Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/220

206 FEDEBAIi BBPOBTEB. �been wholly abandoned before the issue of the bonds in question vras made. �It seems to me that the clear intimation, in HacJcett v. Ottawa are that the improyement of the water-power in Ottawa and its vicinity was a corporate purpose within the meaning of the constitution of 1848, and that, conceding that Eames was fully advised of the pur- pose for which these bonds were issued, he has the right to maintain an action against them, �Proof was introduced showing that the plaintiff, Cary, derived title to these bonds from Eames, and that he was a member of the common councilof Ottawa in 1872 and 1873, and that he votedwith the other members of the common council to repudiate these bonds. �The law is well settled, I think, that if these bonds passed out of the defendant to a honafide holder for value before due, a subsequent purohaser of the bonds, even with knowledge of any taint upon them, is to be protected. �It appears from the proof in this case that the contemplated issue of these bonds was a matter of general notoriety, It was discussed at public meetings, voted upon at a, public election, the action of the common council was of the most public character, their various ordinances and prooeedings in regard to the disposition of the bonds were published in the corporation newspaper and commented upon by the press of the city generally,-and it cannot but be assumed that the citizens of the city, the tax payers, and 'those interested in the subject, musfc have known for some time before the bonds were issued, not only that they were to be issued, but the use to be made of them; and the question is, is it right that a city which now represents the same citizens who stood by and acquiesced in the issue of these bonds shall be allowed to repudiate them in the hands of one of their own citizens, even, who has paid full value, and whose money has been, so far as we know, faithfully expended for the purpose which the bonds were designed to further? Here was, at least, a full claim of power to issue them. �This municipality was by its charter empowered to issue bonds to an unlimited extent for corporate purposes, if sanctionod by a vote of the people. The ci'y authorities treated water-power improve- ment as a public pttrpose ;■ the eitikens not only acquiesced in it, but publicly voted for it by a large majority. The case appears to mo to resolve itself solely into a question of municipal power, and in the light of Taylor'v.Thoffipson and' the subsequent cases upon the same question in this Sfato, and the eoilsfcruction given to the powers ��� �