NAUVOO
v.
RITTER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Nauvoo issued bonds that contained recitals on their face stating that a required election authorizing the subscription had been properly held with a large majority voting in favor. The Supreme Court held that these facial recitals in the bonds were sufficient to defeat demurrers challenging the city's authority to issue the bonds and the fact of the election, and that a bondholder could rely on such recitals without requiring further proof of the underlying authority.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
By a statute of Illinois “ in regard to practice in courts of record,” passed Feb. 22, 1872, the plaintiff in a suit upon a written instrument is required to file with his declaration a copy of the instrument sued upon. Rev. Stat. Ill. (1874), c. 110, p. 777, sect. 18. In obedience to this statute, the plaintiff in this case filed with his declaration copies of the bonds and coupons declared upon. In this way, we think, the bonds became a part of the pleadings in the case.
The bonds upon their face refer to the ordinance of the city council authorizing their issue, printed on the back; and in the ordinance it is distinctly recited that the election required by law was held pursuant to notice given in accordance with the provisions of the act authorizing a subscription, and that upon a canvass of the votes “it appeared that there had been cast for subscription a large majority of the votes of said city, the number of votes given being a large majority of all the votes polled at the last general election in said city, and a much larger vote than that required by the act aforesaid to authorize said subscription.” With this recital, in effect, upon the face of the bonds in the hands of an innocent holder, it was certainly not error in the court below to sustain a demurrer to the second, third, fourth, and fifth pleas, which simply tendered an issue as to-the authority of the city to issue the bonds, and as to the fact of the election.
The record' does not show that there was either a demurrer or replication to the sixth plea. In Laber v. Cooper (7 Wall. 565), we held that such an objection came too late after a trial and verdict below as if the pleadings had been perfect in form.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U.S. 623 (U.S. 1891)
-
Barnett v. Denison, 145 U.S. 135 (U.S. 1892)
-
In re Park Beach Hotel BLDG. Corp. Pancoe v. Southman, 96 F.2d 886 (7th Cir. 1938)…nce of the jurisdiction and in the other deny in toto its existence. Troxell v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 227 U.S. 434, 33 S.Ct. 274, 57 L.Ed. 586; Coburn v. Cedar Valley Land & Cattle Co., 138 U.S. 196, 11 S.Ct. 258, 34 L.Ed. 876; Nauvoo v. Ritter, 97 U.S. 389, 24 L.Ed. 1050. Nor can any objection to the form of the proceedings, the presence or absence of formal pleadings defeat the power of the court; it acts summarily; it need have no pleadings before it, and any insufficiency in that respect cannot be…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Laber v. Cooper, 7 Wall. 565 (U.S. 1868)