Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1878-03-21
BONDED DEBT OF YORK.
An Opinion by the Supreme Court.

John L. Harris relator against Thomas G.
Robertson, County Treasurer OF YORK coun-
| ty, respondent. Mdnddmus. Opinion by Has
kell, A. J. Willard, Z. j., and McIver, A.
j., concurring Filed, March II, 1873. .
The objection that John L. Harris, the re-
lator, has failed to show any right or interest
held by him in the coupons, payment OF
which is sought, which would authorize him
to demand the writ, appears to the court to
be we'll taken.
1t is alleged in the suggestion Paragraph
2.-"That said series of one thousand bonds,
amounting to the sum of one hundred thou
sand dollars, were delivered to the Chester
and Lenoir Narrow Gauge Railroad Compa-
ny in conformity with law, by the proper
authorities of York. county, to-wit: the Coun--
ty Commissioners Of said county"
Paragraph 3--"That six hundred of said
one thousand bonds of the county Of York, in
said State, amounting to sixty thousand dol.
lars, we're, by the said Railroad Company,
deposited in the National Bank Of Chester
with your relator, upon special trust, among
other things to collect the interest on said
bonds and to apply the same in accordance
with the terms of an instrument of writing
made the 22nd of November, 1875, copy
of which is hereunto annexed, marked Ex-
hibit A, to which your relator Graves leave TO-
refer as often as may be necessary"
By reference to this Exhibit A, it is ascer,
tanned: l. That the said bonds were deposit.
ed in the National Bank Of Chester, mot
Nth relator," but ito be held by the said
Bank" q That the Exhibit shows no spe.
cial trust in the relator Ito collect the inter-
est on said bonds and to apply the same,'i
etc. but, on the other hand, it is the special
proviso, that the said Railroad Company
shall have the right, by and with the consent
and approval "of certain agent or attorney
Hereinafter named, to collect the interest on
said bonds SO hypothecated, and to sell or re.
tain the said bonds at such price as shall be
agreed upon by and between the said Rail.
road Company and the agent or attorney OF
the undersigned, and apply the proceeds ex-
clusively and solely to the extinguishment OF
the obligation of said Company for the pur.
chase price Of said iron rails" -.
The agent afterwards named, is John L.
Harris, and it is presumable that the same is
the relator, though it is nowhere alleged. 3.
And not that the relator, as suggested, nor
even the agent, shall apply" the proceeds
as therein directed but that the Railroad
Company shall so apply it. Paragraph al.
leges: THAT on the 1St of January, 1873,
there was due. of said coupons, certain $685.
and there was owing to your relator, ny said
county of York, on the same, the sum of
twepty y-6ve hundred and forty-one dollars" ~,
This claim of ownership aud liability is
controverted by Exhibit A, which shows that
the said coupons belonged to the Railroad
Company, subject to the lien set forth by said
instrument, and that until the obligation
therein named had been exlinguished the
coupons must be held by the National Bank
of Chester; were owing to the Railroad Com
pany, and could be collected by no one except
the Railroad Company, with the consent of
one John L. Harris, agent. Thus. by his own
showing, the relator cannot have any rightin
these coupons, and only d power of control
over the action of the Railroad, Company
with regard to them. 3. =. ..... ,.,.. =. :
Paragraph 8 alleges that on the 3rd of
September, 1873. the relator, John L. Har--
ris, presented, for payment, to the County
Commissioners of York county. three hun.
dred and twenty.four of said coupons, and
received therefor check or order, of which
copy is given. The check or order is on
the County Treasurer and is drawn payable,
not to the relator, but to Jas. Mason, Treas.
urer c.. & L. N. G. R. R., or bearer. The
atfidavits of John L. Harris and of James
Mason, which are appended as Exhibits,
show that the relate. neither presented the
coupons nor received the check or order from
the County Commissioners; nor is it suggest
ed in the petition how the said check or order
ever came into the hands of the relator. He
is estopped from claiming it as "bearer," by
Exhibit A, attached to paragraph 3 of tho
petition; for he thereby sets up the owner
ship by the Railroad Company, and nowhere
claims that the coupons we're ever delivered
to him by the Company, or any one else.
Exhibit A further shows that the bonds
were deposited, if at all, to indemnify the
parties thereby indicated from loss, by
guarantee tor the payment, by the said Rail
road Company, of a stipulated sum, in the
event that certain rail irons, in time named,
be delivered to the Railroad Company. The
relator makes no pretence to right, except
as agent or trustee for these guarantors.
There is no evidence that the guarantors are
liable; that the contract was executed that
the iron was delivered, or that the Rail-
road has become liatle, or if it has, that the
debt has not been paid. No such facts are
suggested. Then, even if the relator be the
agent named in the instrument, and have the
power therein to collect the interest, (Which,
however, is expressly reserved to the Railroad
Company he has failed to show that the
guarantors are liable for anything, or that be
is, as agent, entitled to receive or demand the
money for the purposes named in the instru.
ment from which he seems to claim that his
authority is derived. '.'
The relator has shown no legal title to the
coupons; no interest in them; no right to
collect the money on them; and cannot be
considered entitled to the remedy which he
seeks. The questions which would arise ia
the case, had it been brought by the proper
party, are matters of public interest
The court, therefore, takes pains to observe
that the decision herein rendered relates sole
ly to the defect of ownership in the relator,
and does not 60 at all into the merits, which
were argued at some length. The questions
came up in the case of Glenn vs.. County
Commissioners, vi s. G. Rep, p. 412, and an
order was made dismissing the motion. The
two justices who concurred in this order, are
not now members of this court. None of
the points made in the ease were considered,
and no reasons were stated in the order.
The court is, therefore, really not aware, as
to what points, if any, were decided on ap-
peal in the case of Glenn vs. County Com
missioners, and deems all questions of law
which arose therein, as open and undecided,