§ 326.] THE LAW Otf PK1VATK COttPOttATlONS. [CHAP. VII. over, the levy of a tax and the payment of interest by the proper municipal authorities have been held to validate, in the hands of burnt fide holders for value, county bonds irregular in their origin. 1 § 326. Municipal bonds, made payable to bearer (or, as is unusual, to order) are negotiable;- they are transferable by delivery without indorsement, 3 and the holder may sue in his A law requiring a municipal cor- poration to pay a demand which is without legal obligation, but which is equitable and just in itself, being founded on a valuable consideration received by the corporation, is not a retrospective law, any more than would be an appropriation for the payment of a pre-existing claim. Read v. Plattsmouth, 107 U. S. 568. But compare Coosa River Steamboat Co. v. Barclay, 30 Ala. 120. 1 Gelpcke v. City of Dubuque, 1 Wall. 176; Havemeyer v. Iowa County, 3 Wall. 294; Supervisors v. Schenck, 5 Wall. 772; Lee County ». Rogers, 7 Wall. 181; Commissioners of Johnson County v. January, 94 U. S. 202; County of Jasper v. Ballon, 103 U. S. 745; see, also, Hannibal and St. Jo. R. R. Co. v. Marion County, 30 Mo. 294; Barrett v. County Court, 44 Mo. 197. A municipality, author- ized to subscribe for railroad shares and to issue its bonds in payment, issued its bonds with a condition, which was never complied with, and subsequently waived the condition, accepted certificates of stock, and then refunded its bonds; held the new bonds were valid, as were the old ones also. Graves r. Saline Co., 161 U. S. 359. 2 Commissioners of Marion Coun- ty v. Clark, 94 U. S. 278 ; Oubre v. Donaldsonville, 33 La. Ann. 386; City of Mount Vernon v. Hovey, 52 Ind. 563 ; Blackman v. Lehman, 63 Ala. 547. And this although the corpo- rate seal is attached. Mercer Coun- 296 ty v. Hackett, 1 Wall. 83. But coun- ty warrants are not negotiable. Wall v. County of Monroe, 103 U. S. 74 ; County of Ouachita v. Wolcott, 103 U. S. 509. A purchaser of bonds before maturity, unless he is person- ally chargeable with fraud in procur- ing them, can recover the full amount of their par value, although he has paid less, and the bonds were origi- nally affected by some infirmity. Cromwell ». County of Sac, 96 U. S. 51. Where an original issue of its bonds may have been illegal, and a city redeems them with legal bonds, the illegality of the original issue does not prejudice the holder of legal bonds, which he has received on sur- rendering the illegal bonds. Little Rock v. National Bank, 98 IT. S. 308. The legality of the original claims against a town cannot be inquired into in a suit on bonds issued to com- promise them. Dugas v. Town of Donaldsonville, 33 La. Ann. 668 ; S. C. and St. P. R. Co. v. Osceola Coun- ty, 52 Iowa, 26. The court will not readily construe a municipal bond to contain a condi- tion making it payable on a contin- gency, and so non-negotiable. Hum- boldt Township v. Long, 92 U. S. 642. The holder of a municipal bond is presumed to have acquired it in good faith. He need not have given value for it if au intermediate holder did, and he succeeds to all the latteris rights. Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 r. S. 147. 3 If a municipal bond affected with
