The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-06-03
JAMES PRIEsFLEY, Treasurer of Mad }
ison County,
Mrs. E. MATKINs.

Mrs E. WATKINS.
From the Circuit Court of Copiah coun-
ty. T. J. Wharton, Judge.
County bonds. JaconstitatioaaIity Of
" Al Act 10 Droride for the protection Of the
Taxpayers q Madison county, etc, ep-
prored March 10, 1884.
ARNOLD, j.;
Appellee applied for mandamus to
compel appellant to pay the interest
coupons on certain bonds of Madison
county. The bonds are payable to bear
er. They were issued by the county IN
| 1873 and are payable in 1892, and bear
! interest, payable mi-annuaily. An act
| of the legislature of 1884. and an order
of the board of supervisors of the coun-
| ty, made pursuant thereto, required all
persons holding bonds against the eoun-
" to make affidavit of their title TO the
same, and 10 set forth in the affidavit,
among other things, the names of the
different persons through whom theiI
title was derived, and To present the
bonds, with the affidavit, to the clerk OF
, the board of supervisors of the county
within a specified time when the bonds
{ were to be registered by the clerk. IL
the case at bar, these REQ Girements were
, not complied with until after the time
/ allowed had expired; and 1t Is therefor
, claimed by appellant that the bonds anC
coupons are barred. 1t is admitted tina
notice Of the order of the board of super
visors was published in newspaper o
| the county as required by the statute
and that the petitioner had no actua
notice of the order, and that a copy o
| the order WAS rot mailed TO her.
a If the statute relied on by appellan
were mere registry law or statute o
, limitations, as usually understood an
applied, requiring bonds against tn
county to be registered within tn
period designated, its validity coul
V easily be maintained. Tarpley a. Hame
e 9 ). & NJ, $40; Watson q. Doherty, .
e Miss, 62S; Louisiana q. NeiC Orleans, IL
Ie L. ;. 203. In HatSoR z. D0heTty Supra
.e it did not appear that there was an
t, claim against the county not due at II
y time the statute was enacted, or tn;
d the application of the statute to an
claim against the county would viola
u the terms of the contract in any wa
)" and no extraordinary requirements we
made conditions precedent to the regl
IL tration of claims against the count
e, But the holders of the bonds involved
lie the present case cannot sue on the
ar until 1892, and no statute of Limitation
1t can be applied to them until then; al
ne proceeding which extinguishes Il
ne bonds by statute of limitations, beio
of their maturity, plainly varies the teri
re of the original contract. \ bond pa
a. able to bearer is an express contract
il the obligor to pay the amount specih
lit to whoever may become the bona Il
ar holder thereof; and to require the hold
at of such bond which passes by deliver
es more than ten years after Its issuan'
IS to exhibit and make oath to the nam
y. OF the different persons through who
ng his title is traced, and to forfeit pa
he ment of the bond, in case he fails to
at so, imposes conditions and burdens
&c the contract which are obnoxious to t
p. provisions of the State and Fedel
i'd constitutions against laws impairing t
be obligation of contracts. The statute
ed voked by appellant is unconstitutior
as and void. affirmed.
by J. L. Harris, for appellant.
be J. B. Harris, for appellee.