538
FEDERAL REPORTER.
spect to the, 1,100 coal cars numbered 4,200 to 5,299, inclusive, embraced in said schedule, the eviderice leaves the question of the superior right as between peUtioner and ()()mplainant in great doubt. Many of said oars were received and paid for before said Lease B, No.2, was executed.Thegreat majority of them were in the possession and service ofthe raill"oadcompany prior 1, 1882. 'How or by whom they were paid' for does not appearinbr out of what particular funds. They were all. ebntracted for originally by the railroad company. The president oBhe road subsequently, on the 25th of November, 1881, before the car truat under Lease B, No.2, was ever formed, assumed the right to transfer that contract to a. so-called "Ohio Central Car-Trust Association,"lldt then in existence, wEich he undertook to represent. It is 'doubtful whether a transaction So suspicious, and conducted by the company's president, who was theil, or shortly thereafter, th,6 holder of cartrust certificates of the road to the amount of $50,000, should be sanctionedandsustained. It is not, however,deemed necessary to the determinatitinJ·of the present controversy to decide the question as to who has the superior right and title to,tha 1,100 coal cars. No rental was due thereon by the company, under the terms of the contract, till March 1,1885. The company. and the receiver appointed September 30, 1883, had the right to'use said cars free of charge till default was made in the payment of the first installment; maturing March 1,1885. So far as the petitioner/has established any right to or lien upon the equipment in controversy, it dearly appears that he has already been paid therefor by the com:pany,and the receivetmore than he, or those he represents, were entitled to, and his claims fOf further payments, and for additional compensation for use of sllid equipment by the receiver, are disallowed, and his exceptions to the report of the special master are overruled. Complainant's exceptions to the report are sustained. The petitipns of McGourkey , trustee, will' be dismissed at his costs. He will be further taxed with the costs oftbe reference to the special master. The fund in court will remain subject to tbe further order of the court. and complainant is left at liberty to take such steps as may be deemed proper to recover possession of the equipment in question.
WOOD V. CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC LIGHT
Co.
(Oircuit Court, S. D.l;{e,w York. November 8, 1888.)
1.
Where coupon. bonds contain a 'c9ndition. that if default in the payment , of. when. payable and de!D!tnded continues for 90 days, the whole prmclpalls to become due at the option. of the holder, presentment and demand on. January 2d. though premature' as to the interest due January 1st, is due as to that maturing July 1st previous. SAllE-DEFAULT IN lNTEREsT-'DEFENSES.
BOmlS-:COUPON BONDS-MATURITy-DEFAULT IN INTEREST-PRESENTMENT.
9
It is po defen.se to such ·default and its contin.uance that forgeries of the bon.dswere in circulation. so executed as not to be distin.guished from thll
WOOD V... CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.
C
539
genuine, and all the bondholders except,plaintitf had accepted new bondsBo prepared as to prevent the pOBs'bilJty of fraud or loss, and that plaintil. after presenting his coupons, and demanding payment, entered into negotiations for the protention of the obligor in case his coupons Should, after payment, prove to be forgeries, and that the 90 days elapsed while these negotiations were pending.
At Law. On demurrer to answer. Action on 19 bonds brought by Walter Wood against the Consolidated Electric Light Company. Biddle &: Ward, for plaintiff. Broadnax &: BuU, for defendant. W ALI..ACE, J. The answer, which haa been demurred to, cannot. be held sufficient upon the notion that it sets up facts which constitute an equitable defense to 'an action at law. Although, by the Code of Civil Procedure of this state, equitable defenses may be interposed in actions at law, this practice does not obtain in the federal courts, and the act assimilating the practice and pleadings in actions at law in these courts with those of state courts does not introdu(;e it. Montejo v. Owen, 14 Blatchf. 324. If the facts alleged were an equitable defense, the defendant might avail itself of them oy a bill in equity .filed to stay the prosedecution of the suit at law. But they do not constitute an fense, and the theory that the cause of action is one in the nature of a penalty or forfeiture, and that the Jacts are such as would move a court of equity to rt>lieve the defendant, is without foundation. The complaint counts upon 19 bonds, for the aggregate sum of $12,500, part of an issue of coupon bonds for $200,000, created by the defendant, dated January 1, 1885, and payable 10 years from date, with interest at 6 per cent., payable .semi-annually on the 1st day of July and the 1st day of January in each year, at the office of the defendant, in the city of New York, upon the presentation and surrender of the coupons attached. The bonds contain a condition that, in case default is made, and continues for 90 days, in the payment of any installment of interest when payable 'and demanded, the whole principal is to become due, immediately, at the option of the holder. The complaint avers the presentation of coupons for the installments of interest-which became due July 1,1877, and January 1,1888, for payment and surrender, demand of payment, and a detault by which the installments of interest are in arrears for the space of more than 90 days. The defendant, by its answer, asserts in substance that it has always been ready and willing to pay the interest as it matured, but that spurious coupons in imitation of those annexed to the bonds were put in circulation so executed that they could not be distinguished from the genuine, and it prepared new bonds and coupons to take the place of the original, so executed as to prevent possibility of fraud or loss, and all the holders of the original bonds bad accepted the new ones, in exchange, except the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiff, although he did not consent to an exchange, but had caused his coupons to be presented for payment, had entered into nego-
·640
FEDERAL REPOR'fER.
