The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-04-21

aad. The complainant Is not entitled
to the rights OF BONA Eide holders for
value and cannot recover,
4 reading OF the charter or the Western
North Carolina Railroad Company. print
"a in the Record. viii show that It VAS
the purpose Of the State in rendering all
to the road not 50 much 10 secure an liz
Investment for idle funds as TO secure the
speedy construction of a railroad con-
Meeting the mountain section with The
eastern sec board. and hence i was rro-
IvideG that the bonds should 10 sold. upon
: sealed proposals. ut not less than par,
the premiums 10 be turned into the ;reas-
ury. The treasurer testiies. suhStan-
sally. that there were no sealed proposals
received and the bonds were NOT sold IT
all. but were simply turned over 10 the
authorities OF the railroad company. who
sold them at prices ranging from % to
G5 per cent. OF their par value. thus de-
feating the main purpose Of the statute
in imposing the restrictions.
It seems clear 10 rs that the railroad
company could not have maintained an
action upon these bonds in any court
having jurisdiction. and. granting juris-
Giction, complainant cannot unless she Is
entitled to the rights OF a BONA Eide
holder for value.
Complainant admits that she receives the
bonds as a donation from Sehafer after
their maturity, and as 1t appears that
they We're issued contrary to the provis-
ions OF the statute. the burden OF proof
is upon her 10 show that one OF her pre-
deCessors in title was n purchaser for
value.
Stewart V. Lansing 104 Il. s. sos.
This burden she has not sustained.
She does not show from whom the
Schafers purchased, nor at what price.
and We think we have a right to pre-
sumo that they purchased from the rail
road company at some % per cent. of the
face value. Schafer says he purchased
about thirty years ago, and If 50 there
We're then at least 4 overdue coupons at
tached to each bond: IL It were not SO il
was incumbent upon the complainant.
upon whom the burden rests, to show it.
SO we have the question whether a pur-
chaser of State bonds with several unpaid
interest coupons attached, and at a small
fraction of the face value, is a BONA
Eide purchaser for value in due course?
We think not upon the authorities
Trask V. II. r. Co, 124 L. S. 515, 5l7.
Finally we insist that, if the court holds
that it has jurisdiction and that Schafer.
or some antecedent holder, was q BONA
Eide holder in due course, complainant
ought not to be allowed to recover bc-
cause her assignor could not do so. and
being a volunteer, cannot occupy a
better position than any of her predcces-
sOrs in title.
When these bonds were issued they were
not intended to be suable, AND HEY
ERE NOT IN the hands Of the as
slgnor or complainant, and it is a general
rule of LAW THAT THE TRANS
fEREE MUST ABIDE THE title and
rights of his transformer.
There is an exception in favor of sales
IN market overt Gin England) and under
our recording acts and in favor of pur-
chasers for value without notice of nc
5otlable securities.
complainant comes within none Of these
and SO must abide the rights
y 9chafer, unless the court is prepared
20 extend the list Of exceptions.
Tbs we think ought not to be done.
l. To permit these bonds to become
ctlonable by assignment is to hold that
he burden of an obligation can he in
.reased by assignment beyond what was
Intended to be assumed by the obligor
? aAh liz lie state QlG nor
intend, nor did those who took them nm
that there should be other
..anction for their collection than the
faith of the State
In Tolehurst V. Cement Manufacturers {
l90l) : Is. u. 81 Mr.. Justice Matthew
aid: Whenever by reason of change Of
BUSINESS or change or parties, the result
| an assignment would be to impose unon
he OF tho cont 30 II -:
liability than he ever intended to as
ume, the contract cannot be assigned >
Inc case has been reversed. but This
rlnclp.e was approved. 1t cannot no eaid
nat the burden of the obligation" is
OF increased, but only q remedy oivan
ecause, both practically and legally the q
emedy IS a very essential mart of tba
If to take away a remedy 10
, impair the obligation, why should nor
wing a remedy where lone existed no
d increase, more properly a creation Of p
re obligation? !,
That comforting the ouaIitv of s,o,u..
pom obligations not originauy o,.h1o !; !
. increase Of the burden is sustofre,
y the authority of Chief Justice .Jav
no towards the end Of his opinion in
nllshoiin case, said: THAT such s,,a-
.llty may nevertheless not extend toau
III II II
7lhdhuS, and to every kind Of action. =
iele may be exceptions. For instance
Tar from being prepared to saw +,o+
| Individual may sue a State on hius
credit issued before the constitutions
established, and which were issued
- iecelVed on the faith OF the State ana 4
q 'iLhe When no idea or expectation Of
uioiai lnterposition We're entertained ar
'ntenDlated."
AGAIN II seems TO be settled that whom
sovereign comes into court ~volun-
Eliy and invokes its aid it waivae 80
and submits to the apn,ic,tion
tpe same principles by which irc+io-
administered between individuals
eHceptlons to this rule being
.nes ana the statutes of limitations
an o1t'nstandln the fact that the gov
hlnent' either State or National isno
rreo oy the statute of limitations 80 =
held Ia 7. S. V. Buford, 3 Peters -
q clam, barred by the stat,+o