Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-01-04

damsels of your chOice-Advt.
complete before delivery and therefore
the Treasurer who signs the bonds is
the only one who can deliver them
is not teEable. 1t is true a bond is
not binding or complete until delivery
but the question Is not when the bond
becomes the obligation Of the Terri
tory but whether the mechanical and
ministerial acts in connection with the
issue Of the bonds have been perform
ed. Clearly, Messrs Dillon. Thompson
and Clay cannot mean that complete
bond must be signed by the Treasurer
or. that his signature completes the
bond as the signing is always prior to
delivery whether the delivery he by
the signer or his successor The only
question is whether yOu succeed to all
the powers, rights and obligations OF
your predecessor, and whether his Of
fetal acts land there can be no ques-
tion but that when he acted Mr. Conk,
ling was acting officially enure to
yOu. now the official treasurer.
As stated by Messrs Dillon, Thomp-
son and Clay. there is no authoritative
decision upon the question of whether
bonds signed by person who was in
office at the time he signed but who
ceased to be such officer prior to the
delivery Of the bonds to the Treasur
er, are valid. The case of Weyauyega
VS.. Ayling, 80. S. -112, is somewhat in
point. In that case, bonds, bearing
date July LIST, purported to be signed
by the Chairman of the Board of Sup
ervisorS and the Town Clerk, but the
person signing as Town Clerk did not
sign until July Is, at which time he
had ceased to be Town Clerk. The
Court held the bonds good on the pre-
sumption that they had been deliver
ed with the consent of the Clerk then
in Office That's a more extreme
case than delivery of the present
bonds by you will be- If Mr. Cofik-
ling, falsely dating the bonds, had
signed them after he went out Of Of
fee, and you had sold and delivered
1t is true the decision NAV eyauyega
VS.. Ayling is on the ground of an
estoppel against bona fide purchaser
for value and also on the ground that
the Clerk in Office adopted the sig
nature of the former Clerk by assist
ing in or consenting to the delivery of
the bonds by the supervisors. The
facts in the case of Mantle Savings
Bank VS.. Town of Douglas, Sill. App
$40 were similar facts in the present
case and the bonds were held good
but in that case also, a bona fide pur-
chaser was involved. There are many
cases holding that bonds must be
signed by an officer who was in Office
when they were signed. An example
is Coler vs.. City OF Cleburne 131 U. S.
173, which holds, that bonds signed
by a person who was not, in Office at
the time he signed but who had been
1 in Office at the date appearing upon
the face of the bonds are invalid. Such
decisions are clearly correct, as per
son who has ceased to hold Office can
not act for the Government by falsely
dating the instrument signed by him,
/ but such is not the present case, for,
as shown above, when Mr.. Conkling
signed the bonds he was then trea-
surer It is to be noticed also in the
:; case of Coler VS.. Cleburne,-"that the
person who was mayor of the city at
the time the bonds were signed took
no part in signing, delivering, or issu-
ing them, that they were not complete
in form when they were issued be-
cause they were not signed by the
then mayor and it was only by false
date that they were. then apparently
complete in form. hence the present
case is not like Weyauyega VS.. Ayl-
ing" Implying that if the real ma
yor had delivered the bonds, the case
would be like Weyauyega VS.. Ayling.
and the bonds good. Judge Dillon. in
his excellent work upon Municipal Cor
porations states that when the stat
utes specify officers by whom the
bonds shall be signed, they must be
executed by the persons who hold the
prescribed Office at the time when the
bonds were actually signed and prob
ably also at the time of the actual
delivery" but there are no decisions
to support the latter part of his state
ment and l am of the opinion that
what authority there is would indicate
otherwise.
Though there may be no legal OBJ
lection to your selling these bonds,
there is a practical side to this ques-
ton that should not be overlooked.
The opinion of Messrs Dillon, Thomp-
son and Clay upon Municipal and Gov
ernmental Bonds is probably more
widely sought and acted upon than
that of any other single firm in the
United States and even though the OPP
inion may be based upon an excess
of caution, yet it cannot be ignored
when you seek to sell bonds in New
York or other markets.
Therefore. their suggestion that the
Legislature of Hawaii. at it's next SEES,
sion. should pass statute declaring
that when any bonds of the Territory
had been signed by persous<in Office
at the date of signing, such bonds
shall be valid, though such officers
cease to hold Office before the date
of sale, should be called to the atten-