on the face of the bonds by the authorities whose primary duty it is to ascertain it. Lynde v. The County, 16 Wall. 6; Town of Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U. S. 484; Commissioners v. January, 94 id. 202; Commissioners v. Bolles, id. 104; County of Warren v. Marcy, 97 id. 96.

The authority to issue the bonds in question in this case, resting upon the fact that an election was held in pursuance of law before a certain date, namely, the date when the Constitution of 1870 was adopted, and the bonds reciting on their face the fact that the election was so held before the date mentioned, the circumstance that the election was irregularly conducted can be of no avail as a defence to the bonds in a suit brought by a bona fide holder.

Our attention has been called to the decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case heretofore mentioned and reported as Lippincott v. Town of Pana, 92 Ill. 24, in which it was held that the election relied on in this case as the authority for the issue of the bonds was absolutely void, and the issue of them was, therefore, without authority. Our attention is also called to People v. Town of Santa Anna, 67 id. 57, and People v. Town of Laenna, id. 65, where similar elections under a like statute were held void. These last two cases were decided before the bonds in this case were issued. They were, however, suits brought to restrain the issue of bonds by the township officers, on account of the irregularities in the election. The rights of bona fide holders could not, therefore, arise, and were not passed on in those cases. But in the case first men tioned the bonds had been issued, and were presumptively in the hands of bona fide holders. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Illinois held the bonds to be void in whosesoever hands they might be.

It is insisted that this court is bound to follow this decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois and hold the bonds in question void. We do not so understand our duty. Where the construction of a State constitution or law has become settled by the decision of the State courts, the courts of the United States will, as a general rule, accept it as evidence of what the local law is. Thus, we may be required to yield against our own judgment to the proposition that, under the charter of the

railway company, the election in this case, which was held under the supervision of a moderator chosen by the electors present, was irregular and therefore void. But we are not bound to accept the inference drawn by the Supreme Court of Illinois, that in consequence of such irregularity in the election the bonds issued in pursuance of it by the officers of the township, which recite on their face that the election was held in accordance with the statute, are void in the hands of bona fide holders. This latter proposition is one which falls among the general principles and doctrines of commercial jurisprudence, upon which it is our duty to form an independent judgment, and in respect of which we are under no obligation to follow implicitly the conclusions of any other court, however learned or able it may be. Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1; Russell v. Southard, 12 How. 139; Watson v. Tarpley, 18 id. 517; Butz v. City of Muscatine, 8 Wall. 575; Boyce v. Tabb, 18 id. 546; Oates v. National Bank, 100 U. S. 239; Railroad Company v. National Bank, 102 id. 14. See also Burgess v. Seligman, ante, p. 20, where the question, how far the courts of the United States are bound by the decisions of the State courts, is carefully re-examined, and the rule on the subject stated with precision.

We cannot follow the decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois in Lippincott v. Town of Pana, ubi supra, without overruling a uniform current of the decisions of this court, beginning with Commissioners of Knox County v. Aspinwall, 21 How. 539, and continuing down to the present time. The rights of the bona fide holder of negotiable municipal bonds, as we have stated them in this opinion, are too firmly settled by the decisions of this court to be shaken.

Our conclusion is, therefore, that the bonds in question in this case are valid in the hands of a bona fide holder, notwithstanding the irregularity in the conduct of the election by which they were claimed to be authorized.

The next question presented by the assignments of error is, Does the irregularity in the conduct of the election throw on the plaintiffs the burden of proving that they are holders for value?

It is a general rule that when the holder of a negotiable in

strument, regular on its face and payable to bearer, produces it in a suit to recover its contents, and the same has been received in evidence, there is a prima facie presumption that he became the holder of it, for value at its date, in the usual course of business. Murray v. Lardner, 2 Wall. 110; Bank of Pittsburgh v. Neal, 22 How. 96; Collins v. Gilbert, 94 U. S. 753; Brown v. Spofford, 95 id. 474. And municipal bonds, payable to bearer, are subject to the same rules as other negotiable. paper. Cromwell v. Sac County, 96 id. 51.

