*1 Town South Perkins. v. Ottawa Ct. (Sup. to enable a court to obtain further information respect some matter it for It is for the before already adjudication. last in this court. the writ purpose employed only asked,

In the case the writ is not to here present bring any of the record it existed when Court part Claims taken, but to obtain a new record of a new appeal proceed- since, which has been had which the ing by judgment from has been vacated and a new trial in the appealed granted us, below. The is to inform not of was done what object court before the has been done since. but what Our action appeal, before; under however, is confined to what was done appeal, and, if since, we act at all what has been done it must be of some new to be Prom consequence jurisdiction acquired. said, what that, has it is clear for such a already purpose, we have no to issue the writ. power Claims, trial, Court of a new has resumed by granting control of the cause and the This it had the parties. right do. Such anomalous, a be somewhat but it is power may when he submits himself expressly given; person, every the jurisdiction claim, of that court for the of his prosecution himself to its subjects operation. proceedings the new trial was a below, are now of the record obtained part and, after rendered, be judgment here finally brought for review. by appeal

Motion the United States to dismiss the granted. appeal

Motion certiorari denied.

Town of South Perkins. Supervisors County v. Post. of Kendall Illinois, Supreme by long decisions, 1. The Court of that, course of has held under the Constitution of of that statute State is not valid unless legislative journals passed by majority show that it was of all.the mem- general assembly. bers elect in each house of the Except concerned, 2. where Kederal Constitution and laws are the courts of States, passing upon the United State, the Constitution and statutes of a to the settled highest court; conform them State Oct. 1876.] of South Ottawa l»gislature to be void and pretended act of and, holds a latter when the accordingly. law, are bound to hold the United States courts of laws, prescribe what be conclu- shall may, Any its Constitution 3. but, statutes; general principles, its sive evidence one, and, though judicial a statute is a or non-existence of to the existence fact, must, when it arises the courts of the an issue in in form as framed them, legally applicable States, under the decided on evidence United *2 State, subject. taking jury on the advice without of laws of cannot, authority, legislative issue bonds in municipal corporation without A4. must, dealing Every person in them at his object. anof extraneous aid claimed, which, it is and of the law peril, notice of the existence terms take them, circumstances he power matter under what to issue conferred them. obtain error, Illinois, municipal corporations having in issued the plaintiffs in 5. The suit, pretended general assembly, approved by act of the in virtue of bonds 1857, 18, duly published among printed was of statutes that Eeb. therefore, law, and, valid, estopped prima were not from facie notwithstanding passage, a bona denying its holder of the bonds was fide purchaser without actual notice. decided, cases, Supreme in two that act Court of Illinois has that The 6. apt legislature This court and is not an of the State. never view, subsequent legislation given in that and that no has also holds concurs act, issued, any validity proceed- any or the bonds or new force to the had, ings under it. acts, records, Congress, prescribing public the mode in which the act of 7. authenticated, judicial proceedings in each State shall be as to and so take State, every bearing in other has no this case. effect Court of United for Circuit States Error of Illinois. District Northern áre stated in the of the court. facts opinion and Mr. P. Mr. T. for the Lyle Dichey

Argued by Phillips error, Perkins,, in Mr. S. for Gr. and LUdridge by plaintiffs by H. for T. and Mr. Grreene Post. Mr. Littler D. of the delivered court. opinion Beadlex

