The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, July 1915 - April, 1916 Page: 31
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Texas v. White
that, to be successfully challenged in court, it must be proved that
the element of good faith was absent. The State must, there-
fore, establish the fact that those who had purchased the bonds
had had notice of the defective title of White and Chiles. These
were the rules to be observed in case the bonds had been trans-
ferred from the original owner before maturity. The contract be-
tween the Military Board and White and Chiles had been executed
after the bonds had matured, or, at least, had become redeemable,
a distinction, in this case, without effect. According to the law,
the purchasers of such bonds had no other right or title than that
of those from whom the purchase was made.89 White and Chiles,
having no legal title, it followed that the other holders had none.
The court, furthermore, held that due notice had been given in
the New York newspapers that White and Chiles were in unlaw-
ful possession of the bonds. Those who bought bonds of them,
therefore, had done so despite this warning. They had purchased
them without good faith, and had no legal title. The injunction,
therefore, was granted against the persons named in the bill.
The Effect of Payment by the, Treasury
As to the effect produced in law by the payment of the bonds
of some of the defendants by the United States Treasury, it was
decided that this action "could not affect the rights of Texas as
a State of the Union, having a. government acknowledging its ob-
ligations to the National Constitution." The determination of the
exact effects of the payment by the Treasury Department was left
to a future hearing,-the matter was not cleared up in either the
opinion of the court or in the decree.
The Dissenting Opinions
The decision of the court was rendered by a vote of five to
three, the court then having eight members. With the Chief
Justice were joined Justices Clifford, Davis, Field, and Nelson;
and, in opposition, were Justices Grier, Miller and Swayne.
Messrs. Swayne and Miller thought that Texas was incapable, in
her condition then, of maintaining and prosecuting a suit in the
"Coodman v. Simonds, 20 Howard, 343.
Here’s what’s next.
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 19, July 1915 - April, 1916, periodical, 1916; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101067/m1/39/: accessed January 19, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Historical Association.