State ex rel. Marshall v. Rusk
Wisconsin Supreme Court
MANDAMUS. The affidavit filed for the relators shows the following facts: In July, 1861, the state sold to the Rock River Bank its bonds to the amount of $42,000, and received seventy cents on the dollar, and the bond of the bank, conditioned for the payment of thirty cents more on the dollar, in semi-annual installments of one per cent., with an agreement that the state bonds so purchased should be deposited with the '.sank comptroller as security for the circulation of the…
Read the full summary
MANDAMUS. The affidavit filed for the relators shows the following facts: In July, 1861, the state sold to the Rock River Bank its bonds to the amount of $42,000, and received seventy cents on the dollar, and the bond of the bank, conditioned for the payment of thirty cents more on the dollar, in semi-annual installments of one per cent., with an agreement that the state bonds so purchased should be deposited with the '.sank comptroller as security for the circulation of the bank, and that the state treasurer, in case said semi-annual installments, or any of them, should not be paid as they…
1Opinion of the CourtDowner, J.
The defendant contends that the state, by virtue of the agreement entered into by the bank, had a lien on the state bonds deposited with the bank comptroller, or the interest falling due thereon, for the payment of all installments due and unpaid on the bond of the bank; and that when the state bonds were withdrawn, and other securities, or moneys received in lieu thereof according to the provisions of the banking law, the lien, by operation of law, attached to such moneys or securities. ~W e know of no principle of law to that effect, and we have been referred to no authorities that sustain…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Chaffraix v. Board of LiquidationDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1882
- State ex rel. Brown v. RuskWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869