Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/372

 HALSETf V. TOWNSHIP OF NBW PEOVIDIINOH. 06^ �not registered in the office of the elerk of the county of Union before they were negotiated and sold; and (6) that the com- missioners failed to execute a bond, with two or more sure- ties, for the faithful performance of their duties, before enter- ing upon the duties of their office. �The plaintiff, after repljing to the several pleas seriatim, adds a replication to the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and twelfth pleas, alleging, in substance, that after the said Jonathan Bonnell, Jarvis Johnson, and John Littell, in the declaration mentioned, had been appointed and sworn as commissioners for the defendant township, and after the filing in the office of the clerk of the county of Union of the paper writing so signed by the persons purporting to be tax payers of the county, with the several affidavits of the commissioners and assessors annexed ; and after the defend- ants, by the hands and under the seals of the commissioners, had made and executed the several bonds in the declaration mentioned; and after the same had been indorsed as regis- tered in the office of the clerk of the coûiity of Union," as therein alleged, to-wit, on the first of July, 1870, — the same and eaoh of them were, by the said commissioners, sold, nego- tiated, and delivered, for a valuable consideration received, to divers innocent purchasers thereof, in the ôpennlarkBt^ in the ueual course of business, and without àny riotice or knowl- edge whatever of any of the several matters and things in the said pleas in this replication mentioned, to-\\?it, to Samuel B. Halsey, John Marsh, Charles P. Ogden, John L. Baldwin, Bdwin Ford, Joseph Lovell, Caroline E. Seofield, and James Jackson, aU of the county of Morris ànd state of New Jersey; which several persons afterwards, to-wit, on the day and year aforesaid, duly assigned and transferred the said bonds to the plaintiff, who then and there, and hath ever since^ continued to be the lawf ul owner and holder thereof. �To this replication the defendants have demurred, and the ground of the demurrer is that the facts disclosôd by the rep- lication show that the court bas no jurisdiction of the case. �Do these facts, to-wit, the original ownership of the bonds ����