N. Y. 71, 72, Fowler v. Allen, 32 S. C. 237, 10 S. E. 950, 7 L. R. A. 747, Jordan v. Jordan, 10 Lea, 131, 43 Am. Rep. 299, Dun v. Garrett, 93 Tenn. 658, 42 Am. St. Rep. 942, 27 S. W. 1013, Nash v. Fugate, 24 Gratt. 215, 18 Am. Rep. 647, Nash v. Fugate, 32 Gratt. 607, 34 Am. Rep. 788, Lyttle v. Cozad, 21 W. Va. 200, and Belden v. Hurlbut, 94 Wis. 566, 568, 570, 69 N. W. 358, 359, 37 L. R. A. 855, 856, all holding likewise; Mathis v. Morgan, 72 Ga. 529, 531, 53 Am. Rep. 850, 851, holding surety not discharged, though signature to be obtained was a forgery; Comstock v. Gage, 91 II. 335, rejecting evidence of condition that another was to sign as co-surety, there being no offer to show that this was known to obligee; Chicago v. Gage, 95 IL 613, 35 Am. Rep. 185, one signing bonds in blank gives implied authority to fill them; Hodge v. Farmers' Bank, 7 Ind. App. 97, 34 N. E. 124, holding power to fill blanks in previously-signed note, does not include power to make alterations; Taylor v. King, 73 Iowa, 157, 5 Am. St. Rep. 669, 34 N. W. 776, and Benton Co. Sav. Bank v. Boddicker, 105 Iowa, 554, 67 Am. St. Rep. 315, 75 N. W. 633, 45 L. R. A. 326, and n., both holding sureties not relieved because bond was delivered in violation of the conditions; Harris v. Regester, 70 Md. 123, 16 Atl. 390, and Berkey v. Judd, 34 Minn. 394, 26 N. W. 5, both holding surety estopped from showing that he signed bond upon an express understanding with principal, that another surety would sign; Thomas v. Bleakle, 136 Mass. 571, reasserting rule; White v. Duggan, 140 Mass. 20, 54 Am. Rep. 439, 2 N. E. 111, holding surety signing probate bond in blank, is liable, though principal inserts a larger sum than that agreed upon; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Olney, 63 Mich. 62, see 29 N. W. 515, holding party estopped from making defense that he signed upon condition; State v. McGonigle, 101 Mo. 362, 20 Am. St. Rep. 612, 13 S. W. 759, 8 L. R. A. 738, where Cou: ty Court accepts bond with knowledge of erasure of name of surety, other sureties will not be bound; Gay v. Murphy, 134 Mo. 107, 56 Am. St. Rep. 501, 34 S. W. 1093, where bond contained an implied promise that principal would sign before delivery, his failure to do so released sureties; Ney v. Orr, 2 Mont. 563, holding sureties not liable upon bond not signed by principal, where obligee had notice, from face of bond; Cutler v. Roberts, 7 Neb. 9, 29 Am. Rep. 373, holding surety discharged where there was anything to apprise obligee of conditions; Hagler v. State, 31 Neb. 149, 28 Am. St. Rep. 517, 47 N. W. 694, holding erasure of name of one surety releases all not consenting; Ordinary v. Thatcher, 41 N. J. L. 405, 32 Am. Rep. 226, holding guardian's bond binding, although third surety failed to execute as guardian had promised; Humphreys v. Finch, 97 N. C. 308, 2 Am. St. Rep. 295, 1 S. E. 872, holding principal estopped to deny authority of agent as against bona fide holder: Sullivan v. Williams, 43 S. C. 508, 512, 513, 21 S. E. 650, 651, 652, holding sureties estopped from showing that names of the part

ners were forged when bond was delivered (see dissenting opinion, p. 522, 21 S. E. 655); Board of Ed. v. Sweeney, 1 S. Dak. 649, 36 Am. St. Rep. 773, 48 N. W. 304, holding official bond in which name of officer appears as principal, but which is not executed by him, is prima facie invalid; McFarlane v. Howell, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 248, 43 S. W. 316, if obligee has notice of stipulation that bond is not to take effect unless another surety signs it, this will constitute a defense for surety; Bopp v. Hansford, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 347, 45 S. W. 748, holding surety bound, if judge does not understand that his signing is conditional, regardless of any agreement with the guardian; King Co. v. Ferry, 5 Wash. 546, 34 Am. St. Rep. 888, 32 Pac. 542, 19 L. R. A. 506, holding sureties liable, though name of one surety has been substituted by erasure, incapable of being detected; Campbell v. Rotering, 42 Minn. 116, 43 N. W. 796, 6 L. R. A. 280, and n., holding one executing a bond may be liable though his name does not appear in the body of it. Cited in 28 Am. Dec. 681, 25 Am. Rep. 709, 710, 54 Am. Rep. 441, 82 Am. Dec. 763, note, and 63 Am. St. Rep. 328, note.

Distinguished in United States v. O'Neill, 19 Fed. 570, holding two sureties discharged where name of third surety was altered with knowledge of obligee.