Me. Justice Perkins, these actions was The first of brought by plain- below, to recover the amount due two bonds tiff negotiable Ottawa, form, $1,000 each, the usual of the town South for Ottawa, and Fox River made Oswego, Yalley payable bearer, 1, 1869, in three from Railroad Company, years July the semi-annual with for interest attached. payment coupons — each recitals as follows: contained They bonds, of a series of date This bond is one even twenty bearing herewith, $1,000, each . and for sum of . . is issued pursu. Ct. Town of South Perkins. town,

anco of an election held in said on the October, eighth day 1866, under and virtue of a certain by act of the ‘ Illinois, State of Feb. approved entitled An Act author- cities, certain izing counties, and towns incorporated townships subscribe to the railroads,’ stock of certain at ... which election ‘ majority voters legal the same voted for participating ’ to the subscription stock of said capital railroad the sum of 820,000-, therefor; and to issue the bonds of said town and the said ‘ election authorities proper declared carried duly been made subscription,’ previous application to the town- having clerk town, and said clerk called said election in accord- having therewith, ance notice of the having given.due place time same, holding the act aforesaid.” required by The second action Avas on a bond issued brought Kendall, Illinois, county date the bearing day fourth railroad, in aid of the same May, virtue of the same act of the legislature, containing substantially recitals, same mutandis, bonds, mutatis as those in the Ottawa the election the issue of the bonds is except authorizing stated March, to have been held on the thirtieth 1869. day *3 The facts in are, the two cases in other respects, substantially the same.-

The claimed for these bonds is only authority issuing. the. act referred to in the above recital therein. If no such act was ever Illinois, passed the bonds are by legislature void. A cannot issue bonds in municipal corporation aid extrane ous objects of which all legislative authority, persons without. with such bonds must take dealing notice at their peril. Pen dleton 297; v. 13 Wall. County Kenicott v. The Amy, Supervis ors, 452; 16 id. St. 644; v. 16 id. Rogers, Joseph Township Eaves, Town Coloma v. 92 S. 484. U.

It is insisted oh the of the in error in these part plaintiffs cases that the law relied on to issue bonds for authority was never of its entry passage appearing of the Illinois. Senate of journal Illinois, The Constitution of contains the adopted — following provisions: “ Sect. 1. The State shall legislative authority Art. in a vested general shall consist of a senate and assembly, which house of both to be elected representatives, people.” Oct. 1876.] South

“ of its Each a house shall keep journal proceedings, Sect. 3. and them. ...” publish “ bills, of all vote shall . . final Sect. 21. . On the passage and no' noes, be entered on the and and shall ayes journal; be by a of all a concurrence of shall become majority bill law without members elect each house.” shall be that all bills The also passed Constitution provides houses, and of the two approved speakers signed refusal, or, of his shall be re- in case signed by governor, each house. The laws elected to a general by majority passed all acts legislature, depositing provide houses, of the two in the office journals original State, with them who having printed; charged Secretary of the acts statute-books are made evidence printed contained therein. aboye of the- constitutional provisions

recited, Illinois, course of Court of the Supreme long n decisions, it is has held that validity necessary that' should journals statute that it legislative appear by the Constitu- in the manner required by it was passed duly tion. decided, 1853, was Jacoby, As Spangler early from the Ill. that it was show journals competent act was

of either branch of the particular Constitution, in the not mode prescribed by its requires thus defeat Constitution altogether. operation facts, and declares that certain house to keep each journal, law, be stated therein. made of a shall essential passage forth, is that those are set the conclusion did facts not If made the immediate up transpire. journal house, to contain a full and is direction of presumed received If a certain act of its proceedings. Complete history *4 so on the of the it will the assent constitutional body, appear arises to whether when a contest as of its And face journal. settle it. be to to act the the journal may appealed house,, the act the the the action of evidence of by the was not the intention stand or fall. 'It certainly must the the speakers Constitution signatures framers furnish pas- executive should conclusive evidence and the Ct. Town of South Ottawa indeed, is, of a law. The that an act thus sage presumption, law, verified became the pursuant requirements Constitution; but be overthrown. If presumption may the is lost or the journal will sustain the destroyed, presumption law, for it bewill intended that the was made on proper entry existence, But when the is in and it fails journal. journal to show that the act was in the mode passed prescribed by Constitution, overcome, and the act must presumption fall.” followed, 1855,

