STEWABT V. MEERITT. 531 �The judgment of the county judge states as appearing satisf actorily to him everything which the statute says must appear satisfactorily to him, and adjudges and determines everything which the statute says he must adjudge and deter- mine. The etatute in this respect uses only the words "tax payers," and the judgment uses only the words "tax payers." What those words mean in the section of the statute wbich relates to the proofs and the judgment is defined by the statute itself. But, aside from the foregoing views, it must be held in this case that as against the plaintiff, as a bona fide holder, for value, of the coupons in suit, the town is estopped from questioning the invalidity, after it has accepted and retained the stock for which the bonds and coupons were issued, and has paid the interest on the bonds for so long a period of time. Suoh conduct was a direct ratifica- tion of the acts of those who issued the bonds. It was a ratification made with full knowledge on the part of the town of the defect now alleged to bave existed. Supervisors V. Schenck, 6 Wallace, 772 ; Pendleton Co. v. Amy, 13 Wallace, 297 ; Commissioners v. January, 4 Otto, 202. �There must be a judgment for the plaintiff for $980, with interest, from March 1, 1879, and for $980, with intereat, from September 1, 1879. ���Btewaet & Co. V. Mebritt. �{Cireuit Court, 8. D. New York. -, 1880.) �Imports— DuTiABLE VALUE— ApPRAisAL, WHEN FiKAL.— Bections 2930, 2931 and 3011, Rev. St. U. S., are to be construed together, and the decision of the proper offieer after appeal and without f raud, as to the dutiable value of imports, is final and conclusive against the importer. �A case of considerable public importance was recently tried in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York beforo Judge Shipman and a jury. It was brought by A. T. Stewart & Co. against E. A. Merritt, collecter of the ����
