Advisability of Registering Negotiable Coupon Bonds. protect the obligor from possible double lia though he obtained it direct from the bility, and to allow the right owner of the finder.8 destroyed securities to obtain duplicates, As in case of destroyed bonds, the statutes make scant provision for the issue of new in and to collect his claim. In some States there struments. In most cases, however, new are statutes providing that new negotiable bonds may be obtained, on payment of a instruments will be issued to replace the old heavy indemnity. The owner of the lost bond upon the provision of proper indemnity.1 is protected, after much trouble, only if the Such statutes are not frequent, and the bond he has lost has come into the hands of Revised Laws of Massachusetts do not ap- j an honest finder who returns it and does not pear to provide for this. Law or equity, how sell to a purchaser without notice. ever, will usually give right to a new instru The law is very much the same where ment, but there must generally be a tender bonds have been stolen, and on this question of indemnity before issue of a new instru there have been many decisions. The almost ment, or payment of the old.2 uniform holding is that the innocent holder, Daniel (2 Negotiable Ins., 5th Ed., sec. though a direct purchaser from the thief, ob 1482) says that indemnity 'is dispensed with tains full title.4 in case the instrument is clearly proved to Any other decision, says Chief Justice have been destroyed, but there are a num Beasley (City of Elizabeth v. Force, 29 N. ber of cases which require indemnity under J. Eq. 587, at 580) would be "greatly in these circumstances. These statutes and de consistent with the legal principle that gives cisions generally cover cases of destroyed untrammeled negotiability to instruments of bonds, and vary in their provisions. Fre this kind." This rule holds good even if quently it is troublesome to prove loss, and the number of the bond has been altered by the obtaining of duplicates is attended with the thief.6 much difficulty, so that the holder of the or There is no way the owner of a stolen dinary negotiable bond is poorly protected bond can help himself, except by bringing where the bonds are destroyed. notice to the purchaser, and this is a difficult thing to do," for it is 'generally held that giv In carrying bonds to and from places of ing notice of the theft by publication will not deposit, in dealing with them in order to of itself deprive the innocent holder of his cut the coupons, and under many other cir right to recover.7 cumstances, there i* danger of casual loss After actual knowledge of such a notice, of the instrument. The bonds being nego it is the duty of bankers and others pur tiable, the finder, although he has not proper chasing bonds, to keep a record of the stolen title, will have a prima facie title, which will bonds,8 and look out for them; but it is not the frequently be impossible to disprove. Fre duty of a person to look in the newspaper for quently a holder has no record to show notices of stolen bonds.9 ownership, and the bond itself being payable 3 Simonton on Municipal Bonds (1896), sec. 1243. to bearer, the true owner will have little 'Ditch г: Western National Bank, 79 Md. 192; Spoonerr. Holmes, 102 Mass. 502; Putchess Co. Mut. chance of recovery. If the finder sells the Ins. Co. i Hatchfield, 73 N. Y. 226; Note and Athorilost property to an innocent purchaser, such ties, 29 N. J. Eq. 587. 5 Commonwealth -'. Saving« Bank, 98 Mass. 12; Mor purchaser can hold it against everyone, algan v. United States, 113 U. S., 476. 1 Annotated Code of Mississippi, sec. 3512; Revised Statutes of the United States, sec. 3702.
г Almy v. Reed, ю Cush. 421.
6 2 Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, sec. 1462.
7 Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. no. 8 Vermilye v. Adams Express Company, 21 Wall. 138. ' Venables v. Baring ( 1892), 3 Ch. 527.
