Commissioners v. Bank of Commerce,
97 U.S. 374 (1878)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Commissioners v. Bank of Commerce, 97 U.S. 374 (1878)

Commissioners v. Bank of Commerce

97 U.S. 374


In an action on certain coupons originally attached to bonds issued by the County of Pickens, South Carolina, the holder of them made as sole defendants to his complaint certain persons whom he named "as county commissioners" of said county. No objection was taken to the pleadings nor any misnomer suggested. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.


1. That neither the Constitution nor the statutes of that state declare the name by which a county shall be sued.

2. That if the action should have been brought against the county by its corporate name, the misdescription, if objected to, was, by the statutes of that state, amendable at the trial, but it furnishes no ground for reversing the judgment.

This was an action brought by the Bank of Commerce to recover the amount of sundry coupons which were formerly attached to bonds, purporting to be issued by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pickens, South Carolina, in aid of the Atlanta and Richmond Air-Line Railway Company. The complaint alleges that the said coupons are for different sums of money, depending on the size of the bonds, and are in the form following, to-wit:

"$7.00. The County of Pickens, state of South Carolina, will pay the bearer on the first day of January, 1874, seven dollars, at Pickens Courthouse, for annual interest on bond No. 113."


"Chairman of Board of County Commissioners"

"Receivable in payment of taxes."

and that the plaintiff is the bona fide holder of them for value, and that they, though due, have not been paid.

Judgment was rendered in favor of the bank. Several defenses interposed below were abandoned here. The remaining facts and the assignment of error are mentioned in the opinion of the Court.

Page 97 U. S. 375

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.