COUPONS. Those parts of a commercial Instrument which are to be cut, and which are evidence of something connected with the contract mentioned in the instrument. They are generally attached to bonds or cer tificates of loan, where the interest is paya ble at particIalar periods, and, when the in terest is paid, they are cut off and delivered to the payor. In England, they are as warrants or dividend warrants, and the securities to which they belong, debentures; 13 C. B. 372. In the United States they have been decided to be negotiable instru ments, if payable to bearer or order, upon which suit may be brought though detached from the bond ; Town of Cicero v. Clifford, 53 Ind. 191; Beaver County v. Armstrong, 44 Pa. 63; Haven v. Depot Co., 109 Mass. 88; Antoni v. Wright, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 833; Lex ington v. Butler, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 282, 20 L. Ed. 809; Thompson v. Perrine, 106 U. S. 589, 1 Sup. Ct. 564, 27 L. Ed. 298 ; Jones, R. R. Sec. § 320; Myers v. R. Co., 43 Me. 232; Horne v. State, 82 N. C. 382; Walker v. State, 12 S. C. 200. Otherwise, in Clarke v. Janesville, 1 Biss. 105, Fed. Cas. No. 2,854, if the bond to which the coupons were at tached was not negotiable; see Myers v. R. Co., 43 Me. 232 ; and otherwise if not payable to bearer or order ; Evertson v. Bank, 66 N. Y. 14, 23 Am. Rep. 9; see Crosby v. R. Co., 26 Conn. 121. They are distinct instruments from the bonds, and can be added to the bond thereof to make up a jurisdictional amount; Edwards v. Bates County, 163 U. S. 269, 16 Sup. Ct. 967, 41 L. Ed. 155. Suits on a bond and on coupons cut therefrom are different causes of action; Presidio Coun ty, Tex., v. Bond & Stock Co., 212 U. S. 58, 29 Sup. Ct. 237, 53 L. Ed. 402.
In England the question has not been di rectly decided, but it has been held that they are not promissory notes, and therefore do not require a stamp ; 13 C. B. 373. Divi dend warrants of the Bank of England made payable to a particular person, but not con taining words of transfer, were held not to be negotiable, notwithstanding they had been so by custom for sixty years ; 9 Q. B.
396. A purchaser of overdue coupons takes only the title of his vendor ; Arents v. Com., 18 Gratt. (Va.) 750; Gilbough v. R. Co., 1 Hughes 410, Fed. Cas. No. 5,419. Negotiable coupons were held entitled to days of grace; Evertson v. Bank, 66 N. Y. 14, 23 Am. Rep. 9; Jones, R. R. Sec. § 326 ; contra, Arents v. Com., 18 Gratt. (Va.) 773; 2 Dan. Neg. Instr., 3d ed. § 1490 a.
Interest on coupons may be recovered in a suit on the coupons ; Beaver County v. Armstrong, 44 Pa. 75; Hollingsworth v. De troit, 3 McLean 472, Fed. Cas. No. 6,613; Genoa v. Woodruff, 92 U. S. 502, 23 L. Ed. 586; Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. S. 51, 24 L. Ed. 681; Ashuelot R. Co. v. Elliot 57 N. H. 397 ; Burroughs v. Richmond County Com'rs, 65 N. C. 234 ; Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. R. Co., 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 9. The rate of interest provided for in the bond con tinues on the coupon till it is merged in judgment; Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 U. S. 51, 24 L. Ed. 681; McLane v. Abrams, Nev. 199; Marietta Iron Works v. Lotti mer, 25 Ohio St. 621; contra, Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. (U. S.) 118, 16 L. Bd.
301; Com. of Virginia v. State, 32 Md. 501; Pearce v. Hennessy, 10 R. I. 223. See Jones, R. R. Sec. § 336. A suit on the coupon is not barred by the statute of limitations un less a suit on the bond would be barred; Lexington v. Butler, 14 Wall. (U. S.) 282, 20 L. Ed. 809; otherwise, when the coupons have passed into the hands of the party who does not hold the bonds ; Clark v. Iowa City, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 583, 22 L. Ed. 427. As to practice in actions on coupons, see Kenosha v. Lamson, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 477, 19 L. Ed. 725.