RAILROAD Am BONDS are issued by mu nicipal corporations to aid in the construc tion of railways. The power to subscribe to the stock of railways,' and to issue bonds in pursuance thereof, does not belong to. tow* cities, or counties, without special au thority of the legislature, and the power of the latter to confer such authority, where the state constitution is silent, has been a much-contested question. The weight of the very numerous decisions is in favor of the power. In several of the states the consti tutions prohibit or restrict the right of mu nicipal corporations to invest in the stock of railroads or similar' corporations; Citizens' Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. (U. S.) 655, 22 L. Ed. 455 ; Pitzman v. Vil lage of Freeburg, 92 Ill. 111; Lowell v. City of Boston, 111 Mass. 454, 15 Am. Rep. 39; Ogden v. Daviess County, 102 U. S. 634, 26 L. Ed. 263; Harshmau v. County Court, 122 U. S. 306, 7 Sup. Ct. 1171, 30 L. Ed.. 1152; Knox County v. Bank, 147 U. S. 91, 13 Sup. Ct. 267, 37 L. Ed. 93 ; Barnum v. Okolona, 148 U. S. 393, 13 Sup. Ct. 638, 37 L. Ed. 495 ; Cairo v. Zane, 149 U. S. 122, 13 Sup. Ct. 803, 37 L. Ed. 673 ; McKittrick v. Ry. Co., 152 U. S. 473, 14 Sup. Ct. 661, 38 L. Ed. 518 ; Rogers v. Keokuk, 154 U. S. 540, 14 Sup. Ct. 1162, 18 L. Ed. 74; /Etna Life Ins. Co. V. Pleasant Tp., 62 Fed. 718„ 10 C. C. A. 611; Denison v. City of Colum bus, 62 Fed. 775 ; Atlantic Trust Co. v. Town of Darlington, 63 Fed. 76 ; Dill. Mun. Corp. § 508.
The recital in bonds issued by a municipal corporation in payment of a subscription to railroad stock, that they were issued "in pur suance of an act of the legislature . . . and ordinances of the city council . , . pass
ed in pursuance thereof," does not put a bona fide purchaser for value upon inquiry as to the terms of the ordinances under which the bonds were issued, nor does it put him on in quiry whether a proper petition of two thirds of the residents had been presented to the common council before it subscribed for the stock ; Evansville v. Dennett, 161 U. S. 434, 16 Sup. Ct. 613, 40 L. Ed. 760 ; and recitals in county bonds, that they are is sued in pursuance of an order of the court,' etc., as a subscription to the capital stock, estop the county issuing them as against an innocent purchaser from showing that the bonds are void because in fact issued as a donation to the railroad company, whereas the statute only authOrized a subscription to its stock; Ashman. v. Pulaski County, 73 Fed. 927, 20 C. C. A. 232 ; where a county, under authority from the state, issued its bonds in payment of a subscription to stock in a railway company, made upon a condi tion which was never complied with, and which was subsequently waived by the coun ty, and received and held the certificates and paid interest on its bonds and refunded them under legislative authority, the bonds originally issued were held valid in the hands of a bona *le holder for value before maturity ; Graves v. Saline County, 161 U. S. 359, 16 Sup. Ct. 526, 40 L. Ed. 732; where there is a total want of power to subscribe for such stock and to issue bonds in pay ment, a municipality cannot estop itself by admissions or by issuing securities in negoti able form, nor even by receiving and enjoy ing the proceeds of such bonds; id.