NOKTH. NAT. BK., TOLEDO, V. TRUSTEES OP POBTEB TP. 569 �the county had voted in favor of a subscription, whieh had been made before action by the townsbip, and that, tbere- fore, the township had no power to subscribe and issue bonds. �The plaintiff contended that the statutes made a grant of power to the township, but imposed a condition precedent to its exercise, and that as the bonds contained a recital that they were issued in pursuance to the acts of the general assembly of Ohio, and as the township had levied taxes and paid interest for eight years, the defendants were estopped, under the decisions of the supreme court of the United States in numerous similar cases, to set up the non-happening of th»' precedent contingency as against bona fide holders for value. �Secondly, that even if the power did not arise at once upon the passage of the act of March 21, 1850, still, as the county failed to vote at the next annual election, to-wit, Ootober, 1850, as provided for by the act of February 28, 1846, the township thereupon, under the authority of Shoemaker v. Go- shen Township, 14 0. S. 569, 580, became vested with power, and it would be presumed upon the recitals in the bond, in favor of a purchaser for value without notice, that the power had been exercised and the subscription made while the town- ship was thus vested with power, and that the defendants were estopped to set up that the subscription was in fact made after the county had voted in June, 1851, to subscribe to the stock of the railroad company, and had subscribed therefor in August, 1851. �The defendants contended that the township derived no immediate power from the acts of the legislature, and that, if the county commissioners were authorized by a vote of the electors of the county to subscribe, the township never became vested with power to make a subscription, and that the action of the county, being matter of record, was notice to everybody; and, further, that the trustees of the township were not made the tribunal to decide whether the county had acted in the matter. In support of this view the defendants relied on Ilopple v. Trustees Brown Township, 13 0. S. 311; Beckel v. ����
