Summary

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite The Tennessee Bond Cases Stevens v…

If it exists at all, it must be by virtue of some other provision of the statute. As has already been seen, there is but one debt, and whatever pays that debt cancels all the obligations of the company upon the bonds. Whenever, therefore, it appears that payment of the bonds must be made to one, the idea of a debt on the bonds to another is excluded. Here a payment to the state is absolutely required. This obligation to pay is express, and has not been left to implication.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite The Tennessee Bond Cases Stevens v…

The bank is nowhere made by the law the agent of the company. It was to take, keep, and pay out according to law, for the state, all moneys deposited or set apart for the liquidation of accruing interest. If the deposits made by the various companies were not enough for that purpose, it was the duty of the comptroller to draw from the treasury, on his own official warrant, a sufficient amount to make up the deficiency. No special provision was made in the statute as to the way in which coupon-holders were to be paid.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite The Tennessee Bond Cases Stevens v…

So that the point to be determined, from an examination of the statute, is whether a state, when lending its own bonds and taking back security for their payment, intended to protect those who might afterwards become the holders of the bonds against the consequences of its own repudiation or inability to pay, or only to indemnify itself against loss by reason of the loan of its credit to those who were engaged in constructing its great works of internal improvement.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature