and another v. LATIMER and another.
(Oircuit OOU'l't, W. D. Michigan, N. D.
In Equity. Demurrer to bill.
L. D. Norris, for demurrer. S. S. Olds, contra. WITHEY, D. J. Bill filed to restrain the collection of taxes of 1878, upon the sole ground that the tax roll was not ready for review on the third Monday of May, to which a demurrer was interposed by the defendants. The state supreme court in 37 Mich. 391, dted in the other case, (ante, -,) having held that this was not a sufficient ground for relief in equity against the collection of a tax, it must be regarded as decisive of this case. A federal court will, with tew exceptions, follow the decision of the highest tribunal of the state as to the construction of a state law, and a ruling as to the effect of a failure to complete an assessment roll within the time prescribed by such statute does not seem to be within the exceptions. 15 Wall, 548, and 92 U. S. 613, hold that mere illegality in a tax is not a sufficient ground upon which to sustain a bill in equity to restrain the collection thereof. The whole amount of tax in dispute is $820.60. Complainant Washburne's one-quarter intf\rest is but $205.15; Woodman's $-410.30-neither interest amounting to $500. The rule seems to be that while different tax payers may join in such a suit there must as to each be in dispute an amount exceeding the sum or value of $500, the interest of each being ini ts nature several. Adams v. Board of County Commissioners, McCahon's R. 235; King v. Wilson, 1 Dil. 568. But it does not become necessary to decide this question. Demurrer sustained, with costs.
WOOD V. SEITZINGER.
WOOD V. SEITZINGER.-
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Pennsylvania. April 30, 1880.)
NEGOTIABLE NO'l'E-TRANSFER OF AS COLLATEHAL SECUHITY FOR PREEXISTING DEBT-RIGHTS OF HOLDEH-FRAUD.-The holder of a negotiable note, who has taken it as a security for a pre-existing debt, is a holder for value, and is protected against any ec!uities subsisting between the original parties.
Case stated between R. D. Wood & Co., plaintiffs, and Fergus G. Farquhar and others, assignees in bankruptcy of Ruddell & Seitzinger, defendants, in which the following facts were agreed upon: That R. D. Wood & Co. were the holders of two promissory notes drawn by Jacob J. S. Seitzinger to the order of Ruddell & Seitzinger, and by the latter indorsedone dated June 23, 1876, for $4,000, at two months, and the other dated June 24, 1876, for $3,000, at two months-each duly protested and notice of dishonor given to the indofsers. That both of said notes were received by said R. D. Wood & Co. from one B. T. Boyer, under the following circumstances: R. D. Wood & Co., on June 2, 1876, delivered to said Boyer two of their own notes, for $4,000 each, Boyer agreeing to have the same discounted and to apply the proceeds to the redemption of certain accommodation notes of the same amount given to the Mill Creek Iron Company. Some time afterwards Boyer improperly used for his own purposes one of these notes, and R. D. Wood & Co. thereupon called upon him to return them the other note, which was still in his possession. In consideration, however, upon June 24, 1876, of the delivery by Boyer to said R. D. Wood & Co. of the two notes of Jacob J. S. Seitzinger, now claimed upon, and two other notes of other persons, said R. D. Wood & Co. permitted the said Boyer to retain and use for his own benefi t tbeir (R. D. Wood & Co's.) other notes, aforesaid, which said Boyer did, and R. D. Wood & 'Co. paid said last-mentioned note at maturity.
oll'The opinion in this case was inadvertently pUblished on page 285 of this volume, before this report o! the case, prepared by Frank .1'. Prich_ ard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar, came to hand.