Case: THOMAS W. CORNELL v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Abbreviation: Cornell v. District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1889-05-13
Docket Number: 
Citation: 24 Ct. Cl. 531
Volume: 24
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THOMAS W. CORNELL v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Judges: 
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
THOMAS W. CORNELL v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
[20 C. Cls. R., 229; 130 U. S. R., 655.]
On the defendants' Appeal.
Coupon bonds, called sewer certificates, redeemed before maturity, are stolen and sold to innocent purchasers. At tbe time of sale they appear soiled, and coupons have been cut off and pasted over the cancellation marks, but there is nothing in their appearance to excite suspicion.
The court below decides:
(1) One who purchased after maturity, if he would avail himself of the rights of prior holders, must show that they purchased before maturity.
(2) The statement in a municipal bond that value was received in a particular way does not affect the negotiability of the paper.
(3) The negotiability of municipal bonds is not affected by the fact that they give the holder a special means of payment in addition to ordinary taxation.
(4) The Act 20th June, 1874 (18 Stat. L.,'pp. 119, 120), which provided a means for redemption before maturity, did not impair the negotiability of sewer certificates.
(5) If the only suspicious fact about a negotiable bond is that some of its coupons have been cut off and pasted on its face, or that it is stained and soiled, and these are susceptible of explanation, the purchaser is not put upon an inquiry.
Judgment for claimant.
The decision of the court below is reversed on the ground that negotiable certificates issued by the Board of Public
Works of the District of Columbia, redeemed according to law and canceled by the proper officers by stamping in ink across the face words stating such cancellation, are thereby extinguished; and if a clerk who has no duty or authority connected with their redemption or care afterwards fraudulently effaces the marks of cancellation and puts them in circulation the District of Columbia is not liable to a purchaser in good faith for value and before maturity.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Gray
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, May 13, 1889.