Page images
[blocks in formation]

the laws of the United States was enacted later, and without any exceptions, lead to the conclusion that it should be so applied as not to limit jurisdiction arising from the nature of the subject matter of the suit, as is the case in suits brought by or against corporations organized under the laws of the United States. American Bank and Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank, supra, p. 356. We hold that the District Court had jurisdiction over the cause.

The note sued on contained a provision that the maker waived "protest, notice thereof and diligence in collecting.” The Negotiable Instruments Law in force in Texas gives effect to stipulations waiving presentment, protest or notice of dishonor, contained in the body of the instrument, and provides that they are binding on all parties to it. (Revised Statutes, Texas, § 82, Art. 6001-a(3), 109, 110, 111.) Plaintiff in error was, therefore, bound by his waiver and the circumstance that defendant in error had knowledge of a deposit of the plaintiff in error with the payee bank sufficient to meet the note at maturity, did not, contrary to the express terms of the waiver, impose a duty on defendant in error to present the note for payment. Defendant's rights were unimpaired by its failure to make due presentation of the note or to give notice of its dishonor.

The contention of plaintiff in error that suit should have been stayed until defendant in error had exhausted its other collateral, is not founded upon any special equities growing out of fraud, agreement among the parties, or suretyship, or other special relationship, giving rise to any equity in the maker of the note. The note was held by defendant in error, together with other collateral, as security for the debt of the payee who is insolvent and indebted to plaintiff in error in an amount exceeding the note. In such a situation there is no scope for the marshalling of the security at the behest of the maker of the note. The equitable doctrine of marshalling

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

rests upon the principle that a creditor having two funds to satisfy his debt, may not by his application of them to his demand, defeat another creditor, who may resort to only one of the funds. The debtor may not ordinarily invoke the doctrine, for by doing so he would disregard the express provisions of his contract on which the creditor is entitled to rely. The plaintiff in error is bound to pay his obligation according to its tenor. He cannot deny his own contract merely because his creditor has acquired other rights with which he may satisfy his debt and because he wishes to avail himself of an equitable setoff against the payee of the note. Had plaintiff in error set up any defense to the note, good as to the payee, such as fraud, or failure of consideration, he might, under the law of some jurisdictions, have urged such cases as McBride v. Potter, 169 Mass. 7, or Second National Bank v. Magee, 241 S. W. (Texas) 287, or Van Winkle, etc. Co. v. Citizens Bank, 89 Texas, 147, as a basis for the claim that, because of his special equities, affecting the inception of the note, the defendant in error should exonerate him by resorting to the other collateral, if shown to be sufficient to pay the note.

But plaintiff in error shows only the obligation of his note, presumptively valid both in the hands of the payee and the defendant in error, and claims that since he has an equitable set-off good against the payee of the note, he should be relieved of his own obligation until the collateral of the payee bank has first been applied to its satisfaction. But these circumstances, which do not in any way affect the validity of negotiable paper as such, can afford no foundation for equitable relief to the maker or for depriving the creditor of the full benefit of his security in accordance with his contract. To engraft upon the note the equity here asserted against an innocent holder would be to disregard its terms and impair its negotiability. Such authority as there is rejects it. Hamsley v.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

National Park Bank, 147 Ga. 96; Hass v. Bank of Commerce, 41 Neb. 754; Citizens Bank v. Giddings, 84 N. W. (Neb.) 78; Third National Bank v. Harrison, 10 Fed. 243. And see Union Bank of Georgetown v. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390; Myers v. Kendall (La.), 76 So. 801. In any event, the other debtor of defendant in error was not before the court, and for that reason plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought. Dorr v. Shaw, 4 Johns, Ch. 17, 18.

There is no error in the record and the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is






No. 363. Argued May 1, 1925.—Decided May 25, 1925. 1. Where a construction of a state statute affecting title to real

estate has been repeatedly determined by decisions of the state courts and thus established as a rule of property in the State, the federal courts will follow those decisions without inquiring into the justice and sufficiency of the rule as an original propo

sition. P. 462. 2. Petitioners claimed title to land in Mississippi under a patent

issued to a corporation under an act of the state legislature incorporating it and providing that the corporation should, within 60 days after the passage of the act, file with the Secretary of State a bond in a specified amount “ with two or more good securities," and that, upon approval and filing of the bond, patents should be issued, upon demand of the company, signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State. The State Supreme Court having repeatedly decided that a patent so issued was void because the bond filed and approved was executed by individuals only and not by the corporation and was therefore not a compliance with the statute, held that the rule thus established should be followed in a case arising in the fed

eral court. P. 457. 296 Fed. 442, affirmed.


Opinion of the Court.

CERTIORARI to a decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals which affirmed a decree rendered by the District Court for the respondents in consolidated suits to quiet title brought by the petitioners.

Mr. T. J. Wills, with whom Mr. T. W. Davis was on the briefs, for petitioners.

Mr. Fleet C. Hathorn, with whom Messrs. William H. Watkins and Clayton D. Potter were on the briefs, for respondents.

Mr. JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners, complainants below, filed four bills in equity in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against four different defendants to remove cloud on title of four plots of land separately described in the several bills. The suits thus brought were consolidated and tried by the District Court as one, upon an agreed statement of facts and documentary evidence, and a decree was rendered adjudging that the title to the lands in question was in defendants and denying the prayer of the bill. On appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, the decree was affirmed. 296 Fed. 442.

The lands in question were acquired by the State of Mississippi from the United States under Act of Congress approved September 28, 1850. Petitioners' title depends upon the validity of a patent issued June 27, 1871, by the State of Mississippi to the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company, a corporation from which petitioners derived their title by mesne conveyances.

The title set up by the defendants was acquired by mesne conveyances under a second patent describing the same lands, issued by the State of Mississippi to Mitchell, December 7, 1883. The Mississippi Legislature, by Act approved April 8, 1871, incorporated the Pearl River Improvement & Navigation Company and provided that that company

[blocks in formation]

should " within sixty days after the passage of this Act, file in the office of the Secretary of State a bond in the sum of $50,000, with two or more good securities," and that upon the approval and filing of the bond," the said Secretary of State shall from time to time as demanded by said company make out a patent or patents which shall be signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State, which patents shall vest the fee simple in said lands in this company.” Within sixty days, the company filed a bond, executed by four individuals only, in the sum specified, and conditioned on the performance by the company of all duties imposed on it by the Act of April 8, 1871. The bond was approved by the Governor, and the patent of June 27, 1871, describing the lands referred to in that statute, including the lands involved in this litigation, was issued, signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State.

The validity of petitioner's title depends upon the determination of the question whether the bond filed by the company was a compliance with the provisions of the statute so as to render operative the patent issued by the officials of the State to the company as a valid conveyance of the fee of the lands in question. Whether or not the bond was a compliance with the statute and the legal effect of the patent so far as other lands embraced within its description are concerned, are points which have been several times passed upon by the state courts of Mississippi and, once before the present litigation, were considered by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

In Hardy v. Hartman, 65 Miss. 504 (1888), which was an action of ejectment, the court, although referring to the fact that it did not appear from the record that any patent signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State was ever issued to the company for the land in question, nevertheless rested its decision on its

« PreviousContinue »