Welsh v. First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad
Supreme Court of Minnesota
The St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, being authorized by its charter to construct and operate a line of railroad from St. Paul via St. Anthony to Breckenridge, with a branch from St. Anthony via St. Cloud and Crow Wing to St. Vincent, for the purpose of raising money to construct that part of its railroad extending from St. Paul via St. Anthony and up the valley of the Mississippi river to Watab, issued and negotiated its bonds to a large amount, bearing date June 2,…
Read the full summary
The St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, being authorized by its charter to construct and operate a line of railroad from St. Paul via St. Anthony to Breckenridge, with a branch from St. Anthony via St. Cloud and Crow Wing to St. Vincent, for the purpose of raising money to construct that part of its railroad extending from St. Paul via St. Anthony and up the valley of the Mississippi river to Watab, issued and negotiated its bonds to a large amount, bearing date June 2, 1862, payable June 1,1892, with interest at seven per cent, per annum, payable semi-annually, according to the tenor of…
1Opinion of the CourtCornell, J.
In respect to the first error assigned by defendant, it is urged and insisted that “in order to the existence of a coupon, there must be or must have been a bond; that to prove a coupon, it is essential first to show the execution of a bond; that no recovery can be had in an action upon *319coupons, without producing the bonds,'or showing in some way their issuance with the coupons annexed, and that the latter have been subsequently separated therefrom; that in this case there is no evidence, either of the issuance of the bonds, or that the papers called coupons, upon which a recovery was had…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Aurora City v. WestSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- First Division of the St. Paul & Pacific Rail Road v. ParcherSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1869
- Town of Genoa v. WoodruffSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Burroughs v. Commissioners of Richmond CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1871
3Cited by10 opinions
- National Bank v. Duval CountySupreme Court of Florida · 1903
- Slingerland v. ShererSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Grant v. Winona & Southwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1902
- Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund v. LewisSupreme Court of Florida · 1894
- City of Winona v. Minnesota Railway Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1882
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.