Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1897-02-18

superior to the law itself. The yen.
eral statement that the bonds have
been issued in conformity with the
law will suffice so as to embrace every
fact which the officers making the
statement are authorized to determine
and certify. But there must be au.
thority vested in the officers by law
as to each necessary fact, whether
enumerated or non-enumerated in the
recital, to ascertain and determine it,
existence, and to guarantee to those
dealing with them the truth and con.
clusiveness Of their admissions. In
other words, where the validity Of the
bonds depends upon an estopple
claimed to arise upon the recitals of
the instrument, the question being as
to the existence of power to issue
them, it is necessary to establish that
the officers executing the bonds had
lawful authority to make the recitals
and to make them conclusive. The
very ground of an estopped is that
the rectals are the official statements
OF those to whom the law refers the
public for authentic and final inform.
alton on the subject.
The statute which provides that
ordinances shall not take effect until
they are published, is public statute
Of which all persons are bound to take
notice. The plaintiff in this case was
bound to know, independently Of the
recital in the bonds, that there was
an ordinance in existence providing
Tor the Issuance Of said bonds; this
being once established, he might well
assume that the recstal was sufficient
evidence that the conditions prescrib-
ed by the ordinance for the issuance
Of the bonds had been complied with.
1t was as much the right and duty of
the plaintiff to determine for himself
such ordinance had been
passed as 1t was OF the clerk and
mayor, and the determination Of
either in any form would not bind or
the city. II the recitals In
The bond had stated in terms that the
ordinance had been duly published, it
would not have esstopped the city,
because neither the mayor nor the
clerk, nor both together, are vested
With authority to determine that
question, and anything they might
'ay or certify to on the subject, save
Is witnesses in court, would not be
evidence anywhere or bind anyone.
In Dickinson county VS.. Field, III
j. s., SO, the court says;
"lf the officers authorized to issue
he bonds upon a condition are not
he appointed tribunal to recite the
act which constitutes the condition,
heir recital will not be accepted as
for proof. In other words,
where the validity Of bonds depends
lpon an estoppel claimed arising up
N the recital Of the instrument, the
question being as to the existence of
he power to issue them, II is neces-
airy to establish that the officers exc
uting the bonds had lawful author
by to make the recitals and to make
hem conclusive" The law does not
efer the public to the mayor and city
Jerk, or to either Of them, for in
as to the existence of city
rdinance, and their statements upon
hat subject have no more significance
r binding force than those Of any
lher citizen of the city.
See Faulhenstein township vs..
itch 2 Kansas afr 1874.
The existence Of the ordinance,
lerefore, being matter of public
cord, the plaintiff is cbargable with
otice Of all that the C ty records con
lin in relation to the passing and ex
tence Of its ordinances. The bonds
e, therefore, illegal, and create no
gal liability against the city.
This view being taken of the ques-
on renders it unnecessary to con-
der any other questions raised by
eadings, evidence and arguments IN
is case.
Judgment will be for the defendant.
Mr.. Lowe VIII Not Go.
CITY, Mo-, Feb. l5.-One
the first moves in the house Satur-