Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/235

 HAUMOND V. OLMSTBAD SBOS. 223 �been estatlished, It is true that purchasers of municipal bonds are charged with notice of the lawB of the state which authorized the issue, and of a want of power in the municipality or its ofScers to execute or issue the bonds. In this case, it is fairly to be gathered from the statute that the commissioners were invested with power to decide whether the proper number of tax-payers had conserited, and whether, therefore, the condition precedent had been complied with, and their recitals in the bonds, when held by a hona fide purchaser, are conplusive. Coloma v. Eaves, 92 D. S. 48e ; Humboldt v. Long, 92 U. S. 642; Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683. Knowledge, by the pur- chaser of municipal bonds before maturity, of their invalidity, when there are no marks of infirmity on the face of the instrument, and there is no want of power in the municipality or its officers to exe- cute and issue the bonds, is a questiori of fact. It being admitted that. the purchaser before inaturity, for value, had no actual notice or suspicion of any defect, and the bonds in substance reciting com- plianoe with the condition precedent which was required by the statute, the arbitrary rule claimed by the defendant, which declares that he did have constructive notice of a defect, does not exist. �The motion for a new trial is denied, and the stay of proceedings is vacated. ���Hammond v. Olmstbad Beos. {Circuit Court, B. Conneeticut. February 16. 1882. "s �l. AgENCT— ACCOTJNTING WITH PltlKCrPAL. �Where in an accounting with the principal an agent sells the property of his principal under instructions, at various dates, upon a fluctuating marlset, the subsequently placing all the sales as of one date is improper, and he will be lia- able to his principal for the balance betwceu what he received and what he accounted for. �Shipman, D. J. This is an action at law, which, by written stipula- tion of the parties waiving a trial by jury, was tried by the court. The faots which are found to be true are as follows : �On August 11, 1879, the plaiutili owned two eribs of unshelled corn in the town of Dunlap and state of lowa. The defendants were his agents for the purchase and sale of the corn. They were authorized by letter of August 11, 1879, upon certain conditions not material to the present case, to sell 10,000 ��� �