MBECHANTS NAT. BANK, LITTIiB BOCK, V. PULASKI 00. 551 �of March, 1875, and the act supplementary thereto, these appear to have been issued in lieu of county scrip surren- dered. Subsequently to their issue, the supreme court of Arkansas held that the said act of March, 1875, and the sup- plementary act, were void. Still, it is clear that complainant held a valid claim against the county, for, if the bonds were invalid, it was at liberty to seek its remedy upon the original debt represented by the surrendered scrip. It seems to be conceded by counsel on both sides that the bonds issued under the act of March, 1875, based, as they were, upon a valid, pre-existing debt, could lawfuUy be funded under the act of March 6, 1877. The point made by complainant'a counsel is that the decision of the supreme court in Brodie et al. V. McCabe, CoUector, does not permit the county to carry out the contract of compromise, as to these bonds, by carry- ing into them the obligations of the contracta upon which they are founded, and out of which they grew, to-wit, the county scrip aforesaid. In this I think the counsel is wrong. The original debt, for which these bonds were issued, was Bubject to the limitations as to taxation, for its payment, contained in the ninth section of article 16 of the constitution of 1874. �The supreme court bas in that case jîecided that the bonds were issued subject to that limitation, and it has decided nothing more. The contract between the parties, referred to in the first part of this opinion, will, as respects this class of bonds, be carried out by a levy up to the limit of the consti- tution, for as to them the original contract provided no other or better remedy. It follows that the complainant's remedy as to these bonds is at law. �The demurrer to the bill and amended bill is suetained. ����
