Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1894-05-16
THE CITY LOSES.
The Supreme Court Renders Deci-
sion Against the City in the
MetcaIf Bond Case,

The Supreme Court Renders Deci-
sion Against the City in the
Metca1f Bond Case.
The following dispatch bearing in
telligence OF our bond suit appeared
in Tuesday mornings Sentinel:
The Supreme court of the United
States to-day rendered a decision in
the case of Metcalf VS.. the city of Wat
ertown, the outgrowth of the old Wat
ertown bond cases. Chief Justice Full
Ter delivered the opinion. The iudg-
ment of the circuit court is re-
versed with judgment and costs. The
action was upon a judgment recovered
by one Pitkin G. Wright IN the United
States circuit court for the then district
of Wisconsin against the city of Water
town on May s, 1866 The amount re-
covered was SIC, ,207 Sc, This judgment
by series OF assignments afterwards
became the property Of E. w Metcalf,
who commenced action in June. 1883.
The defendant city claimed that mas
much as ten years had been allowed
to elapse before commencing suit, the
statute Of limitations operated against
the payment OF the judgment On
Aug. 2, 1882 the case was tried and
decided for the defendant, the lower
court sustaining the construction put
upon the state statute of limitations by
the defendant. The case was brought
to the Supreme court for review by
writ of error and has been pending for
long time, having been argued twice,
no decision having been rendered the
nrSt time, because full bench was not
present and the case being of the kind
hno hot o11 4 b,
Judges. There was no dispute as to
the facts in the case, but the legal
points involved have been looked upon
with much interest by lawyers. At
torney Monroe, of Milwaukee, was the
lawyer for the plaintiff in error, and
George w. Bird, of Madison, the prin-
clpal attorney for the defendant in err
rOr.
Of course the above news was not
received here with any great mani
festations Of JOY, nor with the blow
ing Of steam whistles and the ringing
of bells. On the contrary, it is con-
sldered great misfortune for the
city, especially at present when so
many improvements are going forth.
The point at issue in the case. as we
uuuSISUduu IL, was on the c0nStltu-
tionality of the ten-year statute of
limitations as enacted by the legisla-
ture of 1872. The ruling of the Su-
preme court is somewhat of surprise,
although a number of our citizens had
feared, from the long deliberations of
the court, that an adverse decision
might be given. This is practically
the last Of our bond suits. The bal
ance, it will be remembered, the city
settled with Mr. Mariner In 1891 for
Sl5, 900. AT that time an effort was
also made to settle the Metcalf claim,
but the sum offered was not consid-
cred sufficient. The entire Judgment
with accrued interest now amounts
to over $4,000. The intentions of
the city authorities in the matter are
not as yet known, and no action will
be taken until the city's attorney in
the suit, Col. George w. Bird, has
been consulted with and copy of the
decision furnished. 1t is the opinion
of great many of our citizens that
there is really no escape from the pay
ment OF the claim, and that the city
will have to further bond itself in
order to liquidate the debt.