This case was v. Lo Turley by County of There, id. 151. a law was gan, have been supposed at the session of the for the removal of the legislature seat of a vote of the justice Logan County, by people. after, taken, fall vote was which resulted in favor of the removal. and his associates then filed their Turley bill to re strain the officers from county at the erecting county buildings location, new on the that, ground appeared by journal, the act had not been read in the House of Representatives full Constitution, number times required so by no law. The fact was, in the alleged, injunction instance, allowed, afterwards, first February, session, and, same met extra recollection of members, and clerk, notes of the manuscript House amended its so that it Representatives showed the journal bill had been read the requisite number times. Thereupon Court, when the there, case Supreme came while recogniz ing fully authority affirmed a decree Spangler Jacoby, bill, injunction dissolving for the reason dismissing that it was within of the same at power legislature, session, same or a to correct its own subsequent journals, amendments show the true facts as they actually occurred.” same was also considered the same court

in Prescott v. The Canal, Trustees the Illinois Michigan & There, 19 id. decided in Prescott and 1857. Arnold were value, entitled at the purchase, certain lots in Chi appraised twice; which had and the cago, appraised point was, decided whether should to the first or pay according second The second was made under appraisal. appraisal *5 op 265 v. Perkins. Oct. 1876.] South Ottawa Town 1851, 14, but which to been Feb. have passed law supposed of in fact either branch showed had never the journals held, court the the upon the general assembly. Accordingly, v. that the second was of appraisal Jacoby, Spangler authority invalid, under had the to and that the right purchase parties ' the first. v. The Peo-

In of The County the case Schuyler Supervisors of 1860, court in it was came before the 25 id. ple, the the did nob show that bill incor- that Senate journal objected three in that was read times the railroad body company porating court, but still on its final the while before it was put passage; held did Constitution Jacoby, that.rthe approving Spangler read to be fact the bill had been three times that require and, that the of on the entered journals, consequently, validity on that law could not be impeached ground. Starne, of 1864, in case ex Barnes v. In rel. People made for a 121, an was mandamus to 35 id. application compel of the State the treasurer countersign, register, pay Barnes, relator, of him in favor issued warrant upon warrant was issued of accounts. upon auditor public Illinois, be a statute of what was supposed authority 14, 1863, as compensation Feb. transporting approved State; certain wounded soldiers home belonging bringing that of the House it shown journal Repre entries effect that the did not contain bill was sentatives elect, of the members or that the vote a majority passed by and noes the final the manda taken ayes upon passage, of the court authorities was refused. mus opinion reviewed, in the cases rulings are previous extensively reaffirmed. the issue were all decided before of the bonds

These cases time two this case. But since that cases sued on in now in which the question, arisen under very has decided that was never Court Illinois Supreme act State. The first not an id. 68 was decided these in 1873. cases v. Lynch, Ryan the town Ottawa enjoin Certain sought tax-payers tax which had levied tax-collector from collecting Ottawa, in aid of the bonds issued Oswego, interest pay South Ottawa Cfc and Fox River Railroad Company, ground act issued, which the bonds were that of Feb. same which is now under (the had not been consideration), enacted in with the of the Constitu- conformity requirements tion. At the in the court below it that the hearing proved *6 of the did Senate not show that the bill journal had ever passed that this court, the the author- body. proof, Upon recognizing of it, v. and other cases which ity Jacoby followed Spangler Court, the asked for. on granted injunction the Supreme it was insisted the reversed, that to appeal, decree ought because the bondholders had not made been parties. overruled, was and the of objection action the court below affirmed. of Goodwin, case Miller &

Following Paddock v. News, 294, not Chicago in the Legal yet reported regular series of the of case, the State. shown in this reports being as in v. did Ryan Lynch, that not contain the journals of evidence requisite law, it was passage again invalid. This was 1875. An effort adjudged January, was made in this last case to of transcript impeach legisla tive it was unsuccessful. The journals; court repeated what it had said the case this lan Lynch, Ryan using law, : The bill never became a and the act guage pretended conferred no It follows that bonds were not power. merely voidable, void, but that were for want absolutely power them; or to issue authority consequently subsequent act of their so far could recognition validity give vitality as to from their them estop tax-payers denying legality.” This is true, delivered was after trial of the case opinion, now before us. But it that, to show moment goes up very trial, of that had been no there vacillation the State court toas effect the Constitution of Illinois.

