The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-11-30
ON ISSUES OF FACT.
Hearing in Case Of Browne VS.. R. |.
Mortgage and Trust Co.
To Determine Whether or Not Tax Sale
Certificates Had Been Deposited.

There was a hearing today before
Chief Justice Matteson and Justices
Stiness and Tillinghast on the bill in
equity filed by William n. Browne VS..
Rhode Island Mortgage and Trust Com
pany. The bill is brought by the com
plainant 10 compel the respondent COM
pany To transfer 10 MIN certain securi-
ties. consisting of tax sale certificates
belonging TO him, and wrongfully with
held by the company, TO account for its
dealings with the collateral securities,
and TO pay To the complainant any
losses which may have accrued i'm said
securities by it's course of dealing there
with.
The respondent company which had
been for some time previously dealing
in other kinds of commercial paper.
sold the Topeka Commercial Security
company OF Topeka, Kansas, early in
the year 1894 notes OF the
Topeka Commercial Security company.
which were secured by the tax sale cer-
tificates The tax sale certificates,
which were deposited with those notes
as security, were issued by the county
treasurer of different counties in the
state of Kansas.
These tax certificates bear interest at
the rate of from 10 to "a per ccf {. per
annum and are negotiable like "A pro-
the land and represent very small
proportion of the value of the land,
varying in amount from less than 81
to $l50. They were issued by the
Topeka Commercial company, were all
of precisely the same form aGd were
numbered consecutively in series,
payable to the order of the r. l. Mort
gage and Trust company six months
after date, with interest at the rate Of
: per cent. per annum, and were in
dorsed without recourse by the X. /.
Mortgage and Trust company. There
were tax sale certificates placed In the
hands of the respondent company to
the amounts called for by each and all
of the complainant's notes. and also to
the amounts OF all the other notes in
said series that were sold. The COM
plainant's notes were due on February
l. 1896 and default was made i'm the
payment Of ah of them. After default
the complainant demanded fromjthe re-
spondent company the collateral Sc
curity belonging to him as holder of the
notes which he had left I'm the hands
of the company. The respondent COM
pany did not deliver the collateral 1t
il claimed the company'S agent in
formed the respondents and others that
the company had received from the pro-
ceeds OF the sale of the redemption of
taN sale certificates in the common fund
some $1,000 or $4,000. and that a dividend
would soon be paid TO the holders of
the notes. This dividend did not ma
terialize and the bill sin equity after
patient waiting was brought and heard
today on issues Of fact involving the
chief point whether or not certain
specific securities consisting Of tax
sale certificates were deposited with
the notes sold to him by the respondent
company.
Nathan W. Little1eld. solicitor for
the complainant In a long brief and by
oral argument stated the salient points
and the law. from his judgment OF II.
on these points and Dexter II. Potter.
counsel for the respondent argued that
the action Of the respondent company
i'm the premises was proper I'm every
way and that the complainant should
not maintain his contention ON any one
of the issues of the fact on which the
case was down for hearing.