Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/698

 § 682.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. XI. payable. Statutes of limitation run against coupons, when severed, from their maturity. 1 § 681. The holders of coupons guaranteed by a corporation Ri htsof nay i n g general powers to make the guaranty, are bond- not bound to see to the regularity of the exercise of that power. 2 And the fact that coupons are made payable at a particular place does not make a presentation there for payment necessary, before commencing suit on them. 3 A corporation issuing a coupon bond is in the position of the maker of a promissory note, rather than in that of the drawer of a bill of exchange ; and the holder is under no obligation to present the bond or the coupons for payment within a reason- able time. 4 § 682. In a case recently before the Supreme Court of the Remedies United States, a railroad mortgage provided that if of bond- "default should be made in the payment of any holders. l J J half-year's interest on any of said bonds, and the warrant or coupon for such interest shall have been presented and its payment demanded, and such default shall have con- tinued six months after such demand, without the consent of the holder of such coupon or bond, then and thereupon the principal of all of the said bonds hereby secured shall be and become immediately due and payable, anything in such bonds to the contrary notwithstanding ; and the said [trustee] may so declare the same and notify [the railroad company], and upon the written request of the holders of a majority of the said bonds then outstanding, shall proceed to collect both prin- cipal and interest of all such bonds outstanding by foreclosure. . . . . " It was held that the written request of a majority of 1 Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. 583; I itations only when suit on the bond Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683; Ohio v. Frank, ib. 697; Philadelphia, etc., R. Co. v. Knight, 124 Pa. St. 58. See Gilbert v. Washington City, etc., R. R. Co., 33 Gratt. (Va.) 586; Whitaker v. Hartford, etc., R. R. Co., 8 R. I. 47; Philadelphia and R. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 105 Pa. St. 195. Compare The City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 478, in which case it was held a suit on a coupon is barred by a statute of lim- 678 is barred. See, also, § 326. 2 Connecticut Mur. Life Ins. Co. v. Cleveland, etc., R. R. Co., 41 Barb. 9. See §§ 205, 328. 3 Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683; Shaw v. Bill, 95 U. S. 10. See Alex- ander v. Atlantic, etc., R. R. Co., 67 N. C. 198. 4 Williamsport Gas Co. v. Pinker- ton, 95 Pa. St. 62.