Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/20

 8 FEDERAL REPORTER. �McCall V. TowN OF Hancock. �{Oireuit Uourt, N. B. New York. January, 1882.) �1. MimiciPAL Bonds — Recitals— Bona Fidb Purchasees— State and Fedeiial �COUKTS. �A statute of a state authorized commissioners, appointed for a town, tp borrow money and execute bonds for the town in aid of a railroad company, and pro- vided that they should exercise their authority only upon the condition that the assent of a majority of the taxables should be obtalned, which should be proved by the affldavit of one of the assessors of the town. The statute made it the duty of the assessors to make such affldavit when the requisite assents should have been obtained. Held, that bonafde purchasers of the bonds are not required to show that the requisite number of taxables assented to their issue, as the affldavit of the assessor is conclusive in their favor ; and that the decision of the highest court of the state to the contrary, if rendered after the rights of such purchasers were acquired, is not binding upon a circuit court of the United Status. �At Law. �E. B. Thomas, for complainant. �Wm. Oleason, for defendant. �Wallace, D. J. The evidence shows, what so frequently appears in actions upon coupons and municipal bonds, that the plaintiff pur- chased the coupons, at the suggestion of those who formerly owned them, with a view to collecting them in this court, when it was sup- posed a recovery could not be obtained upon them in the state courts. By the terms of the purchase the former owners guaranty the collec- tion of the coupons. The plaintifi is protected from costs if he is defeated, and it may be conjectured, from the fact that he is not to pay for the coupons until two years and a half after the time of pur- chase, that it was intended by the parties he should not pay for them at all. if, in the mean time, the suit which he should bring should bc decided adversely to him. Nevertheless, under the repeated decisions of this court, as the plaintiff is the owner of the coupons, he can maintain this action, and his intent in acquiring them is immaterial. McDonald v. Smalley, 1 Pet. 620 ; Barney v. Baltimore City, 6 Wall. 288; Osborne v. Brooklyn City R. Co. 5 Blatchf. 368. He is the real party in interest and that suffices. Allen v. Broicn, 44 N. Y. 228. �It has heretofore been held by this court that a bona fide holder of these coupons is entitled to recover thereon notwithstanding the irreg- ularities which took place in the issuing of the bonds. Foote v. Town of Hancock, 15 Blatchf. 343. Since that decision the court of appeals has decided to the contrary. Cagwin v. Town of Hancock, 12 W. D. 96. ��� �