But the plaintiff in error insists that this case falls within an exception to that rule, and cites to sustain his position Smith v. Sac County, 11 Wall. 139, and Stewart v. Lansing, 104 U. S. 505. The exception relied on by the plaintiff in error is well settled, and is this: if, in a suit brought by the indorsee or transferee of a negotiable instrument, the maker or acceptor, or any party who is primarily bound by the original consideration, proves that there was fraud or illegality in the inception of the instrument, the burden of proof is thrown on the plaintiff to show that he is a holder for value. Smith v. Sac County and Stewart v. Lansing, ubi supra; Commissioners v. Clark, 94 U. S. 278; Collins v. Gilbert, id. 753; Fitch v. Jones, 5 El. & Bl. 238; Smith v. Braine, 16 Ad. & E. N. s. 244; Hall v. Featherstone, 3 Hurls. & Nor. 284; Bailey v. Bidwell, 13 Mee. & W. 73; Vathir v. Zane, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 246; Hutchinson v. Boggs, 28 Pa. St. 294; Perrin v. Noyes, 39 Me. 384; Cottle v. Cleaves, 70 id. 256; Sistermans v. Field, 9 Gray (Mass.), 331; Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 231; Ross v. Drinkard's Adm., 35 Ala. 434; Harbison v. Bank of the State of Indiana, 28 Ind. 133; Fuller v. Hutchings, 10 Cal. 523; Redington v. Woods, 45 id. 406; Conley v. Winsor, 41 Mich. 253; Sloan v. Union Banking Company, 67 Pa. St. 470; Holme v. Karsper, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 469; Vallett v. Parker, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 615; Munroe v. Cooper, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 412; 1 Daniel on Neg, Ins. (3d ed.), sect. 815.

In most of the cases above cited the defence relied on was fraud in the inception of the instrument. Thus, in Smith v. Sac County, 11 Wall. 139, the report shows that the bonds were issued to a contractor to pay for the building of a courthouse; that the county judge who executed and delivered

them was bribed to do so; and that the court-house never was built.

In Stewart v. Lansing, 104 U. S. 505, the county judge, assuming to act under authority of a law of the State, rendered a judgment appointing commissioners to execute bonds of the town of Lansing. This judgment was carried by certiorari to the Supreme Court, and there 'reversed. The county judge, the commissioners, and the railroad company to which the bonds were ordered to be issued, all had notice of the certiorari and the subsequent proceedings under it. Before the judgment of reversal, however, the commissioners, notwithstanding the pendency of the writ, issued the bonds in suit in the case, taking from the company an obligation for their personal indemnity. This court held that as between the company and the town the judgment of reversal was equivalent to a refusal by the county judge to make the original order, and invalidated the bonds.

There is no pretence of any fraud in the inception of the bonds in question in this case. It is not denied that they were issued in good faith and for a valuable consideration. The question, then, arises, Is the irregularity in the conduct of the election such an illegality as throws on the plaintiff the burden to show that he paid value for the coupons? We are clearly of opinion that it is not.

It will appear from an examination of the cases above cited, in which the defence was illegality in the inception of the instrument, that the illegality which shifts the burden of proof on the holder to prove that he paid value must be something which relates to the consideration of the paper sued on. It must appear that the consideration arose out of a transaction contrary to law, or against public policy. Thus, in Sistermans v. Field, 9 Gray (Mass.), 331, the illegality which the court held threw the burden on the plaintiff of proving that he gave value for the notes sued on, was the fact alleged by the defendant that they were given in payment for intoxicating liquors sold by the payee of the notes to the defendant in violation of law. Precisely the same illegality was held in Cottle v. Cleaves, 70 Me. 256, to throw upon the plaintiff, who was indorsee, the burden of showing that he paid value for the note.

So in Fuller v. Hutchings, 10 Cal. 523, the paper sued on was given for losses at a public banking game called "faro.” Gaming was prohibited by statute. It was declared by the laws of California to be a felony in the keeper of the game, and a misdemeanor in the player. In this case the court held that the illegal consideration being admitted, it devolved upon the plaintiff to show that he took the paper without notice and for value.

In the case of Bailey v. Bidwell, 13 Mee. & W. 73, it was alleged, as matter of defence, that the consideration for the note sued on was an agreement that the payee should not oppose a petition in bankruptcy filed by the defendant, the maker of the note, and that the note was indorsed to the plaintiff without value. The court, by Baron Parke, held the rule to be that if the note was proven to have been obtained by fraud, or affected by illegality, that afforded a presumption that the person who had been guilty of the illegality would dispose of it, and place it in the hands of another person to sue on it, and that such proof casts upon the plaintiff the burden of showing that he was a bona fide indorsee for value.

In Fitch v. Jones, 5 El. & Bl. 238, the note which was sued on by an indorsee was given for a wager on the hop duty. This, the court said, was not within the statute of Anne or any other statutes which prohibit wagers. There was no penalty imposed for such a wager, and, therefore, as between the maker and payee, there was no illegality or violation of law, but it was a mere nudum pactum. And the court held that the defendant was bound to prove his plea by showing that the plaintiff did not give value for the note.

The authorities illustrate the rule and show that it does not apply to this case. There was no illegality whatever in the consideration of the bonds in question in this suit. The mere irregularity in the conduct of the election was not such an illegality as is contemplated by the rule, and does not deprive the holder of the coupons of the presumption that he acquired them for value.

The next contention of the plaintiff in error is that the decree of the Circuit Court of Christian County, Illinois, by which the bonds in question were declared void, is binding on the