When the cases now under consideration came for trial 1874, the defendants below offered to May, prove, by of each house of the that there was no legislature, journals in the same of the the Senate of act of entry passage by to, 1857. The and ruled out. Feb. testimony objected raised the same were demurrer to questions Substantially been, decision of this seems ground plea. a v. Perkins. Oct. 1876.] of South Ottawa them a bona bonds was purchaser the holder fide that the first to their validity; without notice objection any and, therefore, at maturity; interest was paid instalment of evidence from offering any the defendant was estopped been the same having duly not that the act was show passed, there- law, and a statutes as the printed published among words, that although law: in other a valid fore prima facie town, the cir- act not have duly might its case, from passage. denying cumstances estopped be no There can to this view. estoppel cannot assent We law. That existence of ascertaining way law, law, or it is not be a law of a State purports be, and not of the fact according as the truth according be an intol- It would circumstances parties. the shifting act to be an if a document state of purporting erable things a law in one case and for one thus be could case and for another in another not a law party; party, to-morrow;'a in one a law place, law to-day, it be a in the saíne State. And whether in another not a law *7 to be settled and law, law, 'or not a judicial question, The doctrine of the courts estoppel determined judges. by be a un- in the case. would inadmissible very is totally courts of have deter- after the Illinois state things; seemly such, statute of that is not State mined that a having pretended for the courts of the United beeii never constitutionally passed, them, to States; the same evidence before hold otherwise. with as a fundamental Act It is declared Judiciary principle by States, the several where the the laws Consti- except tution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise as rules of decision in shall be regarded require provide, in the courts of the common law United States trials at 84. And this court has Sect. where always cases they apply.” are to receive their of the States authoritative that the laws held courts, where the Federal from the State except concerned; and the laws are State Constitu- Constitution manner, as are to be construed the State courts tions, in like has been so often laid down as the This them. proper construe correct, that it is rule, in itself so and is obviously unnecessary to refer to authorities. Cb of South

If, therefore, the law had never been in question passed upon courts, the courts of United would States by nevertheless be bound to the to Constitution Illinois the give it, same courts construction which the State and to give hold a act of the and not a law pretended legislature void Otherwise, State courts hold to be so. would we the. tribunals, should have the of two different strange spectacle State, co-ordinate the same as having jurisdiction differing State, of that existence a statute without validity however, to arbitrate between them. any power speaking, co-ordinate, of their it is meant that jurisdiction only one has no its decisions the other. enforce As a power upon matter the decision the State courts propriety right, on the as to what are the laws of the State is question binding those of the United States. But the law under consideration has been passed tb'; Illinois, and held Court tobe invalid. This Supreme to have sufficient t5 have the action of ought governed the court below. In our it was not judgment necessary raised an issue demurrer to the on the subject, except by is bound to know the law declaration. The court without on the once it the advice of a When subject. taking jury construction of the of Illinois became the settled Constitution law, unless, act can be deemed a valid that no journals to have been legislature, appears regularly houses, to take it became the the courts both judicial duty entries in that The courts of notice of regard. journal trouble, decline take unless parties Illinois bring attention; but, the matter their general principles, one, is a the existence of must judicial the courts of the States. be so United regarded by discussed in Gardner v. The Collector. This fully subject authorities, in that the court case lays After examining *8 “ conclusion, arises that whenever a question down general statute, or the time existence of a in a court of law of the statute, effect, or terms of a a statute precise when took decide it called have right who are judges its nature is of information which in capa resort to source any mind a ble of clear satisfactory judicial conveying - Oct. Town of South 1876.]

answer to such for that which first question; always seeking its nature is most unless the law has appropriate, positive enacted a different rule.” 6 Wall. 511. course,

Of Státe its Constitution any particular may, by laws, what shall be conclusive evidence of tbe exist- prescribe j or ence of a but, non-existence statute tbe of sucb question existence or non-existence nature, one in its judicial - tbe mode of tbat evidence must rest in ascertaining using tbe sound discretion of tbe court on tbe wbicb duty any case is particular imposed.

