aT4 FEDBEAL BEPÔBTEB. �interest represented by the coupons from the time of falling due? �Upon the first question, I think, the suit being upon the bonds them.selves, which in the body thereof provide for the payment of interest semi-annually until paid, the statute of limitations has no application to the case. The object of attaching warrants for the paj-ment of the interest as it falls due, is to give commercial character and Talue to the bonds, by enabling the holder to detach them for presentation and payment when due, or to sell them as commercial paper before due; or, if not paid when due, to enable the holder thereof to bring a separate action to recover the amount rep- resented by them. It is a mere matter of commercial con- venience. They a.re part and parcel of the bond itself until detachçd therefrom, or separate suit brought upon them. If relied upon as an independent cause of action, and a separate suit is brought upon them, undoubtedly, the six-year statute of limitations might be pleaded. Amy v. Duhuque, 98 U. S. 470. But the holder is not compelled to bring separate suit upon the coupon, but it is optional with him to do so, or wait until his bond falls due, as in this case, and then sue for principal and interest, basing his action upon the bond, and not upon the coupons, or upon the bond and coupons as con- stituting one entire cause of action. It seems to me this holding is entirely consistent with the case of Amy v. Duhuque, àbove referred to, and Clark v. lowa City, 20 Wall. 583. �Suppose no coupons had beeri executed, and the bond had provided, as this now does, for the payment of interest semi- annually, the rule would be just the same. An action might be maintained every six months to recover the interest if not paid. But no one would suppose it to be necessary to bring such action in order to prevent the statute from runriing upon the interest, or that it would not be optional with the holder to wait until thô bond fell due and recover principal and in- terest for the entire time. If theire were no provision in the body of the bond itself for the payment of semi-annual inter- est, and the plaintifE had to rely upon the couoons, the case wonld be different. ����
