The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, July 1915 - April, 1916 Page: 143

Texas v. White

considered sufficiently general and broad as to render possible the
inclusion of the matters sought for by the complainant. The
court then passed to a consideration of the other contentions of
Hardenberg. The bill in Texas v. White had been filed in the
Supreme Court on February 15, 1867, and Hardenberg was served
with the subpoena on the 27th of that month. He had received
payment of his bonds on the 16th. The court questioned the
validity and actuality of this payment; and, in addition, held that
the complaints of the Texas agents at the, treasury with which
Hardenberg was admittedly familiar, the institution of the suit
in the case of Texas v. McCulloch, and the repeated postponement
of the payment of his bonds by the treasury collectively constituted
notification of the fact that Texas claimed the bonds and would
contest the possession of them with him. It was held that the
correspondence between the treasury officials and Hardenberg, the
negotiations of counsel, and the articles of agreement between
Hardenberg and McCulloch contained demonstrative proof of the
fact that Hardenberg was aware of action of Texas. It was, there-
fore, unimportant to inquire whether the delivery of the coin
check had preceded the service of the process. The payment of
the bonds, moreover, had not been real. As the comptroller had
said in a letter to. Chase, "In form the bonds had been paid; in
fact the proceeds had been withheld from Mr. Hardenberg, be-
cause of the legal proceedings." These proceeds, the court or-
dered to be turned over to the Texas representatives.
In conformity with this -order, Hardenberg paid the proceeds
of his thirty-four, bonds into the hands of Mr. Paschal.s
Texas v. Chiles
PThis case grew out of what was supposed to, have been an error
on the part of Chiles in the accounting for bonds which he sub-
mitted in the case of Texas v. White. In that case, he and his
co-defendants had accounted for some fifty-one bonds, and the
decree had provided for the restoration, immediately or ultimately,
of these bonds or the proceeds to the complainant. There had
8Similar proceedings were taken to secure payment of the Stewart
bonds. It appears, however, that these were paid to, the clerk of the
Supreme Court. This case was one of those which were unreported for
a long time. It is to be found in 131 U. S., xcvii.