Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/233

 CAEKIER V. TOWN OF SHAWANGUNK. 221 �Shipman, D. J. This is an action at law to recover the amouut due upon Bundry bonds for $2,400 issued by the town of Shawangunk, cind payable to bearer. The bonds recited that they were issued in pur- suance of the act which is hereafter mentioned, and by duly-appointed commissioners. �The second section of chapter 880 of the session laws of 1866 pro- vided that it should be lawful for the commissioners appointed by the county judge, upon the application of twelve freeholders, residents of the town, to borrow on the faith and credit oi the town such Bum of money as the tax-paying inhabitants of the town should fix upon by their assent in writing, not exceeding a specified percentage of the assessed valuation of the property of the town for the year 1865: �"Provided, however, that the powers and authority conferred by this sec- tion shall oiily be exercised upon the condition that the consent shall first be obtained in writing of such number of the tax-payers of such town, their heirs, or legal representatives, appearing upon the last assessment roll for the year 1865, as shall represent a majority of the taxable property of such town ; proof of which shall be by the acknowledgement or proof thereof as required for deeds of real estate filed in the town and county clerks' offices of the re- spective counties, and annexed to a copy of the assessment roll of the town for 1865. * * *" �For the purpose of showing that the plaintifif, whether a purchaser for value or not, had the title and rights of a honafide holder, because he was the successor of the Dime Savings Bank, whioh was a purchaser for value before maturity, and without notice of any claim of non-liabil- ity on the part of the town, the plaintiflf proves, by the attorney of the bank, that before the purchase and before maturity he investigated whether the consent of the town to the issue of the bonds had been obtained as prescribed by the act. Before the examination he had never heard of any claim on the part of the town, or its officers, that the bonds were invalid. He examined a certified copy of the consent and assessment rolls of the town, and ascertained that the majority of the persons upon the assessment list had signed the petition or consent to the bonding of the town, and that the conaents represented a majority of the property of the town, and that these facts had been certified to by the prcper officers. The witness testified : �"I carefully added up and reviewed the additions already added up, proved the figures, and found them coi-rect. I counted the naines for myself, and I read the certilicate. It was the county clerk's of Ulster county. * * * i ascertained that all the names on the consent roll were on the assessment roll, and checked them ofE and added up the amount of the property." ��� �