Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/371

 S6e FBOEBaIi BSPOBTSB. �Halsey V. TowNSHiP op New Peovidenoe, Eto. �[Circuit Court, D. New Jersey. August 16, 1S80.) �1. JuRiSDiCTiON — jVIunicipaIi Boiîds— Act op Maech 3, 1875.— Munici- pal bonds do not come within the prohibition of the aot of Mardi 3, 1875, (18 St. 470,) which enaots that "no circuit or district court stiall have cognizance of any suit f ounded on contract, in favor of an assignee, uniess a suit might liave been prosecuted in such court to recover thereon, if no assignment had been made, except in cases of promis- sory notes, negotiable by the law mercliant, and bills of exchange." �Demurrer to Eeplication. �Nixon, D. J. The plaintiff, describing himself aa a resi- dent and citizen of the state of California, has brought this suit against the township of New Providence, in the county of Union, New Jersey, for the recovery of $15,000, principal and interest, due upon several bonds alleged to have been iesued by the defendant corporation. �The declaration sets out the filing of the consent papers, with the aeSdavits annexed, required by the act of the legisla- ture authorizing the bonds ; the making and issuiug the same, with the recital upon their face of the authority under which they were issued; and that the plaintiff was the holder and bearer, by purchase, for a valuable consideration, in the open market. �The defendants, after the general issue, plead specifically — (1,) that John M. Wiloox, who made the ae&davits in the dec- laration mentioned, was not the assessor of the township in the year 1867; (2,) that the consent papers, authorizing the amount of money to be raised in the township, were not signed by a majority of the tax payera, as required by the statute; (3,) that the eommissioners, as such, did not borrow money on the faith of the township, nor negotiate the bonds for money; (4,) that the affidavit of Wilcox, the assessor, was not true, and that the persons whose names were signed to the consents did not, in 1867 or afterwards, constitute a ma- jority of the tax payers of the township, nor represent a ma- jority of the real property in value ; (5,) that the bonds were ����