<J70 FEDERAL REPORTER. �knowledge. But, however this may be, there is no trust- worthy evidence that this knowledge was brought liome to Burleigh at the time he purchased the bonds in the fall oi 1875. �A Buit was commenced in 1859 in the circuit court of Eacine county, Wisconsin, the object of which was to obtain a decree of the court declajing that these bonds were void, for the reason that at the time they were issued the law of 1856 had not been published, and therefore had not taken effect as an operative statute. In that case the town of Eochester, the Alfred Bank of Maine, and John H. Thomp- son were parties, service being had in Wisconsin upon the president of the bank and upon Thompson. They were made parties upon the ground that Thompson was the owner of the bonds, and had pledged them as collateral security for the payment of the debt which he owed to the Alfred Bank. The circuit court of Pacine county decreed that the bonds were inoperative and void, and that decree was affirmed by the supreme court of Wisconsin in the case reported in 13 Wis. 432, (State v. McArthur.) This decree is admitted by the counsel of the plaintiff to be binding upon the Alfred Bank and upon Thompson, but it is denied that it is upon Mason or upon Bvarleigh. It should be stated that before Mason transferïed these bonds to Burleigh he brought a suit in his own name in Wisconsin upon them, which was afterwards dismissed, for reasons which are not very fully or satisfactorily explained, although it is insisted by the defendant that the reason was because Mason was in no better condition in rela- tion to these bonds than Thompson, as he had taken them with fuU knowledge of the decree of the Wisconsin courts. �Varions defenoes bave been set up in opposition to plain- tiff's case. It is elaimed, in the first place, that Burleigh was not the real owner, and that in any event he was only a part owner of these bonds, Thompson, or his family, being jointly interested with him ; and under the laws of Wisconsin, which require that the party reaUy in interest should only bring suit, the plaintiff 's action is not maintainable ; but, as already stated, this objection must fail, because, under the evidence ����
