Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/299

by School District No. 22, County of Richland, D. T., for building and furnishing a school house, under and in pursuance of, and in strict conformity with, the provisions of an act of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Dakota, entitled ‘An act to empower school districts to issue bonds for building school houses, approved March 3rd, 1881, and of a vote of said district at a special meeting had on the 2gth day of November, 1881.” Upon the back of each bond is the following certificate signed by the clerk of the district: ‘I certify that the within bond is issued in accordance with a vote af School District No. 22, of Richland County, Dakota Territory at a special meeting held on the 29th day of November, A. D. 1881, to issue bonds to the amount of twelve hundred dollars.” It is obvious from the statute that the officers by whom the bonds are to be issued are intrusted with duty of determining whether the statute has been complied with as to all matters necessary to give them authority to issue the bonds. Their statement embodied in these bonds therefore estops the district and its successors from showing aught to the contrary. The rule and the reason for it have been so often shown, and are so well known to the profession, that it will suffice to cite some of the numerous authorities on the point. Inhabitants v. Morrison, i33 U. S. 523, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 333; Oregon v. Jennings, 119 U. S. 74-92, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124; County of Moultrie v. Rockingham, etc., Bank, 92 U.S. 631; Venice v. Mur- dock, 1d. 494; Town of Colona v. Eaves, 1d. 484; Dizon County v. Field, 111 U.S. 83, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 315; Humboldt Tp. v. Long, 92 U.S. 642; Commissioners of Knox Co. v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539; Fulton v. Town of Riverton, (Minn.) 44 N. W. Rep. 257; 15 Am. and Eng. Enc. Law, 1295 ef seq.; Burr. Pub. Secur. 299 ef seg. It is not necessary that the power to determine these facts should have been expressly conferred upon the district officers by the statute. “It is enough that full control in the matter is given to the officers named.” Inhabitants v. Morrison, 133 U. S. 523, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 333; Fulton v. Town of Riverton, (Minn.) 44 N. W. Rep. 257. For is it essential that the statement should set forth