Sutro v. Dunn

California Supreme Court Jan 27, 1888 No. No. 12352Published

Before: Paterson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant controller cannot be compelled to draw a warrant for the payment of state Indian-war bonds because the condition precedent—an appropriation by Congress for the specific purpose of the bonds—has not been met.

Issues

Whether the controller can be compelled to draw a warrant for the payment of state bonds when the required federal appropriation has not occurred.
Whether the purchaser of state bonds is subject to the conditions and limitations expressed on the face of the instruments and the underlying statutes.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The statements in the bonds put the purchaser upon inquiry, and he took them subject to all defects therein, and subject to all the conditions imposed by the acts of the legislature and of Congress”

“Respondent cannot be compelled to draw a warrant for the payment of the bonds set out in the petition until a fund for the payment thereof has been created by Congress.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County.

The court found that the bonds in question were issued for the loss and destruction of the property of A. L. Pardee during the Indian war. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Paterson, J. This is a special proceeding to compel the defendant, Hon. J. P. Dunn, controller, to draw a warrant in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $4,172.56 upon the Indian-war-bond fund for the payment of certain bonds, all of which are in the following form:—

“ No. 813. $1,000.

“ Bond of the state of California for war indebtedness, in conformity with an act authorizing the treasurer of [596]state to issue bonds in payment of the expenses incurred in the suppression of Indian hostilities in certain counties in this state, approved April 25, 1857.

“ The state of California promises to pay to the order of the governor thereof the sum of one thousand dollars, to be paid only out of any money hereafter to be appropriated by Congress for the payment of such expenses. This bond is transferable by assignment by the owner thereof, or by his attorney in fact.

“ In testimony whereof, the treasurer, controller, and governor have respectively signed, countersigned, and indorsed these presents, and the governor has caused the seal of the state to be affixed hereto this twenty-first day of May, A. D. 1862. D. E. Ashley, Treasurer.

“ G. B. Wabben, Controller.”

Indorsed:—

(Seal) “Lelajstd Stanfobd, Governor.

“ Issued to A. L. Pardee. Certificate 1238.”

The plaintiff is an innocent purchaser for value from Pardee,—so far as legal or mercantile innocence can be considered in connection with such instruments. The court found that he purchased without notice of any defects or infirmity in said bonds other than those disclosed by the terms thereof, and by'the several statutes of the state of California and the act of Congress mentioned herein; namely, Stats. 1857, p. 262; Stats. 1861, pp. 298,409; Stats. 1862, pp. 181, 329; Stats. 1863, p. 399; Stats. 1867-68, p. 601; Act of Congress, 12 Stats, at Large, 1861, p. 199.

The statements in the bonds put the purchaser upon inquiry, and he took them subject to all defects therein, and subject to all the conditions imposed by the acts of the legislature and of Congress upon the subject referred to in the act of April 25, 1857. (Civ. Code, sec. 3088; Cagwin v. Hancock, 84 N. Y. 532; Craig v. Andes, 89 N. Y. 409; Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, secs. 34, 52, 437; Nevada Bank v. Steinmitz, 64 Cal. 314.)

Sutro v. Dunn

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief