PIERCE v. TOWN OF sw. ANNE. 37
leged issue of bonds was rnazleafter the constitution of 1870 took effect,
it is incumbent on the plaintiff to show that all the conditions precedent
were complied with, and undoubtedly this position is well taken. As
the demurrer admits all the allegations of the declaration which are well
pleaded, it must be considered as admitted that a town meeting was duly
called by the requisite number of freeholders to vote upon the question
of issuing the bonds to aid in the construction of the railroad; that the
town meeting was duly held, and a large majority of the votes cast in
favor of the measure; that the town authorities (that is, the board of
town auditors) directed the supervisor to issue and deliver the bonds,
and they were issued accordingly, and delivered to persons authorized
by the railroad company to receive them in its behalf. It seems to me
this is enough to make the bonds valid and binding in the handsof the
railroad company to whom they were voted, without passing upon the
question of whether plaintiffs are shown by the averments to be bona fide
purchasers of the bonds for value.
A In the argument much stress was laid upon the insufficiency of the
certificate of the clerk as to the proceedings and result of the town meet-
ing; but the averments which precede that certificate are so ample and
broad as to make the clerk’s certificate merely surplusage. Copying the
clerk’s certificate into the declaration was only pleading the evidence, `
and not pleading it all; that is, the averments of the declaration show
that more was done than is set out in the clerk’s certificate. For illus-
tration, it is urged that the clerk does not state that a moderator was
chosen to preside at the meeting; but it is averred that a moderator was A
duly chosen, and presided, and it seems to me that plaintiffs will be
allowed to show this fact by any competent proof. Three suits have
. been brought, two of which have been to the supreme court of Illinois,
and one to the supreme court of the United States, in which this issue
of bonds was involved; although it may perhaps be hereafter held that
none of them have gone so far as to hold the bonds valid and binding
upon the town; so as to cut off the discussion and consideration of
their validity in this case. “
It is also objected that the plaintiffs show no title to the bonds, The
averments in this particular are, in substance, that the bonds were issued
and delivered to the firm of Joseph E. Young & Co.,-said firm being `
composed of Joseph E. Young, William D. Judson, and Amos Tenney;
and the declaration contains the further averment that Young was duly
adjudicated bankrupt in 1876, and the plaintiff Pierce appointed his
assignee; and the plaintiffs in the suit are Pierce, assignee of` Young, and
Judson and‘Tenney. It is true, the declaration also goes on to say that
the interest of Young is now owned by Stebbins, and that other persons
have become equitable owners of the interests 0f` Judson and Tenney;
but the legal effect of this statement is to show that the legal title tothe
bonds is still in the members of the firm of Young & Co., so that Pierce,
assignee, Judson, and Tenney are the proper parties plaintiff, and the ·
mentionof the equitable interests of Stebbins and others in the bonds is
‘ really no part of the pleadings. Upon the whole, then, I think enough