Brown, Riley & Co. v. United States

Citations

• 20 Ct. Cl. 416
• 1885 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 16
• 1800 WL 1429

Syllabus

<p>These are Manhattan Bank robbery cases, the issue being' between the four first-named claimants and the Manhattan Bank, the United States being only stakeholders. The facts are almost identical with those found in the previous cases (113 U. S. R., 476; 18 C. Cls. R., 386). The counsel for the Manhattan Bauk rely upon a point presented by the previous cases, but not expressly determined by the Supreme Court — the effect, of the alteration in the serial numbers of the bonds when purchased by the present holders.</p> <p>I. Where a fact relied upou by one of the parties was found by the court below and discussed in its opinion, and alluded to in the opinion of the court aboye, and the judgment, notwithstanding that fact, was reversed, it necessarily formed a factor in the decision of the appellate court; and in another action between other parties upon similar facts the point involved is stare deeisis, though not expressly determined by the court above.</p> <p>II. Where United States bonds were purchased in good faith at their market value, and without notice, knowledge, or suspicion that they had been stolen, the purchaser acquired a good title, notwithstanding that the serial numbers had been altered so as to make them appear to be bonds which had been called for redemption, and the alteration could be seen with a magnifying glass.</p>