New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-01-09
THE COURTS.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR COUNTERFElrS'
AN APPEAL by JAY COOKE co.-DLuNDh"o d.
TREASURY AGENTS.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR COUNTERFEIrS
AN AppEAi. by JAY COOKE a c0.-BLUNDERS by
TREASURY AGENTS.
In November. 1871, the United states orough'
an action against Jay Cooke and Others 10 recover n
amount Of Is Instruments purportng TO be 1870 coupon
notes executed by the United States and interest
thereon. which. alleged were presented TO the AS
sgiant Treasurer at EeYOrk, who paid them The rst
count In the doc araon after stating that the defend
ant. wore indebted for 80 much money received for the
so nj the limited States ae gcd that such money was
obtained upon tho OF the defendants having
delivered 20 plaintiffs therefor what puported 70 DC
n cn,ta,n Obligation Of tho United States, known as
7o noto aud coupon attached for the principal sum OF
81 oco and $40 co interest :" which note was, whon re-
ceiycd supposed be genuine. and Ivy the representa-
lions aud inducements OF the defendants then and there
practoed tho same was received by the United states
and thor officer q genuine note.' The Court thcn
charged "that tho note and coupon were counterfeit
Tho second count was in the usual form OF counts M
debitatus 0sSwps and the plea was the general ISSUE
The case was in tho United States District Court
before Judge Batchord. and judgment was obtained IN
favor Of the plaintiffs on all of tho notes WHICH
amounted with interest 10 i2),6jG 80.
One OF the grounds of defense ucrnosei az the trial
was that tho IS notes lami have been PAM hy the
plaintiff were not received by them from the dcieno-
ants hut that If they "a pOat OF faot paid by tle
plliatf5 they received from some person other
than tho defondauts None Of The notes, n was
claimed. boTo the udorsomolt OF jay Cooko Co, but
plaintiffs insisted that t.ry borc the impression OF
stamp containing the "Pdy to tho Secretary OF
the Treasury for redemption. jay Cooke q Co.." and
tnat the stamp charged with adhesive sub
stance stamped upon he back OF the notes in the
square, which contains the words. Pay TO bearer"
After tho onGry OF the Judgment against them, jay
Cooke & Co.. through their counsel. John f. BuffIiI'
brought the matter. writ OF error before Judge
Init. oil Cfreitf
exceptions to b exclusion OF adm 's!on Of
certain evidence the folbwing are. substantially the
points Tor the plaintiffs IN .rror:
The ruIos that nay ment made forged notes may be
treated rs uuilitY. aud dtt tae amount may under
certain circumstance berecOYeed ana mat thee IS an
implied warranty OF the cnuneness ~ the instrument
transferred have anpi cation where The notes claimed
TO be forged prpoIt 20 )e oDllsaiohs OF the PHy re-
ccying tbcn because td'rc - legal 0p1aii1l ie't
ing upon such party to know his own obligations and
that The rccolpt deemoi an adoption OF them u. y
Bank agt. Bank 0f Georgia. 10 Wheat, ji3-D
There nothing IN tie act OF April r. 1856. when au
horlzed the redemption conversion of 100 notes, and
under which the secretary OF the Treasury has acted
which affects ms question: unless can be established
that the GOyenmCn isexempted from the application
of the principle OF the dias ced because the Jaw would
Imply exactly what is expressed IN the statute, VIZ mat
tAe redemption Ir conversion must Dc limited 10 schu
There ~ no reason why The Government should not. in
ia dealings ma transactions with the citizen, be bound
10y the same rules lnl principles when are appic9De
10 individuals when engaged IN transactions OF ike
character IL IL MT cont3nded That the Assistant
Treasurer arh0nzed 10 receive forged notes. but u
the purpose OF rei9GmiDg or converting GOyesnmrnt
obi cations and ~ part OF his duty To ascertain
and determine what were not suc1 Obligations,
ana tnat his decision that point Is Dindiug ON the
uOveTumeat
The rde h that the party paying Che forget or conn
t-rteG legations must inform the party from whom
they were received immediately an mus tender
him tho instruments themS Ives In tllS case no III
formation gwen 10 the i6icn iapts un three weeks
after the received aud the notes themselves
nave been defiCcd and mutilatei.
The evidence shows tHit the purchase Of the notes
from tho defendants extended from Sept D TO Oct l.
and that the defendants continued 70 purchase th class
OF securities and sell them I'D the plant Is, and that
the dealings between them were large The fact That
The agents the United states received these notes
from timo TO time genuine The means Of inducing
the defendants continue 10 purchase such ana
the implied representation that TINS clsS OF notes were
genuine Obligations tie plaintiffs ShoGld not Dc permit
ted 10 deny
The lud nen. Of The Court below should therefore. be
reversed
The argued. yesterday, in the United states
Circuit Court before Judge WOodruK United States
DisrctAtornoy Bliss appeared FOR the defendants in
error and the 1sc!5loD reserved.