. NOTEB 0., DEOIBIONB.
withdrawal by congress of its assent to, the maintenance of. a· bridge, when properly made, is to a positive enactment fmmthe tiIlle of such withdrawal the further maintenance of the bridge shall.l;le u;nlawful, notwithstanding the legislation of the several states upon the subject. If modifications are directed, assent is in legal effect withdrawn unless the required changes are made. ' Where congress licensed the erection ofa bridge over a navigable stream; and in express terms reserved to itself the power to revoke the franchise or require alterations in case experience proved that· the structure which was to be erected substantially and materially with navigation, it may withdraw its assent, or direct such modification Or 'alteratiOlis in the structure in. ita· own discretion, and the United States ,will not be liable for the expenses incurred' in making such modifications or alterations. William Y. Ramsey, for appellant F. Phelps, Solicitor General, for the United Statel!;' . ,. cited in opittion: As to the power of congres's over bridges, v. Creeklfarsh T,he 18 How. 421j .Gilman v. Philad.elphia, 3 The CUntQn Bridge Case, 10 Wall. 462; Railroad Co.v.Fuller, 17 'Wall, 569; Pouu:d v. Turck, U.8.,464; Wisconsin v, .91;) U. S. . . .' . ,
City Bonds in Aid of Company. . . ' : . . CITY OF OTTAWA 'D. NATIONAL llANK, U. 8; Sup.. Ct., Oct. The decision in this case was rendered by the supreme court of the United States on April 24,1882. Mr. Justice Harland.ellvered the opiniOn: afthe court affirming the judgment of the circuit court: .' Where a city council had' power, the voters consentjng, tol'sBue negotiable securities for certain municipal purposes, if the purchaser, under some cl1mstances, would have been bound to take notice of the provisions of the ordinances whose titles were recited in the bonds, he was relieved. from any responsibility or duty iIi that regard by reason of the representation upon the face of the bonds that the ordinances provided for a loan for municipal purposes. Such a representation by the municipal authorities of the city would estop the city, as against bona fide holders for value, to say that the bonds were not issued for legitimate or proper niunicipal or corporate purbonds, poses.' By the decisions of the supreme court of Illinois, from the payable to bearer or to Bome named person or bearer, were rule that notes payable to a person or bearer could not be transferred or assigned by delivery only, so as to authorize the holder to sue in his own name. C. B. Lawrence, for plaintiff in error· . G. S. Eldredge, for defendant in error. Cases cited in the opinion: Roberts v. Bolles, 101 U. S. 120 j Hilborn v. Artus, 4 Ill. 344; Roosa v. Crist, 17 Ill. 450; Garvin v. Wiswell, 83 Ill. 217; Turner v. Railroad Co. 95 ID.143; Wall v. Monroe Co. 103 U. 8.77; Johnson v. Stark Co. 24 Ill. 75; Brush v. Reeves, 3 Johns. 439: Dean v. Hall, 17 Wend. 214; Cox t'.. United States. 6 Pet. 200; Andrews v. Pond, 13 Fet. '17; Bell v.
Bruen, 1 How. 169; People v. Tazewell Co. 22 Ill. 151; City of Pekin v. Reynolds, 81 TIl. 581 i Prellyman v. Tazewell Co. 19 Ill. 406 i Sherlock v. Winnetka, 68 Dl. 585.
County Bonds-1'II ebraska. DAVENPORT 'D. DODGE CO., U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. 'rerm, 1881. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nebraska. The decision in this case was rendered in the supreme. court of the United States on March 20,1882. Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court reversing the judgment of the circuit court; A precinct is a mere subdivision of a county, and .not a separate political entity, and bonds issued by authority of a vote of the precinct for public purposes must be issued in the name of the county of which the precinct forms a part; and suit on such bonds must be against the county, the jUdgment to be paid by a tax levied only on the taxable property of the precinct. A suit to obtain such a jUdgment is maintainable, although the state statute authorizing the issue of the bondsprovidas the special remedy by mandamus for their enforcement; yet inasmuch as a suit to obtain judgment on bonds or coupons is part of the necessary machinery of the federal courts in enforcing the writ of mandamus, which is in the nature of an execution, it will not be issued until judgment is obtained. W. H. Munger and E. Wakely, for plaintiff in error. William Marshall, for defendant in error. Co. 10 Neb. 20; Cass Co. v.Johnston, Cases cited in opinion: State v. 95 U. S. 360; County Com'rs v. Chandler, 96 U. S. 205; Greene Co. v. Daniel, 102 U. S.195; Graham v. Norton, 15 Wa11427; Bath Co. v. Amy, 13 Wall. 244. Bonds in Aid of Railroads-Liability of Town. AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. 'll. TOWN OF BRUCE, U. S. Sup. Ct., Oct. Term, 1881. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of lllinois. The decision of the supreme court of the United States was rendered in this case on April 24, 1882: Mr. Justice Hm'Zan delivered the opinion of the court reversing the judgment of the circuit court. . Where a statute authorizes a town to make a subscription in aid of a railroad, to be paid in bonds of the town, subject to the conditions that the road be so constructed as to pass through the town, and that a depot be located and maintained in the town, it cannot, after the bonds have been signed, sealed, and delivered by its constituted authorities to the railroad company, and have passed into the hands of bonaftde holders for value, escape liability by showing that the conditions, or some of them, imposed by popular vote have not been complied with upon the part of the railroad company, even the statute authorizing their issue especially provides that they shall not be valid till such conditions are complied with. Henry Hazlehurst, Isaac Hazlehurst, and G. L. Fort, for plaintiff in error. Phelps & W. Hallet Phelps, for defendant in error. Cases cited in the opinion: Town of Eagle v. Kohn, 84 Ill. 292, distinguished; Brooklyn v. Insurance Co. 99 U. S. 370, followed.