Not courts, tbe individuals, are bound to only know the law, and cannot be received to of it. Tbe plead ignorance bolder of tbe bonds in can claim no question indulgence score, tbat and can take no from tbe tbat advantage allegation is a be bona would, without He purchaser notice. fide true, be from so on precluded another doing ground; namely, tbe want of in fact in any tbe town to legislative authority issue tbe bonds in Want of sucb question. is a fatal authority to their objection no matter under what circumstances validity, tbe bolder have obtained them. may

Thus far we have adverted to tbe argument attempted be drawn tbe faqt defendants in error from tbe that tbe act was referred to in two acts of tbe subsequent as an law. One of these existing on the March, twenty-seventh day entitled “An Act act, amend an entitled ‘An Act to Ottawa, ” tbe incorporate and Fox Oswego, River Railroad Yalley This Company.’ act authorized tbe to build a railroad from company tbe town Peoria; -Wenona to the and, tbe second city section, it was enacted town, or thatjany city,' near to county, township wbicb said road is through now or hereafter be located authorized to subscribe to tbe hereby stock of said capital railroad, tbe terms and conditions in an act prescribed ‘ entitled cities, An toAct authorize counties, certain towns, to subscribe to townships tbe stock of railroads,’ certain force Feb. 1857.” Tbe title here recited is not tbe title of tbe act in It differs question. from it in several respects, though this tbe one tbat was intended to referred to.' probably it to been tbe one Supposing to, referred it is not pretended *9 270 [Sup. Ct. South Ottawa v. Perkins. 27, that this act 1869, of March embraces the of town South Ottawa, Kendall, or the of bonds whose are the county subject suits. But it is that the reference to the present urged of act is it -1857 such a of that act as to recognition give validity, if it none before. not the had This was of purpose certainly 1869, the act of nor do its effect. we think that such The 1869, thus, could riot in a void to act legislature give validity 1857, as an act not which was passed constitutionally passed in that be for that would an evasion of the Constitution. year; It could at-most it as a act from the date of new give vitality do: it act of But this it does-not only 1869. profess'to its of the act then adopts provisions purposes passed. if all And could have validated proceed- legislature 1857, had it did do so. act of ings supposed did not is indicated in it. to do it. No such profess purpose is, that, The most can to the act of that be said referring 1857, that it been had legislature supposed inadvertently was the result such inadvertence Whether passed. regularly otherwise, is of of a or false interested parties, suggestion and establish the act intent to no No validate consequence. terms the act 1857, law, from the as a can be gathered 27,1869. to a reference a subsequent To such March give or on, act, here the effect of reviving as is relied validating statute, such intention is when no a void or repealed vitalizing foundation and would would be dangerous, lay expressed, be en- in this way for evil The might practices. or re-enactment laws when into the enactment trapped it was so. intention, or even doing had suspicion, on the twentieth day on was other act relied “ an act entitled Act to amend An entitled April, towns, cities, counties, and town- certain Act ‘An authorizing railroads,’ in force certain the stock of to subscribe to ships ” words if the 1857; the act question, Feb. ” of its passage. to the date supposed construed to refer force are cities, in addition act declares This amendatory said act counties, towns, and townships authorized the stock amendment, subscribe which this an Railroad, the following and Fox River Ottawa, Valley Oswego, authorized counties, towns, townships cities, portions Oct. Town of South Ottawa 1876.] subscribe to the stock of said railroad in manner capital in said act act, hereinafter except provided. provided then of towns referred to. proceeds designate portions