tiations with defendant looking to its protection in case his coupons after payment should turn out to be forged. and while these negotiations were pending "he 90 days elapsed. The facts set forth in. the answer do not show that the plaintiff attempted or intended to mislead the defendant option to treat the into the belief that he w0uld not avail himself of whole principal of the bonds as due and payable in case of a default in paying the interestinor do by the remotest implication impute any inequitable cOlviuct to the plaintiff. They show a case in which the defendant, by mere negligence, permitted the 90 days to elapse without paying the interest due according to the terms ofthe bonds, relying upon the forbearance or good nature of the plaintiff not to insist upon the terms of his contract. The averment of the readiness and willingness of the defendant to pay the interest goes for nothing in view of the admitted fact that the coupons for the interest due July 1,1887, were presented at the proper place to the defendant on January 2, 1888, and, after payment was demanded and refused, were suffered to remain unpaid for more than 90 days thereafter prior to the commencement of the action. Stipulations like those in the present contract, providing that, upon failure of a promisor to pay an installr!lent when due, according to the terms of the contract, the whole debt may be treated as due by the promisee, are common, and the courts have repeatedly -refused to relieve against them. Sterne v. Beck, 11 Wkly. Rep. 791; Robinson v. Loomis, 51 Pa. St. 78j·Steel v. Bradfield, 4 Taunt. 227; James v. Thomas, 5 Barn. & Adol. 40; People v. Superior 19 Wend. 104; Plank-Road Co. v. Murray, 15 Ill. 337; BalduJ'in v. Van Vorsf, 10 N. J. Eq. 577. In Van Noyes v. Clark, 7 Paige, 179, Chancellor WALWORTH, after observing that the parties have an unquestionable right to make such a stipulation, says that, if by the mere negligence of a promisor to perform his contract he suffets the whole debt to become due and payable according to stipulation, "no court will interfere to relieve him from the payment thereof, according to the conditions of his own agreement." It remains to consider whether the answer, although not good as an equitable defense, sets up facts which are a defense at law. The pleader seems to have assumed, 'and the case has been argued upon the assumption,that it was incumbent upon the pla:intifl'to show that he presf'uted his coupons for payment on the particular day they be0ame due in order to establish adefimlt on the part of the defendant, and upon the theory that the coupons carry days of grace the defendant relies upon the averment that they were not presented at any time other than upon January 2, 1888, for payment as a defense, insisting that presentment upon that day was not due presentment of those payable July 1, 1887, or those payable January 1, 1888, and, consequently, that the defendant is not in default. It was held in Evertson v. Bank, 66 N. Y. 14, that coupons similar in form to those annexed to the bonds in suit have days of grace like ordinary commercial paper, and the opinion proceeds upon the ground that the bonds themselves are in all respects invested with the quality of negotiable paper, including the incident of days of grace. It is not necessary to question the correctness of this adjudication for the purposes
CHOTEAU V. HARVEY.
541
of the present case, for if it be conceded that the coupons payable January 1, 1888, were presented before the expiration of the days of grace, it suffices to enable the plaintiff to recover that those payable Jnly 1, 1887, were also presented January 2, 1888. The holder of commercial paper is not required in an action against the maker or acceptor to aver or prove presentment, but it devolves upon the maker to show non-presentment as matter of defense by proof that he was ready to pay the paper at the time and place of payment, and was always ready afterwards to do so. Foden v. Sharp, 4 Johns. 183; Wolcottv. VanSantvoord, 17 Johns. 248; Wallace v. McConnell, 13 Pet. 136. The same rule applies to actions upon coupons. Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683. It does not follow, however, that it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to make presentment of the coupons in order to charge the defendant with a breach of the condition in question. By the terms of the bonds the default of 90 days in payment of interest, by which the whole principal is to become'payable immediately, is a default in the payment "when such interest shall become payable, and be demanded." This language makes the default depend upon a 'precedent demand of the interest. It does not require a demand to be made on the very day the interest becomes payable. It means that the obligor shall not be liable beyond the amount of interest due until a specific demand of the interest is made by the bondholder. If the bondholder does not demand the interest, he can, nevertheless, maintain an action upon the coupons, which can only be defeated by proof on part of the obligor that the coupons wonld have been paid at any time upon presentment at the proper place. If he does demand payment of the interest when it becomes due, or at any time thereafter, the demand implies that he intends no longer to waive his rights, but insists'upon the strict fulfillment of the condition. Upon this construction of the contract the 90 days commenced to run January 2, 1888, as to the July interest previously due. The demurrer is sustained.
CHOTEAU 'V. HARVEY. SAME
v.
UNION PAC.
Ry.
«(Jircuit Court, 1.
w: n. Mi88ouri, w: n.
November 9, 1888.)
DOWER-AssIGNMENT-LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.
An action for the assignment of dower is an action to recover real estate, within the meaning of the Missouri statute of H:l47, (Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 3219,) and is barred by the 10-years limitation of that act. SAME-STATUTES-RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. .
2.
The limitation law of 1847 was in force at the time of the adoption of the Missouri Code of 1849, and the provision of said Code (Laws Mo. 1849, art 2, p. 74, § 1,) that" this article shall not extend to actions already commenced, or to cases where the right of action has already accrued; but the statute now in force shall be applicable to such cases," etc., had reference to the limitation law of 1847, so as to bring within its purview an action for the assignment of dower accruing prior to its adoption.