Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/367

SAUSB t). OITT or CILABKSTILI.I. 359 �that, if the inquiry were to extend to each vote, it might appear that the reqnired number of qualified votera did assent to the subscriptîon. �The ascertaiament of the precise facts in this regard is eonsidered unimportant, inasmttch as the ordinanoe under wbich these bonds were issued recites that the needed election was duly bad, etc. If a recital on the face of the bonds estops the municipality, as held in ail similar cases on municipal bonds, the same i^e should obtain when the recital is in the citj ordinance; for the reason of the ruleisthe same in both instances. �Two of said bonds are dated after the registry act of the state was in force, and therefore are not valid, as bonds, on their face. An effort was made to show, by the evidence, that they were delivered before, and post-dated; but the court finds otherwise. Hence, the reoovery on those two bonds mnst be as for money had and reccived. As to the fourteenth connt the facts are, substantially, that the original bond was lawfully issued, and that the holderof said bond agreed to sur- render the same and accept a renewal bond therefor. Said original bond was returned to the city, and what purported to be a renewal bond was issued in lieu thereof, but the latter bond was void, because the city failed to comply with the requirements of the then existing law. Hence, the original bond, being unsatisfied, remains a valid bond, on which a right of action ean be maintained, such original bond being produced by plaintiff as the holder thereof. �There is a grave question of jurisdiction presented, relating to the plaintiff's interest in this suit. It seems that the bonds sued on, and the rights resulting from the assignment thereof, were transferred to the plaintiff, a citizen of Texas, for the purpose of having him sue thereon in a United States court — evidence concerning which was received, subject to the ruling of the court as to its admissibility under the issues. By the practice act of Missouri, as uniformly ruled, the holder of negotiable paper, to whom the same is transferred merelyfor the purpose of collection, can maintain an action thereon in his own name. But it is urged that if such transfer, or the ��� �