The same observations to this act which have apply made in to the act of March 1869. It does not regard pro- *10 or fess new force or give purport any validity supposed or to act validate had under that act. any proceedings n — — It takes for as we have seen granted that mistakenly, act was and does more. duly passed, nothing not, last-mentioned act could in event, any pro- any effect, suit; aid the holders of the bonds in spective elections called to authorize their issue this were held before act was as in the recitals them- bonds appears by Indeed, selves. the election the Ottawa bonds was authorizing held in before the long of either the acts passage — to; and, referred in the absence of in the laws any expression themselves, intention, such an it can evincing claimed hardly that these laws retroactive to elections which gave any validity without void, were and when were held. authority, they It is to be observed that these statutes were before Court of Illinois when case Supreme Miller deciding & Goodwin, Paddock v. set and relied on in the answer up case; defendants in that but the court did not evidently them as regard effect claimed. The bonds were having void, held to be the collection taxes to them was pay perpetually enjoined. do not

We act of perceive Congress, prescribing acts, records, mode which the public judicial proceedings in each State shall be authenticated so as to take effect every State, has other on the whatever case. The anybearing authen- thus tication for was intended provided as evidence only records, existence such and not to them acts give any or than which had in the State greater validity they .effect from which were thus accredited. The act de- they expressly authenticated, clares when thus shall have such faith they that} and credit to them in court within the given United every as States have the courts the State they usage from whence are taken. a mode of they provides merely records, them, when invested proving public leaving proved, Gt. Perkins. South Ottawa with, which same force and effect (and other) at home. is held But States any when court of the United State, it same is the- bound to of such know the laws State the domestic are. courts directions reversed, with

Judgments remanded records novo. award in de each case a venire facias Mjr. Cheep Mr. Waite, whom concurred Justice with Swayne, and Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Clippobd, Justice Strong, dissenting. ren- has been

I am unable to the judgment agree but that the dered is no doubt case. There the Constitu- courts which the of Illinois have given uniformly of decision. The tion of the as a rule us binding upon brethren me difference between majority my effect when not as its construction that has been given, the cases consideration of all' ascertained. After careful directed, I forced to which our attention has been am *11 the courts of has been the made by conclusion question of this court fact not of law. Illinois one of and majority Such construction-might it made'one of law. think has been is to ascertain but our be more duty would logical; and probably been. decided, should have what has been what 297, of a is the first 14 Ill. of v. Jacoby, The case Spangler considered-; has been of cases in which series question long discover, has been done able to little and, far as I have been so decided. there and what was since, to reaffirm except apply an act then, case, to that we find prima Looking, facie houses, enrolled, of the two approved by the signed by speakers in, State, the of office of the Secretary the-governor, deposited the laws cer- among under his and superintendence published court is: him, is law. The tified valid language by “ of the two the in The act speakers signed by executive. Prima houses, the assent and received Afterward, in Illinois therefore, a law.” it became facie, “ it, said, 79, Wren, 43 id. Co. Central Railroad the State, and of -publishéd by certified the laws Secretary by must State, passed of- the be received having authority Constitution, the by in the manner the required legislature South Oet. ,v. 1876.] Perkins.

unless the And, contrary clearly appears.” again, longer Peoria, than last Atlanta, Larrison v. ago year, Decatur & Co., 18, id. Railroad “If we find a law the signed by houses, the two of and the speakers approved we by governor, must that it has been presume passed to all the conformity of Constitution, the and requirements is valid until the pre is overcome sumption legitimate by proof.” enrolled; This law signed the two by speakers of houses; approved governor; in the by office . deposited State; him with the Secretary published by requisite certificate the laws at the session of among the legisla- 1857; ture in acquiesced by people valid law for more than thirteen after its years publication; and acted accepted inhabitants of upon by South Ottawa 1866, in October, when voted under it for a they subscription to the stock the railroad authorized issue company, and of the bonds of the township as valid payment; recognized and existing State, 27, March when laws April were to' passed referring force, it; it as in acted amending finally upon by when, officers of in obedience to the vote of township, inhabitants, subscribed to the stock of the railroad issued the bonds authorized the act in company, pay- ment.