Estoppel. Whenever an act or statement cannot be contradicted without fraud or injury to others influenced thereby, there is an estoppel, p. 4.

Cited in The Ottumwa Belle, 78 Fed. 644, holding libellant estopped to claim a larger sum than that stated to purchaser of ves sel; Henderson v. Lemly, 79 N. C. 172, holding indorser estopped from showing infirmities in bond.

Miscellaneous.- Miscited in Dorian v. City of Shreveport, 28 Fed.

292.

16 Wall. 6-16, 21 L. 272, LYNDE v. THE COUNTY.

Counties. Where question submitted to voters was, whether a special tax should be levied annually, for not more than ten years, for building a courthouse, it implied a permission to borrow money, and to issue negotiable bonds, p. 12.

This principle has been applied in Gause v. Clarksville, 5 Dill. 181, F. C. 5,276, holding valid bonds to borrow money to repair wharves and streets, issued under general grant in charter; Carpenter v. Buena Vista Co., 5 Dill. 559, F. C. 2,429, holding that counties of Iowa can issue negotiable securities for borrowed money for public improvements, if previously authorized by a vote of the people; Dorian v. Shreveport, 28 Fed. 292, holding, where bond was issued by municipality for work done, an assignee in good faith may recover thereon, though corporation had never been specifically empowered to issue negotiable paper; Parker v. Bd. of

Supervisors, 106 N. Y. 410, 13 N. E. 311, holding power conferred upon supervisors to borrow money and execute obligations therefor, was not restricted to a single exercise thereof.

Distinguished in Wells v. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 631, 632, 26 L. 124, holding, as statute contemplated no delay in raising money, no implication of a power to borrow can arise; Claiborne Co. v. Brooks, 111 U. S. 409, 28 L. 473, 4 S. Ct. 493, holding power given county in Tennessee to erect a courthouse, etc., does not authorize the issue of commercial paper as security for debt so contracted; Green v. Dyersburg, 2 Flipp. 492, F. C. 5,756, holding that there is no implied power in a municipality to issue negotiable bonds in payment of an authorized debt; Deland v. Platte Co., 54 Fed. 835, holding that County Court was not authorized to issue county bonds in behalf of the taxable inhabitants in payment of subscription of railway aid bonds; Exchange Bank v. County of Lewis, 28 W. Va. 296, holding that action of county in borrowing money for the erection of its courthouse was unauthorized.

Counties. Where county officer, designated by law to decide whether preliminary requisites to issuing of bonds have been complied with, does so certify, his decision, in absence of fraud or collusion, is final, as respects bona fide bondholders, p. 13.

This principle has been applied in following citing cases: Commissioners, etc. v. January, 94 U. S. 206, 24 L. 112, holding honds, when issued, if they recite such performance of conditions, are, in hands of a bona fide holder for value, binding upon the county; as also in County of Warren v. Marcy, 97 U. S. 104, 24 L. 980, County of Macon v. Shores, 97 U. S. 279, 24 L. 890, Orleans v. Platt, 99 U. S. 683, 25 L. 406, Lyons v. Munson, 99 U. S. 686, 25 L. 451, Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 540, 27 L. 428, 2 S. Ct. 713, Sherman Co. v. Simons, 109 U. S. 738, 27 L. 1094, 3 S. Ct. 504, Carpenter v. Buena Vista Co., 5 Dill. 560, F. C. 2,429, Deming v. Houlton, 64 Me. 262, 18 Am. Rep. 258, and Fulton v. Town of Riverton, 42 Minn. 397, 44 N. W. 258, all holding the same; County of Moultrie v. Fairfield, 105 U. S. 374, 26 L. 947, holding that recovery on coupons could not be defeated on ground that in order to pay principal and interest and the county expenses, the assessment must exceed the limitation imposed by Constitution adopted after vote was taken, but before their delivery; McKee v. Vernon Co., 3 Dill. 213, F. C. 8,851, where officer substituted engraved bonds, county afterwards paying interest, plea of non est factum was not sustainable; National Life Ins. Co. v. Board of Education, 62 Fed. 792, 27 U. S. App. 244, holding board estopped by recitals from setting up defense of non-compliance with constitutional requirement; Jefferson Co. v. Truss, 85 Ala. 492, 5 So. 89, holding executive order annulling contract of hiring of convicts not subject to review by courts; Jefferson Co. v. Lewis, 20 Fla. 1007, holding recitals in record of commissioners estopped county to deny that

