Pullen v. School District No. 3

BENSON, J. There are a number of questions presented and argued upon this appeal, but the view which [292] we take of the matter renders a discussion of many of them unnecessary. 1. ¥e may assume at the outset that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. Chapter 172 of the Laws of Oregon for 1913 provides that after an election for the issuance of school district bonds— “All such bonds shall be signed by the chairman of the district school board, attested by the district clerk, and registered by the county treasurer; and the interest coupons thereto annexed shall be signed by said chairman and clerk, by their original or engraved facsimile signatures. ‘ ‘ The county treasurer shall register each bond in a book kept for that purpose in his office, noting the school district, amount, date, time and place of payment, rate of interest and such other facts as may be deemed proper, and cause said bonds to be delivered promptly to the purchasers thereof upon payment therefor, and he shall hold the proceeds of the sale of said bonds subject to the order of the district board to be used solely for the purpose for which said bonds were issued; and when said bonds shall have been so executed, registered and delivered, their legality shall not be open to contest by such school district or by any person or corporation for or on its behalf for any reason whatever.” It is not necessary to consider the question of whether or not there may be any legal limitation to the broad language of the last provision above quoted, but it is beyond question that in the absence of fraud or some fatal defect in the proceedings, known to the purchaser of the bonds at the time of, or prior to such purchase, all further questioning is foreclosed. The bonds in the present case were executed, registered and delivered in strict accordance with the requirements of the statute, and after a very careful investigation of the evidence in the case, we find no indication whatever of [293] any conspiracy or any fraud, or that the purchasers of the bonds had any notice or knowledge of any irregularity or defect in the proceedings which resulted in the issue of the bonds. The decree of the lower court is therefore affirmed. Affirmed. McBride, C. J., and Bennett and Harris, JJ., concur. Denied February 17, 1920.