19e FEDEBAIi BEFOBTEB. �himself a purchaser for value without notice, or the successor of one who was. Every man is chargeable with notice of that which the law requires him to know, and of that which, after being put upon inquiry, he might bave ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Every dealer in mu- nicipal bonds which, upon their face, refer to the statute under which they were issued, is bound to take notice of the statute and of ail its requirements." �True, the purchaser may presume compliance with such provisions of the statute as relate to the manner of exercising powers conferred by law upon offieers of the county. If the power to issue the bonds exists in law, and the bonds recite a compliance with it, the recital is conclusive. Orleans v. Platt, 99 U. S. 676. But this doctrine applies to negotiable instruments having the property of commercial paper. It bas never been extended to a case like the present, where, by the terms of the statute, the instrument is declared not negotiable until delivered to the treasurer of state, and by him to the party entitled thereto. If this provision is to be regarded as inoorporated in the bonds, then, how can it be said that the instruments are negotiable on their face ? If we are to read the statute as a part of each bond, then they appear on their face to be negotiable only upon the condition named in the act. �If a corporation should issue a bond negotiable only when countersigned by its president, no lawyer would doubt that a purchaser would take it at his own peril if not so counter- signed. It is difScult to discover the difference between such a case and one where the bond appears by its terms to be negotiable only upon the condition that it shall pass through the handa of a state officer, and be by him delivered. If it appeared in this case that the bonds were delivered to the treasurer of state, and by him to an innocent purchaser, I am not prepared to say that this would not be a sufficient protec- tion to the holder, even if the delivery had been wrongful. �The decision of the treasurer upon the question of compli- ance with the terms of the subscription would, I tbink, estop the county, for the county made him its agent for the pur- ����
