IN BONDS. The recitals in corporate bonds may constitute notice to holders of facts which will affect their rights. See Par sons v. Jackson, 99 U. S. 434, 25 L. Ed. 457; Byers v. Trust Co., 175 Pa. 318, 34 Atl. 629. One who buys bonds which recite that they are for the principal and interest of other bonds, is chargeable with notice that the for mer indebtedness was overdue ; Higgins v. Lansingh, 154 Ill. 301, 40 N. E. 362. In Prov ident Life & Trust Co. v. Mercer Co., 170 U. S. 593, 18 Sup. Ct. 788, 42 L. Ed. 1156, it was said as to recitals in county bonds: "By a long series of decisions such recitals are held conclusive, in favor of a bona fide hold er of bonds, that precedent conditions, pre scribed by statute and subject to the deter mination of those county officers, have been fully complied with. For instance, whether an election has been held, whether at such an election a majority voted in favor of the issue of bonds, whether the terms of the subscription have been complied with, and matters of a kindred nature which either ex pressly or by necessary implication are to be determined in the first instance by the offi cers of the county, will in favor of a bona fide holder be conclusively presumed to have been fully performed, provided the bonds /contain recitals similar to these in the bonds before us." The court applied the doctrine
of the conclusive effect of such recitals not only to matters transpiring before the plac ing of the bonds in the hands of the trustee, such as the election, etc., but also to condi tions which it was urged were to be per formed subsequently to the execution, such as that the bonds should not be binding until the railway should have been so completed through the county, that a train of cars had • passed over it.
See, also, Town of C010131Łt v. Eaves, 92 S. 484, 23 L. Ed. 579; Citizens' Saving & Loan Ass'n v. Perry Co., 156 U. S. 692, 15 Sup. Ct. 547, 39 L. Ed. 585; Andes v. My, 158 U. S. 312, 15 Sup. Ct. 954, 39 L. Ed. 996; BONDS ; MUNICIPAL BONDS.