In this condition of were courts bound to take things notice of it as a law force. This judicial was expressly decided Wren, in Illinois Central Co. v. where supra, Railroad said, it was we take notice of all acts Although judicial and found in office legislature signed governor State, some we Secretary although -purposes take notice of the it is not judicial legislative journals, yet counsel, our at to under province, request suggestion *12 take to for the of these explore journals purpose ascertaining the manner in which law certified went a duly through into the of the If hands counsel legislature-and governor. say to have been shows journal calling without let them make the of that nays, requisite proof yeas of the fact means introduce the journals, legislative into the record.” proof 18

VOL. IV. Perkins, Ct. South Ottawa same, Cushman, 1867, in Grob v. during year, And again, was as to jurisdiction id. where question before case which was Court, brought in La Salle County error, this a writ of examination upon Court the Supreme — : used is language Court did County La Salle “It insisted of the ; that the act cause this of the subject-matter jurisdiction became never is claimed the jurisdiction counsel, in And the Constitution. mode prescribed by a law the of this of the house support refer to the journals their argument, below, from the journals no evidence the trial On position. records, that, are it is as they public But now urged, introduced. them, and them not require take notice the court judicial will records, are they public in the evidence. It true that be embodied as will be within they regarded not follow that does records and. courts, like Like other of the laws. public knowledge as documents, be before the courts evi- should they brought public offered, their own authenticity. they prove dence. But when so cannot be courts.” regarded by Until produced, two before the bonds Both these cases were decided years were issued. now suit v. De

Later, of The 62 id. Wolfe, in the case People for a an was made mandamus requiring jus application to issue an execution recov tice judgment peace return, he him. In his stated the act under ered before when he which he assumed had jurisdiction gave judgment never in fact constitutionally passed, gave par behalf. ticulars of his claim in that delivering opinion, the court considered the one question clearly presented — fact, for they say: return, It traversed, which is not and is to appears . . true, &c. . decision taken Our is predicated solely case, state facts as set in the return in forth without an in- Senate, and we spection journals pass upon the validity the act in further than question.no as affects the present applica- tion view the facts in admitted the case.” is difficult to see what could be' done to manifest more the determination the court to make the clearly *13 ¡South Oct. 275 Town of Ottawa 1876.] whether a statute been had prima constitutionally facie ” “ fact, to be one of established legitimate when a proof contest arises. This an statute operate give apparent circumstances, effect one state of another; and not under but with that have to do. we Our is ended when nothing duty we have discovered and with rule the the complied which. tribunal has established. appropriate the Under this rule the operation below out made plaintiff case, his when he the execution of his bonds and proved put evidence; and, them in in the absence of the defend- proof by ant, he was entitled to his even the law' judgment, though have been because was might constitutionally passed: court the part duty explore journals the manner in which a purpose ascertaining law duly certified went throúgh legislature.” is, whether, then under the circumstances of case, the this defendant can be to make the permitted proof. This does not depend upon Constitution, law commercial upon general principles applicable - as construed. The Constitution issue is made upon fact of the of the law. Prima it was passage facie it was in force. Both this apparently parties acting upon case, fact, to be true in be- supposing.it prima facie come bound: one has borrowed and the other lent. The lender his has the contract and performed part delivered'the money, is, and the be determined whether, now un- simple question circumstances, such can der borrower because, refuse pay, further he has ascertained that investigation, legisla- tive do not contain the evidence to establish journals necessary the fact of the due enactment of law. Revérse the case. the town had subscribed for the stock Suppose paid, could railroad subscription, company keep/ money because, transaction, refuse to issue the after the stock it had had ascertained that a vote not been taken noes by ayes the; one of houses the final ?bill passage Certainly not; and the reason obvious. such circumstances, Under from falsehood of that which estops asserting party, has, rule from true. This appears beginning, here stated in class first Com- applied cases.' It. Ct. v. Burkins. South 545, where, How. Knox missioners County Aspinwall, British Bank v. Jervis B. Royal Ch. using language — said: 6 El. Bl. it was & Tarquand, *14 with these it the dealings “We now for may granted take and that are like with other partnerships, not dealings companies the statute and the to read them are bound with parties dealing to do more. And are bound But not they deed settlement. settlement, find, will a not here, deed of on-reading the the party do certain a so on but permission from borrowing, prohibition' be made authority might complete that the Finding conditions. a to infer the fact of resolu- resolution, have the right a he would document, which, appeared on the face of tion authorizing done.” to be legitimately to refer to tbe numerous cases wbicb have is

