Arizona republican., 1898-01-27

duty is at an end. The beard of loan commissioners is by law made a con- rinuous body. By what reasoning CT authority can a change in the per sonnel of the board occurring i-ftsr the execution of these bonds ard the delivery to tine territorial treasurer, be, held to affect the validity of these completed acts? We know of none To hold otherwise means hat a new issue of bonds must be made when ever, by death, resignation, removal, or otherwise, a change in any of the offices of governor, secretary, aud.t-r or treasurer occurs between the exc cution of any bonds and their deIv- cry to purchaser.
 Our attention has been called to the cases of Weyanwega vs. Ayiing, 99 U. s. 112; Coler vs. Clelburn, 131 U. s. 162, and Anthony vs. County of Jas per, 101 U. s. 693, in suppor, of the doctrine contended for An examina- ton of these cases will show that they are not in point. In, Weyanwega vs. Ayling, bonds bearing date June 1, and purporting to be signed by the chairman of the board of supervisors and by the town clerk were shown to have been signed by the person sign ing as clerk July 13, at which date he had ceased to be clerk. The supreme court held these bonds good upon the presumption that they had been de iT- cred with the assent of the clerk then in office.
 In Coler vs. Cleburn, bonds were signed by the mayor of the cf.y in office at their date after he had been succeeded in office by ano, her. The ho1 In the time of their signing could alone lawfully sign the same.
 In Anthony vs County of Jasper, the facts were that bonds required by law to be signed by the .1residing judge of the county court, were. in fact, signed by one who had been succeeded in that office by another at the date of signing, and ihe bonds dated h3ck to a time when he held office. If this latter case Is an au- thority at all upon the question he e presented, it is against the con.enti5n n of appellant inasmuch as the intima- ton of the court is strong that had the bonds been actually delivered by the proper officers, which was shown not tp have been the case, they wcu d have been valid, at least in the hands of innocent holders.
 No authority has been called to our attention, nor have we after dili- gent search found any. which holds that bonds signed by the proper off cers al their date clnnot be negotiated and sold by their successor in office, when there existed authority in the former to issue bonds to the time of delivery, which is the case of the bonds in question.
 Upon the third point raised, we have carefully examined ihe form of the bonds proposed to be disposed of by the treasurer, and find that 1t conforms in all partinculars with that prescribed by the various aets of con- gress relating thereto.
 We therefore hold that under exis.- ing law the loan commissioners and the territorial treasurer have poweY and authority to sell and dispose of bonds to fund outstar ding obligations of the territory which accrued prior to January I, 1897, and that npt new issue of bonds is needed for that purpose, those now in the bands of the territorial treasurer and signed by the former territorial officers being in all respects as to form ap execution as provided by law.
 The judgment of thei court below sustaining the demurrer to the com plaint and dismissins the action is affirmed.