LEWIS ». COUNTÏ COMMI8BIONEB9 OP BAEBOUR 00. 195 �pose of deciding that question. But since it appears that the bonds were never delivered to the treasurer, and that the pur- chaser might have ascertained that fact hy an inquiry ad- dressed to that of&cial, I am of the opinion that he purchased at his peril. To hold otherwise would be to nullify the stat- ute, which was passed for the very purpose of providing cer- tain safe-guards against the fraudulent issue of bonds by agents of the county. If the statute is construed so as to permit such agents to estop the county by such fraudulent issue, the statute ia without vitality. I think the statute is notice to the purchaser of bonds issued under its provisions that such bonds are not negoti'able unless delivered through the treasurer of state, and that such purchasers must make inquiry as to the fact, or purchase at their own risk. The bonds were not negotiated by the agent authorized by law, to- wit, the treasurer of state. If that officiai had negotiated them, the bona fide holder might, as already suggested, be protected upon the ground that the treasurer was pi^sumably performing his duty, and the purchaser had the right to rely upon that presumption. But these bonds were negotiated by a Etranger, having no officiai relation to the county. Who- ever buys under such circumstances must inquire as to whether the treasurer of state has delivered the bonds. The law constituted the treasurer of state the agent of the county for the purpose of issuing these bonds, and made their nego- tiability dependent upon the condition precedent of delivery by him. If he had performed this duty — if he had acted as agent — however irregular or even unlawful his action, the county might be estopped. But not so where he did not act at ail, and the bondg were set afloat by the fraudulent act of another. No representations by a pretended agent can ever establish the fact or extent of agency.. �If Hutchinson represented that he was authorized to nego- tiate the bonda, he could not thereby bind the county. The agent of the county for 'the purpose was named by law as well as by the act of the county, and there was no excuse for accepting without inquiry, as final, the statements of any otber person. N. Y. Life Ins. d Trust Co. v. Beeie, 3 Seld. ����
