Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/683

 BURLEIGH V. TOWN OF BOOHBSTEB. G7l �as the court finds it, neither Thompsoii nôr his family had any interest in these bonds. �It.is insisted, in the second place, that the; court has no jurisdiction of the cause, that objection being taken for the £rst time on the hearing. It is said th^t although this action was transferred from the state to the federal court under the second section of the act of 1875, that the transfer could not have been made unless the court -would have had jurisdiction under the first section of that act. But conceding, for the sake of the argument, that that is th,e true construction of the act of 1875, I am of the opinion that the instrumenta upon which this suit is brought are, under the decisions of the supreme court of the United States, essentially promissory notes of the town of Eochester, and negotiable as such like ordinary promissory notes under the law merchant. It is true that they are called "town of Eochester bonds," but they are not issued under the seal of the town, nor indeed is there any seal whatever. It is simply declared that the town has caused these presents to be signed by the chairman of the board of supervisors, and countersigned, as required, by the town clerk thereof, and the form of th,e obligation is that the town of Eochester is justly indebted and promises to pay to the order of the Fox Eiver Valley Eailroad Company the sum of $500, with interest as set forth in the coupons. �It is claimed, in the third place, that the judioial proceed- ings which have taken place in Wisconsin upon the bonds are conclusive upon the plaintifi, and that as the circuit and supreme courts of Wisconsin have f ound that they were invalid, this court must also so find. By the constitution of Wisconsin, in force at the tiriie this statute became a law, it was re- required, before any general law took effect, that it should be published ; and as there is nothing to show this law was pub- lished until the time certified by the secretary of state, on the third day of December, 1856, the argument is, and was, in the case already referred to, decided by the supreme court of Wisconsin, that this law had not taken effect. In view of this requirement of the constitution of Wisconsin, an act of the legislature had been passed, which was in force at the ����