« 이전계속 »
Opinion of the Court.
questioned now, that whenever negotiable paper has passed into the hands of a party unaffected by previous infirmities, its character as an available security is established, and its holder can transfer it to others with the like immunity. His own title and right would be impaired, if any restrictions were placed upon his power of disposition.” So, in Roberts v. Lane, 64 Maine, 108, 111, it was said that "if any intermediate holder
, “ between the plaintiff and defendant took the note under such circumstances as would entitle him to recover against the defendant, the plaintiff will have the same right, even though he may have purchased when the note was overdue, or with a knowledge of its infirmity, as between the original parties." See, also, Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 159; Porter v. Pittsburg Steel Co., 122 U. S. 267, 283; Mornyer v. Cooper, 35 Iowa, 257, 260; Kost v. Bender, 25 Michigan, 515 ; Byles on Bills, 119, 124.
It is objected that there was error in allowing interest at the rate of seven per
after their maturity. Such allowance was proper for the reason that the coupons (which, as well as the bonds, were silent, as to the rate of interest after maturity ) were made payable in New York, where the rate as then established by law was seven per cent. Rev. Stats. N. Y., 771, Part 2, c. 4, Title 3, § 1; Act of June 20, 1879, Laws of 1879, c. 538, p. 598. In Bank of Louisville v. Young, 37 Missouri, 398, 407, the rule was recognized that “interest is to be paid on contracts according to the law of the place where they are to be performed; where interest is expressly or impliedly to be paid.” Andrews v. Pond, 13 Pet. 65, 73, 77, 78; Story's Conflict of Laws, $ 291. In respect to interest on the amount for which judgment was rendered, we are of opinion that the law of Missouri governs, and the judgment must bear only six per cent interest. 1 Rev. Stats. Missouri, 1879, SS 2723, 2725. The judgment of the court below is affirmed, to bear interest
from the date of its rendition at the rate of six per cent per annum.
The objection that some of the coupons included in the present judgment were, in fact, included in former judgments against the county, is without foundation.
Citations for Defendant in Error.
HIILL v. SUMNER.
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLORADO.
No. 763. Submitted October 21, 1889. — Decided November 11, 1889.
When a contract respecting property contains an agreement to be performed
by the owner of it when he shall “ dispose of or sell it,” it is obvious that the words “ dispose of” are not synonymous with the word “ sell;" and their meaning must be determined by considering the remainder of
the contract. In this case an agreement by the owner of the property which formed the
subject of the dispute that he would not dispose of or sell it, was held to have been violated by a lease of it for a term of two years.
IN CONTRACT. Verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment on the verdict. The defendant sued out this writ of error. is stated in the opinion.
Mr. Thomas M. Patterson and Mr. Charles S. Thomas, for plaintiff in error, cited : Atwood v. Clark, 2 Greenl. 249; Hill v. Hobart, 16 Maine, 164; Sheffield v. Lord Orrery, 3 Atk. 282; Phelps v. Harris, 101 U. S. 370; United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 526; Dubuque v. Miller, 11 Iowa, 583; Middleton Savings Bank v. Dubuque, 15 Iowa, 394; Livingston v. Stickles, 7 Hill,
Jackson v. Silvernail, 15 Johns. 278; Jackson v. Harrison, 17 Johns. 66; Edwards v. Farmers' Insurance Co., 21 Wend. 466; Elston v. Schilling, 42 N. Y. 79; Crusoe v. Bagley, 3 Wilson, 234; S. C. 2 Wm. Bl. 766; Doe v. Hogg, 4 Dowl. & Ryl. 226; Hargrave v. King, 5 Iredell (Eq.) 430; Church v. Brown, 15 Ves. 258; Rogers v. Goodwin, 2 Mass. 475; Beard v. Knox, 5 California, 252; S. C. 63 Am. Dec. 125; Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716; Hill v. Tufts, 18 Pick. 455 ; Pullman Car Co. v. Missouri Pacific Railway, 3 McCrary, 645.
Mr. L. C. Rockwell, for defendant in error, cited: Sears v. Wright, 24, Maine, 278 ; De Wolfe v. French, 51 Maine, 420; Crooker v. IIolmes, 65 Maine, 195; Ubsdell v. Cunningham, 22 Missouri, 124; Capron v. Capron, 44 Vermont, 410; Niles Works v. Hershey, 35 Iowa, 340; Brannin v. Henderson, 12
Opinion of the Court.
B. Mon. 61 ; Haggin v. Williamson, 5 T. B. Mon. 9; Nunez v. Dautell, 19 Wall. 560; Stirling v. Maitland, 5 B. & S. 840.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado. The action was originally brought by Mary J. Sumner, the present defendant in error, against David K. Hill, plaintiff in error, in the District Court of Arapahoe County, in the State of Colorado, and was afterwards removed by Hill, on the ground of diverse citizenship, into the Circuit Court of the United States.
