Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/628

 BALiiOtr t;. jASpià ' ctitwbî. ^^' �■sritli the fundîn^ la-w, but it is claitned tiat' there was a vice in tke issue of the original bonds, for which the funding bonds •were given, anid therefore thïtt'the funded bonds were void, and the county is not liable. �The facts relied upon to show the invalidity of the original bonds are that the law of 1867 required that the bonds should have been issuedby the direction and authority of the county court, and they were, in fact, issued under the authority and by the board of supervisors of the county, while the supreme court of this state bas decided that what is called the curative act of April 9, 1869, which sought to remedy fiome of the defects which it was supposed had occurred in the issue of the boûds, is inoperative and in violation of the constitution, and therefore there was no legal authority npoiï which the original bonds could rest, and the funded bonds are invalid. �Now, if we concede that the original bonds were not issùed in strict conformity with the statute, and that the cura^ive' act was inoperative, still the bonds' Were issued by anothef branch of the legal authority of the 'county of Jasper, the board of superVisors of the ceunty, who: had authority. iii many cases to act for the cbtinty. ' It is true, it is tjlàim'ed ihey had not authority in this partieular- instance to iësue' the bonds, but that the county court alone had authority ;- and yet both bodies would act 'fût the county; and wouW pur*- port to represent the people-of the county, arid it is not denied' but thatHherô Was a vote of the peOplie of the county author-' izing the issue of these bonds by the board of supervisera.' Therefore, it may be said, I think, with a great deal of truth, although technically the original bonds were not issued by the proper authority, still they were bonds issued, in one sense, by the county, and which created a debt on the part of the county ; and as money had been advanced to the county it would constitute an equitable claim against the county, notwithstanding the bonds might have been issued by the wrong tribunal. That being the state of the case, the ques- tion is whether it was not competent for the county, under the funding law, to recognize the validity of these bonds, ����