623 TBOEBAL BBPOBTBB. �notwithstanding there might have been an irregularity, and notwithstanding they might have been issued, in point of fact, by the board of supervisors instead of by the county court. �The funding law declared that the bonds might be issued for any indebtedness which was binding, or which constituted a subsisting legal obligation against the county. It is to be observed that this funding law declared that there should be no funding bonds issued, except upon a vote of the people, and a vote was accordingly had, and these funded bonds were issued under that vote and by the proper authority. These facts are all alleged in the funded bond, and the question is whether, as against a honafide holder, the county can go back of all this, and defend against this, or similar actions, on the ground that there was a vice in the original indebtedness ; that is, in the source of the original indebtedness, in that the bonds were issued by the board of supervisors, instead of by the county court. We think that it cannot, but that it must be assumed, especiaUy in view of all these recitals in the funded bonds, to the effect that their issue was under this law, and that the proper county authorities had determined that it was a binding obligation on the county for which thesô bonds were issued, they were valid, and that there must be an end of these contesta and defences some time or other; and, having issued these bonds under these circumstanccs, the county of Jasper cannot contest their validity now, even ad- mitting that it could do so if the suit were brought on the original bonds. ����
