Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/234

222 iedebal befoeteb. �The resuit of the investigation was reported to the bank, which thereupon bought a large amount of the bonds for 90 per cent, of their par value. The certified copy was delivered to the bank, and was thereafter mislaid and lost. �It was not claimed by the defendant that the bank had any actual notice of any alleged invalidity of the bonds, but the defendant, after the plaintiff had rested, offered a certified copy of the consent roli of the town, in pursuance of which the bonds were authorized to be issued, together with a certified copy of the assessment roll of the town for the year 1865, to show that the consent of the majority in value of the tax-payers was not obtained, and insisted "that the bank must stand or f all by the roll as it in fact was, not by any mistaken interpretation of it by its attorney ; that it was not a bona fide holder without notice, because it had undertaken to investigate the matter, and did not rely on the face of the security." �The court excluded the evidence, to which ruling the defendant excepted, and a verdict having been subsequently directed for the plaintiff, filed a bill of exceptions and a motion for new trial. The question in regard to the exclusion of the certified copies of the con- sent and assessment rolls, for the purpose for which they were offered, was the only one which was argued by the defendant. �It will be observed that these rolls were not offered either upon cross-examination of the attorney or as independent evidence to show that he had actual notice of any defect in the number of consents, or that he would have had notice if he had exercised reasonable dili- gence ; but they were offered upon the alleged ground that, inasmuch as the bank's attorney had examined certified copies, it therefore <30uld not be a hona fide purchaser, if a comparison of the consent roll with the assessment roll would show that the consent of a major- ity in value had not been obtained, although diligent scrutiny, at the time of the purchase, did not disclose the alleged fact. �The defendant's proposition was that the purchaser before matu- rity of municipal bonds, payable to bearer, is not a hona fide holder if he undertakes to investigate the validity of the bonds which he pro- poses to buy, and investigation would have revealed to him a defect, although it was not disclosed by diligent examination, and that such purchaser is charged with notice of all that a complex record might show, although it is not claimed that he had notice of any defect in the bonds, and it is elear that diligent scrutiny of the copies of the public records which were furnished to him did not disclose any sug- gestion of such defect. No such artificial rule in regard to notice haa ��� �