HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0412 and id is 1 raw text is: MERCER COUNTY V. HACKET.
Statement of the case.
answered the bill; but whose citizenship is not made to appear
in such a manner that the court can take jurisdiction of the
case as to him.
Under these circumstances, the court is of opinion that
instead of a decree dismissing the bill on the merits, it should
have been dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdic-
tion. The case will be remanded to the court below with
leave to plaintiffs to amend their bill generally, and if they
shall fail to do this it shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Butterworth is entitled to his costs in this court.
DECREE ACCORDINGLY.
MERCER COUNTY V. RACKET.
1. Where a county issues its bonds payable to bearer, and solemnly pledges
the faith, credit and property of the county, under the authority of an
act of Assembly, referred to on the face of the bonds by date, for their
payment, and those bonds pass, bond fide, into the hands of holders for
value, the county is bound to pay them. It is no defence to the claim
of such a holder that the act of Assembly, referred to on the face of the
bonds, authorized the county to issue the bonds only and subject to cer-
tain -restrictions, limitations, and conditions, which have not been
formally complied with; nor that the bonds were sold at less than par,
when the act authorizing their issue and referred to by date on the face
of the instrument, declared that they should, in no case, nor under
any pretence, be so sold.
2. Corporation bonds payable to bearer, have, in this day, the qualities of
negotiable instruments. The corporate seal upon them does not change
the case.
8. Commissioners of Knox County v. AspinwaU (21 Howard, 539), and Woods
v. Lawrence County (1 Black, 386), affirmed. Diamond v. Lawrence County
(37 Pennsylvania State, 858), denied.
BY act of Assembly, passed in 1852, the legislature of Penn-
sylvania authorized the commissioners of Mercer County in
that State to subscribe to the stock of the Pittsburg and Erie
Railroad, which road, if built, would pass through their county
and benefit it. The act, however, contained this proviso:
_Provided, that the subscription shall be made subject to thefol-
lowing restrictions, limitations, and condition s, and in no other manne
Dec. 1863.]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ussccases0412&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)