tration of dairymen and inspection of stock, State v. Broadbelt, 89 Md. 586, 43 Atl. 775, 45 L. R. A. 438; requiring State registratior of letters-patent by vendors of patent rights, Breckbill v. Randall. 102 Ind. 529, 52 Am. Rep. 696, 1 N. E. 363; upholding law requiring corporations to redeem their scrip and store orders in cash, Harbison v. Knoxville Iron Co., Tenn., 53 S. W. 960; statute upholding game law, and prohibiting importation of game out of season, Magner v. People, 97 Ill. 336. Elsewhere the right of a city to grant exclusive right to remove dead animals on its streets, unless removed by owner within twelve hours, has been upheld as police regulation, National Fert. Co. v. Lambert, 48 Fed. 461; as also law punishing bankers taking deposits when insolvent, Baker v. State, 54 Wis. 371, 373, 12 N. W. 14, 15. The dissenting opinion in Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 128, 34 L. 139, 10 S. Ct. 691, relies upon the syllabus holding, but the court declared a State prohibition law void as to sale of liquor in original package by importer. Cited, arguendo, United States v. Boyer, 85 Fed. 435, discussing limitations of police and commerce powers; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 346, 17 Am. Rep. 750, New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 661, 29 L. 520, 6 S. Ct. 258, Pearsall v. Great Northern Ry., 161 U. S. 666, 40 L. 845, 16 S. Ct. 710, and Capital City Gas Co. v. Des Moines, 72 Fed. 825. See the following notes: 1 Am. St. Rep. 644, 35 Am. Dec. 334, 23 Am. Rep. 213, 42 Am. Rep. 457, and 62 Am. Dec. 639.

Distinguished in Georgia Packing Co. v. Macon, 60 Fed. 777, 22 L. R. A. 777, avoiding ordinance making discriminating regulations against importers of meat. Not followed in State v. Indiana, etc., Min. Co., 120 Ind. 580, 22 N. E. 779, 6 L. R. A. 583, and n., holding State may not prohibit carrying of natural gas to another State; American Fert. Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 43 Fed. 613, holding license exacted of importer of fertilizer, not justifiable as police regulation; In re Tie Loy, 11 Sawy. 477, 26 Fed. 614, annulling ordinance prohibiting laundry within a city.

Constitutional law. Police power is exclusive in the several States, p. 63.

Cited in Western U. Tel. Co. v. Pendleton, 95 Ind. 16, 48 Am. Rep. 696, upholding law penalizing failure to send telegraph message; Phelps v. Racey, 60 N. Y. 15, 19 Am. Rep. 144, upholding State game law.

Constitutional law. Louisiana statute of 1869, granting to a corporation exclusive slaughter-house and stock-landing privileges, in New Orleans and vicinity, for twenty-five years, regulating prices to be charged therein and prohibiting maintenance of similar works by others, is a valid exercise of the police power, the monopoly thereby created is not forbidden by the thirteenth or fourteenth amendments, pp. 61-82.

In

The effect of this decision was subsequently much modified. 1879, Louisiana declared by its Constitution then adopted, that the

16 Wall. 16-32, 21 L. 268, VOORHEES v. BONESTEEL.

Equity will not grant affirmative relief upon ground of fraud, unless it be made a distinct allegation in bill, so that it may be put in issue by the pleadings, p. 29.

Cited and principle applied in Bradley v. Converse, 4 Cliff. 375. F. C. 1,775, declaring that no decree can be founded upon matters not in issue between the parties; Bartol v. Walton, 92 Fed. 14, holding that in suit to rescind subscription to stock for fraud, the facts constituting the fraud must be stated; Southall v. Farish, 85 Va. 410, 7 S. E. 537, 1 L. R. A. 644, and n., holding that no relief can be based upon bill not charging fraud, and specifying wherein it consists.

Equity cannot decree against denials in answer, on testimony of single witness, p. 30.

Cited in Hill v. C. R. Ryan Grocery Co., 78 Fed. 25, 41 U. S. App. 714, holding that two instruments were to be regarded as distinct. and that trust deed was valid.

Husband and wife. In New York, married woman may manage her separate property through the agency of her husband, without subjecting it to claims of his creditors; and application of a por tion of income to his support will not impair her title, p. 31.

Reaffirmed in Aldridge v. Muirhead, 101 U. S. 399, 25 L. 1014. Hyde v. Frey, 28 Fed. 823, Tresch v. Wirtz, 34 N. J. Eq. 130, and Trapnell v. Conklyn, 37 W. Va. 252, 38 Am. St. Rep. 40, 16 S. E. 574. Cited and principle applied in Lorillard v. Standard Oil Co.. 18 Blatchf. 201, 2 Fed. 904, holding married woman, sole owner of patent, need not join husband in suit for infringement; Johnson v. Christie, 79 Mo. App. 51, wife can make husband her agent, and the profits are not subject to his debts; Talcott v. Arnold, 54 N. J. Eq. 578, 35 Atl. 535, holding that business was the husband's and subject to his debts. Cited in 78 Am. Dec. 634, note, that creditor of husband cannot subject to his demand improvements on wife's land made by him without any participation by her in any intentional wrong.

16 Wall. 33-36, 21 L. 465, THE COMMERCE.

Collision.-Steamer held at fault for failure to keep out of way of sailing vessel, p. 35.

Cited in The Golden Grove, 13 Fed. 688, to point that it is the duty of sailing vessel to hold her course until danger is imminent Collision. When both lower courts agree as to amount of damages, from collision, their conclusions will not be set aside without satisfactory evidence that they were mistaken, p. 36.