Summary

Ward Hunt Chambers County v. Clews — Opinion of the Court

The logical and orderly mode of a trial, where it was intended to investigate the issue we have been considering, would be this: To sustain their claim the plaintiffs produce the bonds and coupons. The execution not being put in issue, this establishes the plaintiff's case, and establishes presumptively that they are holders for value before maturity without notice. [5] The defendant then produces such proof as it may possess that the plaintiffs were not holders for value, or that they received the coupons after maturity, or that they had notice of the defects alleged.
Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt Chambers County v. Clews — Opinion of the Court

The statute authorizes a subscription and loan by the county only upon the basis of a proposition in writing, such as it prescribes. The proposition is a necessary preliminary without which there can be no legal action in issuing the bonds. Where a plea avers that there was no such proposition, and avers also that the plaintiffs are not bona fide holders of the bonds without notice, a case is stated in which the validity of the bonds cannot be sustained by any holding of this court.
Source: Wikisource

Ward Hunt Chambers County v. Clews — Opinion of the Court

Brown v. Littlefield, 11 Id. 467; Edson v. Weston, 7 Cowen, 278.↑ Swift v. Tyson, 16 Peters, 1; Goodman v. Simonds, 20 Howard, 343, 365; Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wallace, 110.↑ See supra, pp. 319, 320.↑ Railroad Company v. Gladmon, 15 Wallace, 401.↑ See, however, Pugh v. McCormick, 14 Wallace, 375.↑ Selma and Gulf Railroad Company, 45 Alabama, 696; Lockhart v. City of Troy, and Commissioners Court of Limestone v. Rather, 48 Id.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) .
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature