620 . ■ JB'BD-BïtAIi .ESPOBTEE. ; ' �that case turned upon the construction of the Indiana stat- ute, which provides in effect that unless a note is made pay- able to order, or bearer, at a particularbank, whateverequity the maker is entitled to against the payer he may assert against any indorser ; which means, of course, that a note is not negotiable in that state unless payable to order or bearer at a bank. In such a case it seems quite clear that an indorser could not derive jurisdiction to sue in the United States courts by assignaient, as such a note is not negotiable by the law merchant. ���JbALLOU V. COUNTT OF JaSPBB. �(Gireuit Court, 8. D: lUiiun». July 7, 1880./ �1. MtmicrpAii Bonds — Pottded Bonds — Act of thb Lbgislatube of IijLinois.— -An act of the le^slature of the state of Illinois authorized ail municipal corporations totakeup and cancel oulsitandiDg bonds and other evidences of indebtedness, issued for thebeneiitof a certain railroad, under a pirior act of the legislature, and fund the same. ' Eeld, thûlwhere & funded bond -Was regùlarly issued, and perform- ance of ail the essontial conditions alleged in the bond, payment could not be refused a bona fide liplder upon the grounij that the original bond was issued by the county supervisors, instead of the countv court, contrary ta tte terms of the original act. �Hay, Green e Little, for plaintiff. �Hallay e Wood, îov deîend^int. �Deummond, C. J. The question in this case arises on the construction to be given towhat is called the funding stat- ute of this state, authorizing counties, cities, townships, school districts, and other municipal corporations to take up and cancel outstanding bonds and other evidences of indebt- edness, and fund the same; in connection with the act of March 1, 1867, which authorized cities, towns, and counties to subscribe for stock to the Grayville & Mattoon Eailroad Company. �No objection is made to the validity of the bonds which were issued in this case, as not having been in accordance ����
