Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1884 edition. Excerpt: ...the whole of the original bonds when the funding took place, and took the funding bonds in exchange for such of the original bonds as he then held. Upon this state of facts the court below gave judgment against the county. The case is now here by writ of error, and the single question is presented, whether the county made out a valid defense to the coupons sued on. In our opinion the county is estopped from setting up the alleged invalidity of the original bonds as a defense in this action. It is true the funding law only authorized the funding of " binding and subsisting legal obligations," " properly authorized by law," but no new bonds could be issued in lieu of old ones except on a vote of the people. All outstanding bonds were not to be taken up in this way, but only such as were recognized by the people, acting together in their political capacity at an election for that purpose, as.binding and subsisting legal obligations. After such a recognition the corporate authorities could make the exchanges, but not before. The law under which the original bonds were put out was sufficient. No complaint is made of any illegality in its provisions. The only objection is that there was a mistake in carrying it into execution. The election was called by the wrong corporate agency. The County Court should have brought the people together and not the Board of Supervisors. This; if there had been nothing more, would, under the rulings of the highest court of the State, made long before the vote was taken, render the bonds invalid. (Schuyler Co. vs. People, 2" Ill., 18.") It was for this reason undoubtedly that the Board of Supervisors, at their meeting at the election, authorized the subscription to be made and the...
