Court Opinion

ID: 9416959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:59:11.642301+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:34.440447
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD,
dissenting:
I dissent from the opinion and judgment in this case, chiefly upon two grounds: (1) Because I think the opinion restricts quite too much the powers of municipal corporations; and (2), because the doctrines of the opinion, as applied to negotiable securities of a commercial character, are repugnaut to the well-settled rules of law established by the repeated decisions of this court.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE and Mr. Justice STRONG also dissented.
Note.
At the same time with the preceding case, and by the same counsel, was argued the case of
The Mayor v. Lindsey.
In error to the same Circuit Court, for the Middle District of Tennessee. In this case Lindsey sued the mayor of Nashville *486on certain checks, similar in all respects, in form and inception, to the check issued to Julius Sax, and mentioned more particularly supra, p. 472. The checks now sued on had been pledged as collateral security for a loan of less amount than the cheeks pledged, and were sold soon after being pledged, and before the loan fell due; the transaction being effected by the chairman of the finance committee of the city council without other au-thority. Such at least was the tendency of the evidence, and the judge charged substantially as in the preceding case of Ray.
Mr. Justice BRADLEY announced the judgment of this court, reversing the judgment below, with directions to award a
Venire de novo.