This action is instituted by George W. Howard upon coupons, detached from bonds of Crawford county, of which he is the holder. In the aggregate, they amount to $2,163. The multiplicity of matters presented, and the seeming confusion in which you must have received them, requires that the court should undergo some labor in making them intelligible to the jury.
The legislature of Pennsylvania, by an act passed the 21st of April, 1846, authorized
In 1852 a supplement was passed to this act, doubtless originating with . the sound substantial freeholders of Crawford county, with the hope of passing the immense trafile from east to west, and vice versa, through their territory, instead of Erie. Whether or not, or for the purposes of speculation, it is the law of the land, and it is the function of this court to give it a proper interpretation.
The plaintiff has presented a clear case, unless it is rebutted by something offered by the defendant. He has shown you the bond and coupons — that he is a meritorious creditor; that he has labored for the corporation from whom he received those bonds; and that labor, if it did not inure, was intended to inure to the benefit of Crawford county. The citizens of the county saw him commence the work with eclat; saw him pursue it until he had expended upwards of $60,000, and would have canonized him, if the result had made Meadville a center of trade, or other than a mere inland town. Relying on the public faith and credit of the county, he took these bonds; and this was one resource from which he expected to reimburse himself and pay his hands. The whole project failing, and particularly this lateral branch, that .was to consummate so much, the commissioners of Crawford county now seek to repudiate — not the principal of the bonds, for which they admit they are liable, but the interest, upon the pretext that there was some irregularity in the issue of the bonds, and that there was fraud, to which the plaintiff was a party. The first is for the court, the latter is for you.
Whenever there is any evidence of fraud, however slight, it is the duty of the court to submit it to you. We are compelled to say, after a careful review of all the testimony qffered, that there is nothing to implicate the plaintiff in any act of fraud or misrepresentation; and that he might properly repel the accusation by charging an attempt to commit it, upon his adversaries. This, then, dis-' poses of the only question of fact upon which .you will have to pass; and upon the court must rest the responsibility of deciding upon the legálity of the subscription, and the liability of the defendant.
We accordingly charge you:
1. That although we cannot agree with the supreme court of Pennsylvania, that the act of the grand jury was invalid, by reason of the repeal of the Gauge law; yet, that their recommendation of the 11th day of August, 1853, was a literal and substantial compliance with the act of assembly of the 4th day of May, 1852. Their authority “to advise and recommend,” was not exhausted in the first instance.
2. The submission to a vote of the people, however much it may have been designed to relieve the grand jury from responsibility was unauthorized, and whichever way it may have resulted could not alter the effect of their advice and recommendation to subscribe, submitted to the court of Crawford county.
3. The condition incorporated with the subscription, was wholly unauthorized by the act of the 4th of May, 1852. It may be operative in an action between the county and the corporation; 'but as to the plaintiff, whether he had notice of it or not, it is not binding upon him, and is a fraud upon him and all others, who have in good faith received the bonds of the county. The very asterisks, or dots, which have been made the subject of so much comment, indicated that the commissioners, themselves, intended to omit a condition, which without impairing their liability if inserted, would have rendered their bonds unsaleable in the market. If it were otherwise, they cannot now come here, and stultify themselves, avoid their deliberate and solemn act, by charging the plaintiff with notice. The omission was a release of the condition. Neither can they allege that the bonds are not valid because a portion of them were signed only by two actually in office, instead of all the commissioners. The duty enjoined by the act is to be performed by the commissioners, as the “constituted” authority of the county, and the signatures of two with the corporate seal, is sufficient without the assent or signature of the third.
5. The several points submitted by the eounsel for plaintiff and defendant are here substantially answered, and they are specially so in a memorandum attached to each.
Upon the whole facts and law of the ease, if you believe the testimony, we have no ues-itation in charging you that the plaintiff is entitled to your verdict; and we hope that for the honor and reputation of Crawford county, this is the last case of the kind we shall hear of in this court.
The jury then found for the plaintiff $2,-163.67, being the whole amount claimed; $1,848 was the principal, and $310.67 was the amount of interest.