tated, had "reason to believe that Governor Hamilton's opinion in regard to the bonds became pretty generally known among dealers in such paper." The witness, however, did not know Mr. Hardenberg.The questions, therefore, were:1. A minor preliminary one: the question presented by Chiles's answer as to whether sufficient authority was shown for the prosecution of the suit in the name and in behalf of Texas.2. A great and principal one: a question of jurisdiction, viz., whether Texas, at the time of the bill filed or now, was one of the United States of America, and so competent to file an original bill here.3. Assuming that she was, a question whether the respective defendants, any, all, or who of them, were proper subjects for the injunction prayed, as holding the bonds without sufficient title, and herein -- and more particularly as respected Hardenberg, and Birch, Murray & Co. -- a question of negotiable paper, and the extent to which holders, asserting themselves holders bona fide and for value, of paper payable "to bearer," held it discharged of precedent equities.4. A question as to the effect of the payments, at the treasury, of the bonds of Hardenberg and of the four bonds of Birch, Murray & Co.Opinions CHASE, C.J., Opinion of the Court The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court. Sources...
