LEWIS V. COUNTY OOMMISSIONEHS OV BAEBOUB CO. 193 �the act a condition precedent to the negotiability of the bonds. The proviso declares "that suoh bonds shall not bear interest or he negotiable until after the delivery and registration tbereof." The agreed statement shows that the bonds in question were by the terms of the subscription to be placed in the hands of the treasurer of state, in escrow ; to be delivered, $50,000 when the railroad subscribed to should be completed to Medicine Lodge, and $50,000 when through the cotinty; that no part of the railroad was ever built; that the bonds were not delivered to the treasurer, but to one Hutchinson, who procured their registration by the auditor of state, and fraudulently put them in circulation. They were never in the hands of the treasurer of state, and were, of course, never delivered by Mm. �If, therefore, the statutory provision above quoted is to bave the force and effect evidently intended by the legis- lature, the bonds must be held non-negotiable and bad in the hands of the plaintiff. But it is strongly urged by the counsel for plaintiff that the county is estopped to deny the . negotiability of the bonds, because they appear on their face to be negotiable, and purport to be issued in accordance with the statute. I s'uppose it is competent for the legislature of a state to prescribe such conditions as it may deem proper with respect to the negotiability of any bonds it may author- ize a municipality to issue. It may provide that such bonds shall not be negotiable at ail; and, if so, wby may it not also provide that they shall be negotiable only upon condition that they pass through the hands of the treasurer of state, and are by him delivered? This imposes upon the purchaser only the duty of examining the records of a public office, or of inquiring for information of a public officer, to ascertain the fact. The authorities are uniform that such a purchaser must take notice of the terms of the statute under which such bonds are issued, as if the same were set out in fuU on the face of the bonds. �In delivering the unanimous opinion of the supreme court, in McClure v. Township of Oxford, 94 U. S. 429, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: "To be a bonajide holder, one must be �v.3,no.4— 13 ����
