The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1907-10-01

| consequence, 1Or the absence of
marks Of cancellation make it possi-
bic Tor the thief to put the bond in
circulation.'
Justice Jones considers the authori-
ties cited, and especially notices the
Virginia case quoted in the respond
ent's argument, and then goes on to
say: 1.-The real point Of inquiry is,
admitting a valid and strictly negotia-
Bile paper in the hands Of bona fide
holder before maturity. now far can
intervening circumstances affect the
title OF the holdcr7 The general rule
IS that payment before maturity is
no defence against a subsequent bon:,
Tide holder for value before maturity.
1t IS the duty Of the maker paying
the commercial paper before maturity
to take reasonable prccaution to pre-
vent It's restoration to circulation by
accident t" fraud.' Numerous cases
on this line are cited.
State Responsible for Agents Acts,
| Further ON Justice Jones saws:
'Thc principle that bona fidc holder
cannot acquire title where there is
absolute want Of power in the state
or It's officers to issue negotiable pa
per has no application in this ease,
the bond in question having been ori-
ginally issued by due authority. The
holder is not claiming by any reissue
OF the bond after its redemption, but
by virtue of the original issue and
MS relation to it as bona fide holder
unaffected by intervening facts. The
claim is not that the treasurer or any
ono in his Office had power to rcis-
sue the bond, but that he was charg-
cd with the duty to keep out of circu-
latIon by cancellation and that mis-
failure 10 do SO was the states fail.
llrc. II IS true the doctrine Of ostoppt!
IN Pals does not apply To sovereign
state, and that the state can only act
under It's constitution and through
the Legislative cnactmcnts, and that,
! therefore, contracts cannot be Great
ed against the state except under sane
tons. But here we nave a bond of
the state issued by due authority of
the legislature which the representa-
tlvrs Of The state failed to cancel, as
directed by statute, and which is now
under the law merchant the property
Of the rclator. 1t may be further said
that the right of the bona fide hold
ers of commercial paper under cir
! cumStanccs like these does not rest
wholly upon the law of estoppel, but
is grounded upon high public policy
which is Subservcd by making him
secure in his itle.'
The argument that to recognize the
bond will he to increase the debt of
the state illegally is noticed in the
opinion and disposed of as follows:
'lt is urged in behalf Of the res
pondcnt that the recognition of the
bond in question as valid debt Of
the state, when it has already been
redeemed by the issue Of stock in
exchange, would result in increasing
the debt of the state in violation Of
the constitution. Section II, Article
10, which forbids the general assem-
bly, from creating any further debt
or obligation without first submitting
the question to the qualified electors,
etc. AS declared in Whalcy VS. Gail
lard, the obpect of the similar pro-
vision in the constitution Of 1868 was
to place restrictions upon the power
OF the legislature to contract debts. II
has no application to a ease like this.
The bond III question in the hands of
the rclator is no new debt ATTEMPTED
to be created by the unauthorized act
Of some officer or even by the judg.
mcnt of a court, but represents the
old debt provided for in the statute.
authorizing the issue Of that series of
honds."
Having thus established the rcln.
tors title 10 the bond. the opinion
considers The method proposed to com
pei The recognition Of the bond and
holds that there is no other adequate
legal remedy than mandamus. 1t is
therefore ordered that the writ should
issue.
All Stolen Bonds Valid.
The effect of this decision is to
recognize the validity Of all the bonds
which were stolen from the Office Of