The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-06-10
THE COURTS.
Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad
Company Bonds.
ARGUMENT In THE DANCER WILL CASE.
lwenty-Seven "Bumt Rag" Habitues
Imprisoned.

Joshua G. Saunders became the holder, and claimed
ownership TO thirty-one bonds OF the Grand Rapids
ana Indiana Railroad Company OF tho value OF 600
zach, and commenced u suit against tho company TO
enforce payment thereof These bonds, 1t
Claimed ON the port Of tho company, had been i'm
properly obtained from it's possession by King. Sutton
Co., and that Saunders had knowledge OF that fact
NJ tho time ho took them. In . suit brought by the
company, in the complaint. in which the FORE
going facts are alleged, the Supreme Court
asked 10 declare that tho defendant had no right
or claim against the company based thereon that he
be enjoined from parting with the transfer
ring them to any except the plaintiff, and that no
be oEjoned from further prosecuting his suit against
two OF the trustees OF the company to enforce pay
ment The defendant denied the material facts above
stated alleging that no had purchased the bonds in
good faith alter tho company's officers had assured
him they were valid and good, and asked the Court
for an Affirmative Judgment in his iavor for the
amount OF tho bonds ana tho coupons thereto at
tachcd. Tho tried before Judge Van Worst
In the Specia Term OF the Court. who
dercd q decision in the case Yesterday. He
finds that King l. Sutton were the agents Of the
company, by appointment OF It's President, TO aid ia
tho negotiation OF the issue OF bonds Of 1861 They,
moneys 10 The President and through this agency rs
they claim, moneys were borrowed from others Tor tho
use Of tho President The sums loaned IN tho agsre-
gate were not large. Bonds 10 large amount wore
pledged BY tho President to and through them
cure tho loans. These bonds were not issued or de-
ivored by the plaintiff, through its President,
Tor any other purpose than as such security.
For loans obtained from others, King SUIT
ton claimed to have made themselves per.
sonally responsible Whether these further
moneys were actually borrowed from others or
loaned by King Sutton themselves cannot Affect the
result Tho moneys were actually received by tho
President The bonds IN the hands OF kiag Sutton
or other lenders could only be held security Tor the
moneys advanced upon thcm. they had boon issued
and delivered other consideration. Such In y
true sense is the largest claim which could be made
by the PLEDGES OF tho bonds Stl having possessed
themselves Vt tho bonds claimed by them to have boon
originally pledged to others, they could dispose
OF them, together with those pledged to
themselves, to a bona Tide purchaser Such
purchaser could, against tho company, hold
the bonds, vt least to the amount OF the
consideration he in good faith paid Dunscomb, who
received the bonds from King " Sutton, claimed to
have zone good faith without notice OF The
tant OF their claim Informally OF ttle and nothing
III the testimony seems contradict II. After going
IT great length through the testimony and the law ap
picabe to IT. the Judge concludes that judgment must
be rendered in favor OF the defendant establishing his
legal lo 10 the bonds and coupons, and his right
hold the Same and collect anu receive thereon tho
whole amount OF the coupons, and, in addition tho
sum OF $2,tll 90, the amount puid thereon, and
$4,000, the amount Of his CLAIM thereon against Duns
comb with interest at the rate OF per per
annum. The relief sought by the plaintiff In the
ton Is, therefore, denied.