The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-12-30


Following IS the tex. OF Circ1i. Judge
Waiter Q. Gyeshaus's decision in the suit
OF William T. Carter vs. tie city OF Ottawa,
Iii, in 1855:
The plaintiff brought this action as the
each issued by the defendant on August :
1853, payable 20 bearer hffeen years after
date. The defense 10 that the BOMBS we're Is.
sued for an Unauthorized purpo.e. ano tEas
the plaintiff IS not m irEocens noller lot
value. TIE supreme coart OF the Cnited
states, a. the October term, lss-. IA tas
case Of Ottawa vs.. Cary, lbs U. . Iio. hesd
that number Of bonds OF the same issue
were void IN the hands of the holders no
acquired them Invalid, and ~ the October
tsrfa. 1878. in Haekesi W. Ottawa. ~ u ,.
So that court held that bonds OF ihe same
issue were valid in The hands o. an inno-
cent purchaser for va;ue. The bonds In TINS
suit belonged 10 Mrs. Louise AasneE ~nen
above decisions were rendered. anu
she ard her agent. l. H. lanes. DOM
citizens of the city of Ottawa, knew az and
before the alleged sale 20 the plaintiff the
facts upon which the municipality had
issued payment. Thus advised and Know
ing that payment could not be enforced
UPON her, Mrs. Maiher. through her agent,
placed the bonds in the hands OF Mr..
Wayne MacVeagh, an attorney Oh rhiia-
1elphia, for collection. William 4. carter,
the plaintiff. was . successful business
man OF large means engaged in mining
and selling coal and in manufacturing pig
iron, and Mr.. Macveagh has been bis at
.orney and general legal adviser since 1877
or 1873. Carter had inquired OF Macteagh
shortly before the latter's employment
By Mrs. Mather II he knew OF cppcr-
tunities for investment. Carter had pre-
yiously made large investments upon Mr..
~ faef
his legal adviser. Under these circum
stances Mr.. MacVeagh autographed Carter
At his country plsce, calling him to Phila-
delyhia, where they met, and II il claimed
Carter bought the bonds in suit. Carter
testified that at this tnterview Mr.. Mac
Veagh informed him that be had the
bonds for sale; that they had been issued
by the city Of Ottawa; that the munich
pality was able to pay them; that they
were good beyond all question; that they
would certainly be paid at maturity; that
they contained the proper municipal
clauses; that without seeing them or
knowing anything about them, he made
the purchase, relying upon Mr.. Mac
vesgh's advice, and gave the latter his
check for so, QUO, with the understanding
on his (Carter's) part that the bonds were
to be purchased by Mr.. MacVeagh for
him and that they certainly were so
purchased; that he did not ask Macveagh
whether their validity had been disputed.
and that he had no agreement with any
one that has money should be returned IL
he failed to collect the bonds. Eames tes-
tilted that he went 10 Philadelphia and
placed the bonds in MacVeagh's hands
for collection. and that he did this upon
the advice Of Mr.. Franklin MacVeagh, Of
Chicago, who Is related by marriage to
Mrs. Mather. and who Is Wayne Mac
Veagh's brother; that he was Mrs. Ma
theirs agent in the management of her es
state, and that neither Wayne MacVeagh
nor any one else had paid to him or to
his principal, with his knowledge, any
money arising from the sale of the bonds.
Wayne MacVeagb testified that
Eames advised with him as to the best
method Of securing the money due upon
suit, or take any other course that he
might think best, to collect the money;
that in negotiating the sale TO the plaintiff
he did not act as the plaintiffs agent or
attorney; that he told the plaintiff he had
the bonds for sale; that he had made in
quiries and satisfied himself the munich
pality was abundantly able to pay its debts
and that the bonds would be paid at matu-
rity; that they showed upon their face they
had been issued for a municipal purpose;
that he sent for the plaintiff because he
was an investor: that there was no occa-
sion for acting as counsel for the plaintiff;
that he still retained the money he got for
the sale OF the bonds, and that he
was one Of PLAINTIFF counsel in prosecnt-
ing this suit. Mrs. Mathsr acquired the
bonds with knowledge of the facts which
made them invalid. Her agent and Mr..
MacVeagh both knew that collection could
not be enforced in her favor, and the
plaintiff is, therefore. equally unfortunate
IL his purchase was made upon Dir. Mac
Veagh's advice as his counsel or agent, as
in that case the knowledge of the counsel
or agent was the plaintiffs knowledge.
'If the plaintiffs testimony is to be
credited, he certainly understood that the
purchase was thus made. Was he justi-
red by tie facts in assuming in the inter-
view with Mr.. MacVeagn that the rela-
tion of attorney and client existed between
them, and that Mr.. MacVeagh was
advising him as his counsel as to the
character of the securitiesf Mr..
MecVeagh had been the plain
tifrs attorney and general legal adj
wiser for five or SIX years. during
which time he had represented the
plaintiff in litigattons in the court. and
had given him legal advice as occasion re-
quired in connection with his large busi-
ness interests. This relation still existed,
and the confidence naturally incident to il
remained mistaken. The plaintiff was
not even cautioned against relying at this
time upon Mr.. MacVcagh as his counsel
in making the purchase. II the plaintiff
had been so cautioned il is probable he
would have gone TO some other attorney
for advice. Ii cannot be presumed that
the plaintiff, a citizen of Philadelphia,
would have been willing 10 invest $50, 900
in bonds issued by a municipality in llii-
nois without the opinion of an at
torney that they were valid. Mr..
MacVeagh advised the plaintiff in effect.
il he did not DO so in terms, to
buy the bonds, and the plaintiff relied
upon this as the advice of his counsel. It
was natural and reasonable that he should
DO so. Il Is significant In this connection
that In his argument of the motion for &
new trial Mr.. MacVeagh frankly stated
that while talking to the plaintiff about
the bonds he had in his mind the impor-
lance OF keeping the latter ignorant OF the
facts, which would prevent recovery In
ms favor rs an innocent holder for value.
II is true Mr.. MacVeagh testified as q Wit
ness that he did not act as the plaintiff 5
attorney or agent in this instance. but that
was an expression of his opinion rather
than 8 statement of facts. The evidence
finally considered shows that whatever
interest the plaintiff bad in the bonds he
aequ red on the advice OF Mr. MacNeagh
as his attorney or through him as his
agent, and that. Notwithstanding Mr. Mae
Neagh ) secret intention to the contrary,
nc was in law and fact the plain
tJf 8 attorney and agent. n material
part OF the evidence remains TO be consld-
cred. Mr. MacVeagh collected the money
TWO years ago on the checks which the
plaintiff gave him, and still retains ii in
his hands. There is no evidence that Mrs.
Mather ever demanded this money. or
that II was held without her consent Mr..
MacVeagh is still the plaintiffs general
!egal adviser. and be is the plaintiffs legal
counsel IN this case. why should tnis
,r,..ra,, Ia r..rr,nttsnd a remain his