THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
The chronological history of the case was this:
In 1839, Combs was the proprietor of a large amount of bonds issued by the State of Texas for various sums, which certificates concluded in this way:
'This certificate is transferable by the said Leslie Combs, or his legal attorney or representative, on the books of the stock commissioner only.'
Two of these certificates-viz: No. 5219, for five thousand dollars, and No. 5229, for one thousand dollars-were the subjects of the present suit. No notice will be taken in this report of the other bonds.
In 1840, Combs endorsed these certificates in blank, and placed them in the hands of James Love, of Galveston, Texas, for the purpose, as he alleged, of enabling Love to receive payment, which was then expected, but which was not made.
In 1846, one Josiah Lee brought a suit in the Commercial Court of New Orleans against William L. Hodge, to recover back money which he had paid to Hodge for the purchase of Texas bonds. Hodge took defence upon two grounds, viz: 1. That it was supposed that there was a power to transfer in the hands of a Mr. Love, of Galveston, which plaintiff was bound to refer to. 2. That the blank endorsement of the owner authorized plaintiff to write over it the necessary authority. The court, however, gave judgment for Lee against Hodge.
By subsequent legislation of Congress and of Texas, the bonds became payable at the Treasury of the United States, where payment of them was claimed by J. Ledgear Hodge, a resident of Pennsylvania, administrator with the will annexed of Andrew Hodge, deceased, in whose name the bonds had been deposited at the Treasury. Whereupon Combs filed a bill against J. L. Hodge, the administrator as aforesaid, William L. Hodge, and James Love. An injunction was obtained to stay the payment of the money until the determination of the suit. The record of the suit in New Orleans and copies of letters were attached to the bill as exhibits.
J. L. Hodge, the administrator, answered that he had no personal knowledge of any of the matters stated in the bill.
William L. Hodge, amongst other matters, said that the bonds had been transferred by Love to Andrew Hodge fairly and for their full value. The Circuit Court dismissed the bill, and Combs appealed to this court.
It was argued by Mr. Bradley and Mr. Baxter for the appellant, and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, jun., and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, sen., for the appellees.
The principal points made by the counsel for the appellant were the following:
I. This is a proceeding in the nature of a bill of interpleader, the Treasury of the United States being the stakeholder. (Clarke v. Clarke, 17 How., 321.)
In such a controversy, the parties stand on their respective legal and equitable rights.
II. The appellant is the creditor of Texas, holding the legal title to this scrip, which can pass only in the manner prescribed by the law of Texas, and apparent on the face of the scrip. (Menard v. Shaw, 5 Texas Rep., 334.)
The distinction between stocks passing by delivery or assignment, except in a particular mode, and the effect of their assignment in any other mode, is well established. (Union Bank v. Laird, 2 Wheat., 251; Zacharie and others v. Black and others, 3 How., 513; Glynn v. Baker, 13 East., 509; Gongen v. Melville, 3 B. and C., 45; 10 E. C. L., 16; Attorney General v. Diamond, 1 Cromp. and Jar., 356, 70; Attorney General v. Hope, 1 Cromp., Mees., and Ros., 330; Jame v. Bowens, 4 Mees. and Wels., 171; Miller v. Race, Smith L. C., 250, and notes; Story Con. of L., sec. 383, and notes.)
III. The legal title being in Combs, the appellees have shown no equity in themselves.
IV. Had Love authority to sell?
1. It was argued below that the power was conferred by the endorsement in blank.
2. That such authority is proved by complainant's Exhibit H., in which Love asserts he had a power of attorney.
As to the power implied from the endorsement.