Opinion of the Court.

of the father, or a liability on his part to secure the son against the bonds mentioned. Nor did it appear to whom the bonds were issued, nor for what consideration. Nor was it averred that the transaction was in any respect different from what the instruments imported—a sale to the son. The agreement can therefore be considered only as an independent contract to reconvey the lots on certain conditions. The assumption that the conveyance of the father to the son was a mortgage being unfounded, the objection to the purchase by Kennedy falls. That being valid, the deed received by him passed a good title, which he transferred to the defendant.

In the third place, there is no evidence that the complainant was a creditor of Parker, Senior, in March, 1871, when the conveyance was made to the defendant. The attachment suit was commenced by publication in August, 1877, and in December following judgment by default was rendered. This was more than six years after the conveyance. It does not appear when the alleged debt, upon which the attachment proceedings were founded, accrued. The allegation of the bill that Parker, Senior, was largely indebted to the complainant and others, and was insolvent when he conveyed to the defendant, is not sustained by the evidence. Indeed, there is no evidence in relation to his financial condition and means at that time. The testimony that he brought a summons in another suit against him to the office of the party who was then drawing the deed is contradicted; and even had this been so, the fact would not militate against the validity of the transaction. He had a right to dispose of his property in the ordinary course of business for a valuable consideration, and the defendant had a right to purchase it. The complainant, not showing that he was at the time a creditor, cannot complain. Even a voluntary conveyance is good as against subsequent creditors, unless executed as a cover for future schemes of fraud.

So, in any way in which this case can be considered, the bill cannot be sustained.

The decree must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill. And it is so ordered.

Statement of Facts.

FORT SCOTT v. HICKMAN.

IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS.

Submitted October 17, 194.- Decided November 3, 1884.

The statute of the State of Kansas (Gen. Stat. of Kansas, ch. 80, art. 3, sec. 24, p. 634), providing that, in a case founded on contract, when "an acknowledgment of an existing liability, debt or claim" shall have been made, an action may be brought within the period prescribed for the same, after such acknowledgment, if such acknowledgment was in writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby, requires, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Kansas, that the acknowledgment, to be effective, be made, not to a stranger, but to the creditor, or to some one acting for or representing him. An acknowledgment cannot be regarded as an admission of indebtedness, where the accompanying circumstances are such as to repel that inference or to leave it in doubt whether the party intended to prolong the time of legal limitation.

A committee of a city council, appointed to consider the city indebtedness, made a report containing a statement of the assets and liabilities of the city, and including among the latter a certain issue of bonds called M. bonds. The report further proposed a plan of compromise to be made with the holders of city bonds, the proposal being made in the form of a circular which the committee recommended" to be sent to each person holding city bonds, except M. bonds, as to which we make no report." The circular, by its terms, purported to be addressed "to each person holding bonds of the city," and requested "each bondholder to express his views fully." The city council adopted the report of the committee, and ordered the circular to be sent to the holders of the city bonds; and it was so sent to holders of bonds other than M. bonds, but not to holders of the latter: Held, That neither the note nor the circular was an acknowledgment of the M. bonds as a debt of the city, so as to take them out of the statute of limitations. Where a Circuit Court of the United States, on the trial of an action at law bcfore it, on the waiver of a jury, makes a special finding of facts, on all the issues raised by the pleadings, and gives an erroneous judgment thereon, which this court reverses, it is proper for this court to direct such judgment to be entered by the Circuit Court as the special finding requires.

This was an action brought by the defendant in error, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, against the city of Fort Scott, in the State of Kansas, to recover the amount of principal and interest due on 27 bonds, for $500 each, issued by that city, 12 of which became due on July 1, 1873, and 15 on July 1, 1874. The bonds were coupon

Statement of Facts.

bonds, with interest payable annually, on the 1st of July, at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, and were dated July 1, 1871. Each bond contained the heading, "Special Improvement Bond of the City of Fort Scott, Kansas," and this statement: "Issued in accordance with sections 16 and 17 of an act of the Legislature of the State of Kansas, entitled 'An Act relating to the powers and government of cities of the second class, and to repeal certain sections of chapter 19 of the General Statutes of 1868, approved March 8th, 1871,' and in pursuance of an ordinance of the city of Fort Scott, entitled 'An ordinance ordering the grading and macadamizing, &c., of certain streets and parts of streets, approved May 19th, 1871.' Countersigned by the city treasurer, this twentieth day of September, 1871."

