Morrison Waite

“ In our opinion the county is estopped from setting up the alleged invalidity of the original bonds as a defence in this action. It is true the funding law only authorized the funding of 'binding and subsisting legal obligations,' 'properly authorized by law,' but no new bonds could be issued in lieu of old ones except on a vote of the people. All outstanding bonds were not to be taken up in this way, but only such as were recognized by the people, acting together in their political capacity at an election for that purpose, as binding and subsisting legal obligations. ”

“ There is no complaint of any illegality in this election, or of fraud or imposition. So far as the record shows, the proposition to fund went from the county authorities to the bondholders, and not from the bondholders to the county. The facts were as well known to one party as the other. If the people intended to rely on their defences to the old bonds, then was the time for them to speak and by their vote say they would not recognize them as binding obligations. ”

“ The county court should have brought the people together and not the board of supervisors. This, if there had been nothing more, would, under the rulings of the highest court of the State, made long before the vote was taken, render the bonds invalid. Supervisors of Schuyler Co. v. People, 25 Ill. 181. It was for this reason, undoubtedly, that the board of supervisors, at their meeting after the election, authorized the subscription to be made and the bonds delivered in payment as soon as it might lawfully be done, and that the act to legalize the election was passed in 1869. ”