It appears from the record that on and prior to the 12th day of February, 1880, the defendant Hill and Edward R. Sumner, and his son, Edward H. Sumner, were the owners of a mine, called the Buckeye Lode, situated on Fryer Hill, in the California mining district, in the county of Lake and State of Colorado; that the said Edward R. Sumner was the owner of one-eighth and his son, Edward H. Sumner, the owner of another one-eighth, undivided, of this mine, of which Hill was the owner of the remainder. It also appears that Hill was a man of considerable means, which was not the case with the others; that some work had been done upon the mine, and money expended upon it, which had been advanced mainly by Hill; that in this condition of affairs Edward R. Sumner sold his one-eighth in the mine to Hill, and took from Hill a written obligation to pay him ten thousand dollars for it, in the manner prescribed by an instrument in writing, of which the following
is a copy :
“This is to certify that Edward R. Sumner, of Leadville, State of Colorado, has this day sold to me one undivided one-eighth part of the Buckeye Lode, vein, mine, or deposit, situated on Fryer Hill, in the California mining district, in the county of Lake, in the State of Colorado, for the sum of ten thousand dollars, to be paid as follows, to wit, ($1308.43,) one thousand three hundred eight  dollars cash in hand, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.
“Second. To pay all expenses for and on behalf of Edward
Opinion of the Court.
R. Sumner upon one undivided one-eighth part of said mine owned by Edward H. Sumner which have accrued since the first day of February, A.D. 1880, and which may hereafter accrue for sinking the shaft upon said mine, for all machinery purchased in sinking the shaft and in operating the same until pay mineral shall have been reached.
“Third. To pay on behalf of said Edward R. Sumner, for the benefit of Edward II. Sumner, owner of said one-eighth interest of the whole of said mine, one-eighth part of all the expenses for litigation regarding the title and the possession thereof, or for trespasses which may be committed upon said property from and after the date above written.
“Fourth. And to pay on behalf of the said Edward R. Sumner one-eighth part of all other assessments, taxes and expenses (meaning upon the one-eighth interest owned by Edward H. Sumner, being independent of the one-eighth conveyed to me this day by said Edward R. Sumner) of every name and nature which may justly accrue against said property, which sum or sums of money, as well as all other sums of money which may be advanced and paid out by me in pursuance of this agreement, shall be applied by indorsement upon this contract by the said Edward R. Sumner or his assigns in payment of the aforesaid sum of ten thousand dollars, as far as the same shall go to the payment thereof.
"Fifth. And after deducting all the aforesaid sums of money above mentioned I hereby agree to pay to the said Edward R. Sumner or his order the residue of the said ten thousand dollars out of the first production of my interest in said mine, so soon as the same shall be realized therefrom ; and if at any time I shall dispose of or sell one-eighth part of said mining property, then and in that case the residue of said ten thousand dollars shall become immediately due and payable to the said Edward R. Sumner or his order. In no case am I to pay out more than ten thousand dollars on behalf of said Edward R. Sumner on the one-eighth interest of Edward H. Sumner, including the $1308.43 mentioned as paid above.
“Witness my hand and seal this twelfth day of February, A.D. 1880, at Chicago, Illinois. “(Signed) David K. Hill. [Seal.] ”
Opinion of the Court.
It seems from this paper pretty clear that Edward R. Sumner, in conveying his one-eighth, was anxious to secure the other one-eighth, held by his son Edward II. Sumner, from being lost by reason of his inability to pay such assessments as might be made on it in the progress of developing the mine and bringing it into profitable operation. It appears from the record that Hill continued work upon the mine and received credit upon this written contract until October 10, 1883, and about that time he ceased to work upon it or to make any
further effort to develop it. On July 29, 1885, IIill made a lease of the mine to George A. Jenks, who had been agent of Hill in the previous efforts to develop it. The following is a copy of this lease:
" This agreement of lease, made this 29th day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five, between David K. Hill, of the city of Chicago, county of Cook, and State of Illinois, and Robert Esser, of the city of Leadville, county of Lake, and State of Colorado, lessors, and George A. Jenks, of the city of Leadville, county of Lake, and State of Colorado, lessee, witnesseth:
“That the said lessors, for and in consideration of the royalties, covenants and agreements hereinafter reserved and by the said lessee to be paid, kept and performed, have granted demised and let, and by these presents do grant, demise and let unto the said lessee all the following described mine and mining property situate in California mining district, county of Lake, and State of Colorado, to wit:
“ All their interest in the ‘Buckeye' Lode mining claim, situate on the north slope of Fryer Hill, in said mining district, county, and State, together with the appurtenances :
“To have and to hold unto the said lessee for the term of two years from date hereof, expiring at noon on the 29th day of July, A. D. 1887, unless sooner forfeited or determined, through the violation of any covenant hereinafter against the said tenant reserved.
“And in consideration of such demise the said lessee does covenant and agree with the said lessors as follows, to wit:
"To enter upon said mine or premises, and work the same