850, at the Peoples
Bank, in the city of New York on presenta
tion of this coupon. being the interest due
| d,y hn nf
bered one, dated LIST day of Septen Der, 1857. -
Signed by the mayor and clerk of the city.
The plaintiff was the holder ofseveral OF
these interest coupons falling due in the
years above mentioned. A-1eel1 ts.Irlg
The declaration rectes, in very general
terms, the several bonds, to which the cOu-
pons the plaintiff holds had been originally
annexed, setting forth. that they have been
sold and disposed of, TO bona fide purchasers,
and have since passed from hand to hand in
| the stock market, like other negotiable Sc.
curities, so tha he cannot produce them to
the court that the interest has accrued on
the same which the defendant has neglected
and refused to pay at the time and place
designated and that the interest and cou-
ponsa are owned by him, the latter of which
| he brings into court to De cancelled 81 a5ss
The defendant plead, 1st-Nil debit, 3D.
The statute of limitations. that the several
| supposed causessof action had notSacclued to
| the plaintiff within six years from the com
mencemeht of the suit. The plaintiff took
| issue GU the first plea, and demurred to the
second, which demurrer was sustained. -
The Jury found verdict for the plaintiff on
the first issue TO the amount of the several
| coupons. R4
/ From the bill of exceptions, it appears that
! the plaintiff gave in evidence one hundred
and seyenty-tWo coupons which was object
ed to-. but the objection was overruled. IL
was admitted that all the coupons, with the
exception of four, which were annexed toFa
bond produced We're coupons of different
bonds of the same issue, but which bonds
were not given in evidence. After the plant
if rested, the counsel for the defendant pray
ed the court to charge the jury, 1st--that the
bonds declared on, as wei! aS the coupons,
should have Teen produced. in order to sus-
tain the declaration under the issue; and "a
that the Gig Of KenoSha had no authority %
issue the bonds which prayers were 0verruled.
We ag zee, if this was an action upon the
bonds to recover inStallments of interest that
: had accrued thereon, although such Install
ments had been Only assigned TO the plan
/ tiff, there would be great difficulty IN mann
taining it in his name, as well as Without pro-
ducing the bonds, rs the proper evidence that
interest was due. The plaintiff, uLder such
circumstances doubtless would have a rem
edy for withholding the interest, but II il
mot necessary or material to stop and poln'
it out in the present case for we DC not re
gard the action as founded upon The bonds
very general terms, IL is true, In he ueciara.
stiun y but, lit is by way of explaining and
Infringing into view he relation the coupons
originally held to the bonds and which, IL
/. an important sense, they still held, fhongt
distinct as itrespects owneTshi pas they rep.
: resent the interest that had abeconeFdue up
ron 8hems The relation we. refer to IL 2 bal
these coupors are not received, or INTENDED
to have the effect OF extinguisbihg The inter
. Test due on / be bonds; as this collateral secu
trity, or rather, this evidence Of the Interest
: upon weli settled principles, cannot have
that effect withouJan express agreement be
: tween the parties Besides, the coupons ars
! given, simply as y "a convenient mod
ofa1 obtaining payment : of g the in
: terest as ii Becomes due upon, the, bonds
) There is nofextiuguishmenttil lspayment.
4 I.T The Fec.tslislby waypf ind ucelaent. as
/ faTailiar to.lspecIaIp ieadarsla at CON uon,lA "
I .wAieh Mr. Gritty saysiSin1he nature OF pre-
}. ami e.stsl ting the circumsi anees under vino
heepEtract was made or to which the cnn
sideration has reference ~ L Gritty Fl 290
!. FThe Office of an indncemcnt is explanatory
: and does not, in general, require exact ce'
G tainty. Thus, says Mr.. Gritty, when Al
!. agreement with third person is stated onl
! as inducement TO the defendants promise
: which is the principal cause of action, it
considered, in general, sufficient to state sue
agreement without certainty of name, piact