620 that case turned upon the construction of the Indiana stat. ute, which provides in effect that unless a note is made payable to order, or bearer, at a particular bank, whatever equity the maker is entitled to against the payer he may assert against any indorser; which means, of course, that a note is not negotiable in that state unless payable to order or bearer at a bank. In such a case it seems quite clear that an indorser could not derive jurisdiction to sue in the United States courts by assignment, as such a nJte is not negotiable by the law merchant.
HALLOU
.
v.
COUNTY OF JASPER. '
(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D.; IlliMis. L
July 7, 1880./
MUNICIPAL BONDB-FUNDED BONDB-AcT OF THE LEGISLATURE OF ILLINOIS...... An act of the legislature .of the state of Illinois authorized all municipal corporatJqns {o"take up and cancel outlitanding bonds and other evidences of indebte.dness, issued for the benefit of a certain railroad, under a prioract the l!-nd fund the Bame.· , HelJ:, that where a funded bond 'wa's regularly issued; and performance'of,all the essential conditions alleged in the bond, payment could not be refused a bona fide holder upon the grou,nq that the original bond was issued by the 'county supervisors, instead of the county :court, contrary to ttie terms of the original act. ,.
ot
Hay, Green J; Little, for plaintiff. fIallay J; Wood, for defendant. DRUMMOND, C. J. The question in this case arises on thll construction to be giventp, what is called the funding statute of this state, authorizing counties, cities, townships, school districts, and other municipal corporations to take up and cancel outstanding bonds and other evidences of indebtedness, and fund the same; in connection with the act of March 1, 1867, which authorized cities, towns, and counties to subscribe for stock to the Grayville & Mattoon Railroad Company. No objection is made to the validity of the bonds which were issued in this case, as not having been in accordance
with fundirik law, but'it is that' a "ice in the issue of the original bonds, for which the funding bonds were given, and therefore' that ithe funded bonds were void, and the county is not liable. . The facts relied upon to show the invalidity of the original bonds are that the law of 1867 required that the bcmds should have been issued by the direction and authority of thecounty court, and they were, in fact,issued underthe authority and by the board of supervisors of the county, while the' supreme court of this state has decided that what is called the curative act of April 9, 1869, which sought to remedy 80me of the defects which it supposed had occurred in the issue of the bonds, is inoperative and in violation' of 'the constitution, and therefore there was no legal authority upOn which the original bonds could rest, and the funded·' bonds . are' invalid. Now, if we concede that the otiginal bonds were not iSl!lll'8(t in strict conformity with the- statute, an.d that the act was inoperative, still the bonds: 'by another' branch of the legal authority of board of supervisors of the county: dwho i hadauthoi'ity,in many cases to'act'for the county.'It is true, it is (ilalimed i:hey had not 'authority in thispartieular' -in.stance to igsue[ the bonds, but that the alon.e had authol'ity;; and yet both bodies would the county; and would pnr": port to represent· the people> of' the county, audit is not denied' bu{ that'thareWas avot'e 'of the people of the county author.izing the issue' of these bonds by the board of supetvisors/ Therefore, it may be said, I think, with a great deal of truth, although technically the original bonds were not issued by the proper authority, still they were bonds issued, in one sense, by the county, and which created a debt on the part of the county; and as money had been advanced to the county it would constitute an equitable claim against the county, notwithstanding the bonds might have been issued by the wrong tribunal. That being the state of the case, the question is whether it was not competent for the county, under the funning law, to recognize the validity of these boncls,
699
PBDERAL REPORTER.
notwithstanding there might· hll.ve been an irregularity, and notwithstanding they might have been issued, in point of fact, by the board of supervisors instead of by the county court. The funding law declared that the bonds might be issued for any indebtedness which was binding, or which constituted a subsisting legal obligation against the county. It is to be observed that this funding law declared that there should be no funding bonds issued, except upon a vote of the people, and a vote was accordingly had, and these funded bonds were issued under that vot,e and by the proper authority. These facts are all alleged in the funded bond, the question is whether, as against a bonafide holder, the county can go back of all this, and defend against this, or similar actions, on the ground that there was a vice in the original indebtedness; that is, in the source of the original indebtedness, in that the bonds were issued by the board of supervisors, instead of by the county court. We think that it cannot, but that it must be assumed, especially in view of all these reoitals in the funded bonds, to the effect that their issue was under this law, and that the proper county authorities had determined that it was a binding obligation on the county, for which these bonds were issued, they were valid, and that there must be an end of these contests and defences some time or other; and, having issued these bonds underthese circumstanccs, the county of Jasper cannot contest their validity now, even ad· mitting that it could do so if the suit were brought on the original bonds.
UNITED STATES v. \Vl!lEDOllf. UNITED STATES V.
623
WEEDON and other:.
(Circuit Gowrt, D. MaryZand. July 27,1880.) 1. INTERNAL REVENUE-STAMPB-FRICTION MATCHES-MEMBER OF MANUFACTURING FIRM-REV. ST. § 3425.-Section 3425 of· the Revis¢ Statutes provides, in that the commissioner of internal revenue may, from time to time, deliver to any manufa.ctllrer of friction matches a suitable quantity of adhesive stamps, such &8 are required in that business by law, without requiring prepayment therefor. on a credit of 60 days, upon such security as he may deem sufficient. Held, that a person who is a melhber of a :firm engaged in the manufacture of friction matches, is a:manufactuteroffriction lIlatches, with whom the as such.
2. SAME-REVENUE AGENT-EvIDENbE.-Evldence in this case held insufficient to establish the fact that the stamps were furnished such person as an internal revenue agent.