Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1877-04-05
doctrine. ofeaditab9e estbp,,el il a.

Ifdoctriiie; OF ed dditab9e estbppels is a.
tbniplete' ban. .aHdffis strictly applied
to the. lchforeelIiept Of : tffese hid 3q4Iiiii..s
iniciippsll, o9i:gafff9apss. 9i:ga rs l. ~ Eaaiek oa1
f:Ncga }5ast,::, 4 79s ,Stgfe,. ps, !, 'taaaS
hora, Z ,OAso, Sea- 331.. Bay14H1
rs, County Cosrt, 4f No. .20l, s,@, %T h
I While thesdecisions arevcry mi
formthas hereford of the Justices
Court, affirming tIied fact of com. !
kplIance with--tiae conditions pre-
cedentto the Subscription of stock
is conclusive and esttrs the to,frty
from denying the validity of the
bonds in the hands Of a Iona 1st1e
holder, before maturity, they are
equally Uniform in giving the same
effIct to the recttdlS in the bonds
themselves, that. they had been
issued III pursuance of the law
which authorized their issue. The
recital is. a determination of the
4question. and the holder has the
i|iright TO rely on it. 7oaon Goloma
Us. Eodns SO u. S. rep. 484.
Lyuch as VinneJago 16, Val 49,
Knne County az. Aspiaeoult, 2l
! Uo,o $50. In delivering the opinion
of the Court, in Coloma vs. Evans
Mr Justice Strong says: 'In the
leading case ct Knox County as,
Aspinwall, the decision was rested
upon the two grounds, Ore Of
4 them was, that the mere issue of
! the bonds containing recital that
they were issued in pursuance of
4 the legislative Act, was sufficient
basis for tho assumption by the
purchaser that the conditions on
! which the county was authorized to
i issue them. haG been complied
d with, and it was said the purchaser
i was not bound to look further for
evidence of such compliance,
j. ihongh the recital did not atfirm it,
4 This position was supported by
2 reference TO :he Royal British
7 Bark Us.. Turquand, 6 Ellis and
, Blackburn 327, "a case in the Ex,
chcqner Chamber, which fully sus
tains it, ami the decision in which
, was concurfed in by all the Judges.
This position has been more than
, once re-atfirmed in this Court. 1t
. was in Moran rs. Miami County 3
Black, 732 in Mercer County as.
Hacket, ! Wall. SO; in Supervisors
, as. Schenck. 5 Wall, 794; and III
Meyer as. Muscatinc, Wall, 3S4
1t has never been oyerruled, and
whatever doubts may have been
, suggested respecting its correctness
: to TIE full extent, to which it has
been sometimes announced, there
! Should be no doubt of tile entire
, CORRECTNESS te the full extent, tt
|, which it has heen sometimes an
! nounced, there should be no doub
!. OF the entire correctness of the otllel
Z rnle asserted in Knox vs.. Aspin
2 wall. That has been SO firmly
n seated in reason and authority, tina
). it cannot be shaken" To the sam,
= effect is the recent case of HuDabold
j 76aohship gs. Long, 90 q. s. Rep
: 642. Sec also Il valuable sninuar,
@ of the doctrine as established 10y TIN
e decisions of the Supreme Court q
. the Uuited States, by Judge Dillcn
r. Liar et; AunieipI Bonds See
:. III; tire result of which is that til
s recitals in the bonds to that effect
n are conclusive of compliance wit
: the conditions precedent ard con
d stitute an estoppel IN pas, upo
O the municipalities.
Fl Up 10 this point the discussio
q has been upon the idea that tn
a bonds were, in fact, irrcgularl
o issued and were good only, in I'll
e hands OF a bona .ttie pnreeaser be
le fore maturity and without notice.
,t, 1t may we'll he doubted whethe
VI this is not 'concedins too MUCH
If Suppose the plaintiff had been til
e original purchaser from the county
o after the bonds. matnred and There
q ttore fixed with notice, and eupPos
:, further, that. the county in defenc
5. couli go behind tho action OF tn
e Justices andthe recitals in.the bonds
Wit by no mears follows that thei
j. invalidity could then be established
For the county was clothed wit
It the power 10 issne them, and 1t
e admitted that a majority vote sane
It toned the subscription OF stock an,
d Ethe issue ofFthe bonds. The rea
! condition prcct Gci,t,l was the cor
i sent Of the tax payers, and that la
{ been thus regularly obtained. Th
IL PROVISIONS OF the Act as to th
Il. mode of sub b.Mtting the question
e were subordinate and conducive t
o the main purpose, AND may there
e fore be properly considered as di
II rectory only and not of the essence
Is When the subscription was voted
cf1 there is authority aud reason TO
81 ASSERTING, that the = justice
dd ou,l q .haye, b g en- o n:
dtPelIed by process of law, TO lnaE