Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-04-10

ls not the pTox1uatc OF e1ecIvc ca"sc
of the fraud. A crime was necessary
for its completion,
Then the Bank Of Ireland o.. Evans's
Trustees, s II. l.. c., 3s9, shows under
such circumstances there is no estoppel.
In the same case Brett, j., says: "In
this case agree with the conclusion at
which my brother Bromwell has ar
rived, but not with his reasons. In
this case il is true that the defendant,
after writing his name across the
stamped paper, sent 1t to another per-
son to be used. When he sent it to
that person if he had filed it in to any
amount that the stamp would cover
the defendant wsuld be liable, because
he seat Il UiM the intention that IL
should be acted upon but IL ras sent
back TO Ms defendant, and he Uas then
in the same condition ds u he had
nerer issued he acceptance"
That there must be delivery Of the
paper, either actually or constructiyely,
is clear. First National Bank cs.
Strong, 72 ILL.,, $50; Burson rs. Hunt
ington, q Mich, AS; Baxendale rs.
Bennett, 3Law Reports Queens Bench
decinon), .525. Where a negotiable
bill or note is stolen from the acceptor
or maker such party is not liable there
on to a bona:fde endorsee for value,
even though the acccptor or maker
somewhat facilitated the theft by put
ting the paper in an unlocked drawer in
chambers to which his clerk, laundress,
and other persons, had access. Baxen-
dale 90. Bennett supra, and cases cited
in Bigelov's Bills and Notes, 512 and
573.
Upon these authorities there could
be no recovery upon the bonds and
coupons held by the relators this were
a suit for payment at or after maturity.
and they cannot be funded, because
they are not the legal outstanding OBJ
legations OF the State Of Virginia, having
been redeemed and extinguished and
substituted by her equivalent bonds, IS
set forth in the return made by re-
spondents to the rule nisi. But it
may be remarked here that when these
bonds were received by the relators
from the New York broker, who re-
ceiyed them from the unknown thief who
abstracted them from the efete matter
in the custody Of the Treasurer Of the
State, the act of February IA, 1882,
and the act Of Goth Of November, 1884,
had not been passed, nor even con-
eeiyed; and, therefore, even if they
were just and legal obligations of athe
State, to be paid at maturity, the con-
tract Of the State was to pay money,
not to give other bonds for them.
There is no hardship in this case. In
1879, when the relators, who lived in
Richmond, the capital of the State,
bought these stolen bonds, the legisls-
tive and newspaper reports were rife
with suspicious and charges Of frauds,
and thefts, and missing bonds Of the
State and they were guilty Of con-
tributory negligence in that they did
not inquire and inform themselves, as
they could and ought to have done by
a breath, as to the genuineness Of these
bonds.
IL it be proverbially true that the
hand Of innocence itself may not pluck
a rose without thorn, it certainly be-
hooves the "money-changers " who
speculate in Virginia's financial com
plications to inquire if they are dealing
with the genuine obligations of the
State or with surreptitious securities.
We are OF opinion that the respond
ents, &" Commissioners Of the Sinking
Fund" have made good and sufficient
return to the rule nisi, and that it must
be discharged and the peremptory writ
prayed for denied.
COUNSEL.
This case was elaborstely argued by
Major Stringfellow for the relators, and
by Judge L. c. Burks for the respond
ents.
The decision Of the Court is regarded
as one Of great Importance to dealers in
State securities and other negotiable