892 PEDBBAIi BBPOBTES. �to experiment with this court; and, after having had a trial and being defeated, they are now diaposed to fall back upon a point whioh they ought to have raised in the first instance. The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is therefore overruled. ���FiBST Nat. Bank of Oswego v. Town op Walcott. �(Circuit Court, If. D. New York. July 9, 1881.) �1. MunicipaIj Bonds — AuTHOBiTr — Ratification. �Whether the commissioners of the defendant complied with tha Btatutory requirements in issuing its bonds or not, the defendant ratified their act by paying interest for six or seven years upon the bonds, and retaining the stock of the railroad Company received in exchange for the bonds. �2. Same—Samb— Recitals— BoNA Fidb Pubchaser. �Whether the recital of the bonds, that theywere issued "by virtuo of an act of the legislature of New York, entitled," etc., warranted a purchaser in assuming without examination that the agents of the defendant had complied with the statutory requirements in issuing the bonds, query. �Rhodes a Richardson, for plaintiff. �G. H. Roys, for defendant. �Wallace, D. J. a question is made in this case whether the recitals upon the face of the bonds issued in the name of the defendant are sueh as to authorize a purchaser to assume that the agents of the defendant had complied with the statutory requirements in issuing the bonds. If they were not sufficient, it was incumbent upon a purchaser to examine into the preliminary proceedings in order to ascer- tain whether or not the commissioners had observed the con- ditions which the statute imposed upon their action. The recital upon the face of the bonds is that they were issued "by virtue of an act of the legislature of the state of New York, entitled," etc. �In Pompton v. Cooper Union, 101 U. S. 196, the supreme court of the United States held that where the bonds recited ��� �
