Case: The Board of Commissioners of the County of Knox, Plaintiffs in Error, v. David C. Wallace
Abbreviation: Board of Commissioners v. Wallace
Decision Date: 1858-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 21 How. 546
Volume: 62
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The Board of Commissioners of the County of Knox, Plaintiffs in Error, v. David C. Wallace.
Judges: Mr. Justice DANIEL dissented.
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
The Board of Commissioners of the County of Knox, Plaintiffs in Error, v. David C. Wallace.
The decision of the court in the preceding case again affirmed.
This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana.
It was similar, in most of its aspects, to tbe preceding case. In this case there was no notice whatever of the increase of the stock made bythe board at their meeting on 26th February, 1849, and also it was shown that less than a majority of the whole vote of the county was polled.
It was argued by Mr. S. W. Thompson for the plaintiffs in ' error, and Mr. McLean for the defendant.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice NELSON
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the' Circuit Court of the TJnited States for the district of Indiana.
The suit was brought by Wallace against the board, upon several coupons, for instalments of interest which had been attached to certain bonds issued by the defendants to the Ohio and Mississippi R. R. Co. The coupons were owned by the plaintiff, and had been duly presented for payment, which was refused. The defendants plead the general issue, and six special pleas, to which there were replications, except the second and sixth pleas, to which there were demurrers.
The court sustained the demurrers. There were afterwards amendments and demurrers to pleadings not very intelligible in the record, and seem not to have been relied on by either party. The case was tried upon the general issue, and the facts disclosed upon the trial were substantially the same, mutatis mutandis^ as those which were proved or admitted in the previous case of Aspinwall and others against these same defendants. After the evidence was close.d, the defendants presented ten prayers to the court, upon each of which instructions were given. It is unnecessary to go through them; the questions involved have already been exámined in the' case above mentioned, and th,e result there arrived at affirms the judgment in this case.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice DANIEL dissented.