It unnecessary some of them have further than since. While come gone up did that from which the court in was quotation the English not made, fallen short it. We need further in none have go of these bonds were bound to read the purchasers this. The issued, but were not under which were bound they they statute statute-book, in it do more. upon Finding apparently force, infer that it in force, had the right actually they themselves accordingly. and govern that this is not a case of remembered construction. must be It is not whether a law admitted to be in force The question but whether a law which does power, necessary confers force, and is can be shown not confer the apparently power, fact have been in according requirements have acted Constitution, after the faith of it parties upon their condition. When the one of question changed stand alone, all an parties equal footing, occurs, If mistake it is one can himself. of law each judge one not of fact. Here it is bonds on which of.fact. ; n and, are valid as between this suit is these brought prima facie think the law will admit the offered to I parties, testimony absence of show that are void. stand. proof they is one of evidence. not whether the law can be introduced to show whether testimony cannot, that was not. I think it To admit it would ignore honor commercial which we have made principle Oct. 1876.] Müller v. Dows. ' do I am not so. If the line of decisions. . prepared

a long of Illinois had been to- take notice courts judicial willing the law the what journals legislative determining is, there be some to do requiring might propriety people bo. But when courts make the question overcoming fact, one of I think do the people prima facie same to their the same thing, bring protection principles them in other cases. For these reasons estoppel govern -1 dissent from the which has been read. opinion just — term, subsequent day plaintiffs At a counsel for the in error Note. moved the court for further instructions these eases to the court below. Mr. court, any on behalf said“ We do not think further Bradley, Justice necessary directions estoppel up by these cases. We hold that the set plaintiff allowed, below'should not permitted but that the defendant should be invalidity plaintiff. show recognize of the act relied We court, adopted by construction of the Constitution of Illinois the State to the effect passed by requisite that a majority, law is void if not and so entered on the journal. judicial question, We also hold the existence of law to be a to be court, though *15 decided framed in form as an issue of fact. It follows that below, case, retrying the court itself be satisfied must whether the law in constitutionally was was or and the vote entered on the journals, jury evidence, accordingly. instruct the or means ascer- taining fact, legally applicable according must be such as is to such a case But, strictly the laws speaking, properly of Illinois. more the issue is referable jury. judgment court than ato That it be so framed the will be amended, directing novo, .the court below award in case a venirede each parties allow pleadings, advised,-in amend their shall be order -to refer the trial the issue jury.” court instead of Dows.

Muller counsel, Stipulations proceeding relative to the between course of in a cause court, pending party in this cannot be withdrawn either without the consent (cid:127) other, except by leave the court cause shown. Appeal from tbe Circuit Court tbe United States for the District of Iowa.

On motion of Mr. F. Withrow, Thomas for tbe appellees, to take consider tbe up submitted appeal under tbe twen- tieth rule.