The suit was commenced July 1, 1880, and was tried by the Circuit Court without a jury. As to 11 of the 12 bonds, that court found that all the coupons on them had been paid on and before July 1, 1873, but no payment of principal or interest had been made upon any of them since that date, except as stated in its fourth finding. As to the 15 bonds, it found that all the coupons on them were paid on and before May 16, 1875, but no payment of principal or interest had been made upon any of them since that date, except as stated in its fourth finding. The remaining findings were as follows:

"4th. The court further finds that, as to the remaining bond sued on herein, being bond number 78, it became due by its terms July 1st, 1873, and on and prior to that date all the interest coupons thereon had been paid; that, on November 8th, 1875, a payment was made on said bond number 78, of the sum of $290, and the balance of said bond remained due and unpaid at the time of the commencement of this action; that said payment upon bond 78 was made by Donnell, Lawson & Co., fiscal agents of the State of Kansas, upon the authority of certain letters sent them by J. H. Randolph, city treasurer of the defendant, written by him in the usual routine of his official duties, but without any special instruction or knowledge on the part of the city council of said city; which said letters are as follows, to wit:

Statement of Facts.

"FORT SCOTT, Ks., June 10, 1875.

Mess. DONNELL, LAWSON & Co., New York.

DEAR SIRS: Yours of the 2d inst. at hand. The coupons of our special improvement bonds are all retired except bonds Nos. 97 and 107 to 113; the last coupon on these Nos. (all past due) is not yet in; will give you statement of am't and Nos. of these bonds due and unpaid by next mail. You may redeem any one of these bonds whenever this fund in your hands is sufficient to do so. My remittance of May 26th, of $245, was all to apply on coupons of bonds issued to the M., K & T. R. R. Co., and not $70 of it for special im. fund, as you state you have credited, in your letter of June 1st. The Nos. of the bonds to which these coupons belong are 1 to 7, inclusive. You will please make the transfer of the $70 to your Fort Scott City coupon acc't. About what would our city funding bonds bring in your market, bonds running 10 years, int. payable s. a. at 10 per cent. p'r. annum?

Resp'y, yours,

J. II. RANDOLPH, City Treasurer.

'FORT SCOTT, Ks., Aug. 6th, 1875.

Mess. DONNELL, LAWSON & Co., New York.

GENTLEMEN: I give you below the Nos. of our special improvement bonds now unpaid. Nos. 6 to 15, 17 to 22, 24, 30 to 39, 53 to 58, 60 to 80, 83 to 85, 97, 98, 99, and 104 to 115, in all 70 bonds of $500 each, all past due. I will be in New York last of this month, and will call and explain to you the situation in regard to these bonds, so you may understand the reason why they are not paid, and that owners of the same may govern themselves accordingly.

Very resp'y yours,

J. II. RANDOLPH, City Treasurer.'

'FORT SCOTT, Ks., Aug. 11th, 1875.

Mess. DONNELL, LAWSON & Co., New York.

GENTLEMEN: I enclose you herewith d'ft for $500 to apply on interest due on Fort Scott City special improvement bonds. If not convenient to apply on interest use to pay on bonds. J. H. RANDOLPH.'

Resp'y yours,

On November 8, 1875, said fiscal agents paid bond 77 of

1

Statement of Facts.

this series, and said $290 on said bond 78, they being the only bonds presented to that date, which payments exhausted the funds in the hands of said fiscal agents. That the official accounts of the treasurer of said city contain the following entry of credit to himself: August 11th, 1875. By Donnell, Lawson & Co., to pay interest on special improvement bonds, $500,' which was the moneys remitted by said treasurer in the letter of August 11th, 1875. Said payments were reported by the city treasurer in his annual report and approved by the city council.

5th. The court further finds, that, in July, 1878, the defendant, the city of Fort Scott, Kansas, by its city council, referred the matter of its financial condition to the finance committee of said council, which committee made a report in writing to said council, on the 21st day of August, 1878, which report was duly adopted and spread in full on the records of the minutes of said council, and is as follows, to wit:

'Council Proceedings, August 21st, 1878.

Adjourned regular meeting.

Mayor Cohen in the chair.

The report of the finance committee on the matter of the city indebtedness was read, and on motion adopted and ordered placed on file. It is as follows:

To the Hon. Mayor and Councilmen of the City of Fort Scott, Kansas:

We, your committee on city indebtedness, met with and consulted B. P. McDonald, D. P. Lowe, J. S. McCord, J. D. McCleverty, and also J. D. Hill, W. J. Bowden, W. A. Cormany, members of the board of education of this city, whom the committee thought should be invited, and, after careful consideration, the joint committee unanimously agreed on the plan of compromise set forth in the following circular letter, which we recommend be sent to each person holding city and school district bonds, except Macadam bonds, about which latter we make no report: