20 . · . . FEDERAL Rmronrux.
performance of this obligation was secured by statutory liens on the
roads. After the bonds had been issued and negotiated by the com-
panies receiving them, the supreme court of that state decided they
were unconstitutional and void, and imposed no obligation on the
state; but the court also decided that this did not relieve the railroad
- companies from their obligations to pay the bonds, and that the
statutory lien was good, and could be enforced against the company
by the bona yide holders of the state bonds. State v. Florida Cent. R.
Oo. 15 Fla. 690; Trustees of Impr. Fund v. Jacksonville, P. at M. R.
Co. 16 Fla. 708.
Subsequently, a suit brought by the holders of state bonds against
the railroad companies, to compel payment of the bonds and foreclose
the statutory li·en created to secure the payment, came before the su-
preme court of the United States, (Railroad Cos. v. Schulte, supra,)
and that court heldthat the bona jide holders of the state bonds
could recover the amount of the same from the railroad companies
which negotiated them, and were.;en?titled to have enforced in their
favor the statutory lien given for their security. Before quoting from
the opiriionofi the-court, attention will be called to the only particu-
lars in which the facts in thatcase vary from the case at bar.
(1) In the Florida case the act provided that the railroad companies
should execute to the state their non-negotiable; bonds, payable to
the state at the same time and place and for like amounts as the state
bonds. These bonds were secured by a statutory lien, and were exe-
cuted in pursuance of theact requiring the issue of the state bonds,
and were given by the companies in exchange for the bondsof the
state. v When the companies paid their bonds to the state, the state
was to apply the money. to the payment of her bonds issued and
— loaned to the companies. In that case, a·s in this, theyobject of the
statutory lien was to compel the companies to provide the state with
funds to pay the principal and interest of her bonds, loaned to the
companies, as the same fell due. , H V » ,
It is not contended, thatlthe exeoutiouby the company of- these non-
. negotiable bonds, payable totthestate, can eitheradd to or diminish
theeffect off the statutory, mortgage, or the rights otrthaholders of
the state bonds thereunder.   _; _ · · » , —. . _
, ·T(2) The ’bonds in·tl1at—.ease were notf payableto the companies to
which they were issued, but to "bearer,’Y and they didynot disclose,
on their face,»f1rnder whatract or for what purpose they. _were,issued,
but the governorput au ettraoilicial certiicate outhem to this ef;
fect: z     t _ , ‘ . ’