Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/679

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

BUKLEWH V. TOWN OF ROCHESTEK. 667 �pany. No authority is cited for the proposition that the domurrer of one defendant caji be held to be overruled by the plea of another defendant, and no argument is offered in sup- port of the motion. It is denîed. �The plaintifïs also move for an order that the plea of the Kansas Pacific Eailway Company be overruled fya the ground that the answer covers the whole bill, and that the pleas in bar pray judgment whether the said defendant shall be com- pelled to make any further answer to the amended bill. On the authority of the cases of Ferguson v. O'Harra, Pet. G. Q. E. 493 ; Stearns y. Page, 1 Story, 20i; and liages v. Dayton, 18 0. G. 1406, the motion must be granted, and the plea must be stricken out. �The demurrers allowed are allowed with costs, but the plaintiffs may, under rule 55 in equity, move for leave to amend their bill. ���BuELEiGH, Executrîx, etc., v. The Town of Eoohesteb. [Circuit Court, E. D. Wisconsin. January, 1881.) �1. Towi? Bonds— BoARD op Supbbvisors — Presomption as to Isscï. �A statuts provided that certain town bonds were to be signed by the chairman of the board of supervisors, and countersigned by the town clerk. Udd, where such bonds appeared to have been issued in strict conformity with the requirements of the statute, that the pre- sumption would be that they were issued under the authority of the board of supervisors. �2. Same— Negotiablb Instruments. �Certain instruments, not under seal, called "town of Rochester bonds," declared that the town had caused these presents to be signed by the chairman of the board of supervisors, and countersigned, as re- quired, by the town clerlc thereof ; and the f orm of the obligation was that the town of Rochester is justly indebted and promises to pay to the order of the Fox River Valley Railroad Company the sum of $500, with interest as set forth in the coupons. Held, under the decisions of the supreme court of the United States, that these instruments were es- sentially promissory notes of the town of Rochester, and negotiable as such liks ordinary promissory notes under the law merchant. ����