NOBTH. NAT. BK., TOLEDO, V. TfiUSTEES OF POBTEB TP. 571 �flicts in jurisdiction, and seek opportunities to overrule or disregard the decisions of the latter. This disposition to encourage and provoke jealousy and opposition ought not to be tolerated. If in this case we should f eel compelled to dis- sent from the decisions of the supreme court of the state, and ignore its construction of the statutes in question, we would do 80 because we entertain a different view of the law, and not because of any want of respect for that leared tribunal. �"The federal courts, by their decisions, have uniformly sustained to the utmost of there authority the sanctity of commercial paper in the hands of bonafide holders for value, ■without notice of defences not appearing upon the face of the paper itself. We concur in these decisions, but think these courts will not go any further in that direction. �"The distinction, if there be any, between this case and the decisions of the supreme court cited and relied upon by plaintiff's counsel, is somewhat shadowy, and lies in the fact that in those cases the power to decide whether precedent conditions, on which authority to issue the bonds depended, had been performed, was conûded to the persons authorized to make such issue ; whereas in this case the authority to decide this preliminary question was by the statutes vested in the county commissioners, and not in the township trustees who issued the bonds in controversy. It became the duty of the county commissioners to ascertain and declare the resuit of the vote at the county election held for the purpose of de- termining whether the county would subscribe stock to said railroad — a fact necessary t() be ascertained before the power of the defendant township to subscribe arose. A copy of that abstract, by law made a matter of record, is in evidence. It shows that the county did vote to subscribe stock, and it fol- lows under the statute that the township had no such au- thority; for the statutes which the plaintiff insists conferred the authority to the township to subscribe, conferred it only on condition that no subscription was made by the county. �"To this estent it differs from the case relied upon by plain- tiff's counsel in Kansas. A declaration was made in favor of a subscription, but did not include the returns from one pre- ����
