acter; and the other questions were not fully considered. In the latter case, this court did not consider the evidence of fraud as sufficient to avoid the purchase; and this rendered it necessary to examine the question of repugnancy between the State laws and the act of Congress with more care. On the first consideration of the case, we were disposed to think that the act of assembly of the State of Iowa passed in 1858, by which the several counties owning swamp and overflowed lands were authorized to devote the lands, or the proceeds thereof, either in whole or in part, to the erection of public buildings for the purpose of education, the building of bridges, roads, and highways, or for building institutions of learning, or for making railroads through the county, was repugnant to the provisions of the act of Congress, as authorizing a diversion of the fund from its proper purposes; and that this repugnancy rendered such dispositions of the lands void. But, on a reconsideration of the subject, we were inclined to modify our first impressions. The following extract from the opinion then delivered will show the final view which we took of the subject: "The argument against the validity of the scheme [namely, that created by the act of 1858] is, that it effects a diversion of the proceeds of the lands from the objects and purposes of the congressional grant. These were declared to be to enable the State to reclaim the lands by means of levees and drains. The proviso of the second section of the act of Congress declared that the proceeds of the lands, whether from sale or direct appropriation in kind, should be applied exclusively, as far as necessary, to these purposes. This language implies that the State was to have full power of disposition of the lands; and only gives direction as to the application of the proceeds, and of this application only as far as necessary' to secure the objecte specified. It is very questionable whether the security for the application of the proceeds thus pointed out does not rest upon the good faith of the State, and whether the State may not exercise its discretion in that behalf without being liable to be called to account, and without affecting the titles to the lands disposed of. At all events, it would seem that Congress alone has the power to enforce the conditions of the grant, either by a revocation thereof, or other suitable action, in a clear case of viola

tion of the conditions. And as the application of the proceeds to the named objects is only prescribed as far as necessary,' room is left for the exercise by the State of a large discretion as to the extent of the necessity." p. 69.

Upon further consideration of the whole subject, we are convinced that the suggestion then made, that the application of the proceeds of these lands to the purposes of the grant rests upon the good faith of the State, and that the State may exercise its discretion as to the disposal of them, is the only correct view. It is a matter between two sovereign powers, and one which private parties cannot bring into discussion. Swamp and overflowed lands are of little value to the government of the United States, whose principal interest in them is to dispose of them for purposes of revenue; whereas the State governments, being concerned in their settlement and improvement, in the opening up of roads and other public works through them, in the promotion of the public health by systems of drainage and embankment, are far more deeply interested in having the disposal and management of them. For these reasons, it was a wise measure on the part of Congress to cede these lands to the States in which they lay, subject to the disposal of their respective legislatures; and although it is specially provided that the proceeds of such lands shall be applied, "as far as necessary," to their reclamation by means of levees and drains, this is a duty which was imposed upon and assumed by the States alone, when they accepted the grant; and, whether faithfully performed or not, is a question between. the United States and the States, and is neither a trust following the lands nor a duty which private parties can enforce as against the State.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the act of Congress cannot be invoked by the county of Mills for the purpose of showing that its provisions have been violated by the State laws, under which alone the county itself can set up any title to the lands, and by virtue of which, as decided by the State court, it has disposed of them for railroad purposes.

But it is contended that the decision of this court, rendered in February, 1870, affirming the decree in the original suit, and adjudging the title of the lands to be in Mills County, and

not in the Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Company, is rendered null and ineffective by the decrees of the Supreme Court of Iowa in these cases, and hence that these decrees are against the right of Mills County as established by authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, and ought for that cause to be reversed. We do not think that this result necessarily follows. The compromise agreement of 1868 was made whilst the writ of error in that original suit was pending in this court, and before the cause was heard. That compromise settled the matters in difference between the parties. There may have been reasons independent of the controversy relating to the particular lands in question in that suit why it was desirable to have the legal questions involved therein settled by the judgment of this court. The county of Mills and the railroad company may have been respectively interested in other lands similarly situated in respect to title as the lands involved in that suit. But if this were not so, the result would only be that the litigation was continued here after the parties had adjusted their rights by agreement, an improper proceeding, undoubtedly, but one which would not abrogate or render null the agreement itself, unless the parties voluntarily waived and abandoned it. That they did not waive or abandon it is manifest from the fact that deeds of conveyance were executed by the county to the railroad company in pursuance of the compromise agreement after the decision of this court was rendered; namely, one deed dated Sept. 6, 1870, for 3,560 acres, and another deed dated June 19, 1871, for 240 acres.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the decrees made by the Supreme Court of Iowa in these cases do not violate any act of Congress, nor disaffirm the judgment of this court, nor impair any right, title, or immunity which the county of Mills has a right to claim under any authority of the United States. The said decrees must, therefore, be

Affirmed.

READ v. PLATTSMOUTH.

1. Negotiable coupon-bonds were, without authority of law, issued in October, 1872, by a city in Nebraska, for the purpose of raising money wherewith to construct a high-school building within her limits. They were sold, and the proceeds applied accordingly. The legislature, by an act approved Feb. 18, 1873, infra, p. 571, legalized the proceedings of the city in the premises. The Constitution of the State then in force declares that "the legislature shall pass no special act conferring corporate powers," and that "no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title." A purchaser of the bonds for full value, without notice of any informality in their issue, to whom the city paid the interest thereon for four years, brought suit to recover the amount of the coupons then due and unpaid. Held, 1. That as by force of the transaction the city was bound to refund the moneys he paid it in consideration of its void bonds, and as the act, by confirming them, merely recognizes the existence of that obligation, and provides a medium for enforcing it according to the original intention of the parties, no new corporate powers were thereby conferred. 2. That the title of the act is a full and apt description of its contents.

2. Under the second section of the act of Nebraska approved Feb. 25, 1875, infra, p. 573, the bonds are valid obligations, and neither it nor the said act of Feb. 18, 1873, is in conflict with the Constitution of the State which was then in force.

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.

Read sought to recover, in an action at law, the amount of certain overdue interest-coupons upon bonds issued by the city of Plattsmouth, dated Oct. 1, 1872. Each bond contains a recital that it" is one of a series of twenty-five of like tenor, date, and amount, issued in pursuance of the orders of the city council of the city of Plattsmouth, in the State of Nebraska, for the construction of a high-school building in said city, authorized by a vote of the legal voters of said city of Plattsmouth, and in compliance with the laws of the State of Nebraska, and for the payment of which the good faith, property, and effects of said city are hereby pledged."

These bonds were issued for the purpose of constructing a high-school building in the city. The city sold them, and applied their proceeds to construct such a building, which is now in actual use by the city; and the city paid interest on the bonds for four years.

On the trial the plaintiff proved that he bought the entire

issue of the bonds for full value, without notice of any informality in their issue. There was no evidence offered in defence, and the court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted, and for the alleged error in this ruling the judgment rendered upon the verdict in favor of the city is now sought to be reversed.

The judgment rests upon the assumption that the bonds in question are void, and this depends on these two propositions : First, that at the time they were issued there was no law which authorized them; and, second, that certain acts of the legislature of Nebraska, subsequently passed, purporting to validate them, are themselves void.

The legislation bearing upon the question appears to be as follows:

The city of Plattsmouth was created, March 14, 1855, a body corporate under that name, by a special act of the legis lature of the Territory of Nebraska, with all the powers and attributes of a municipal corporation. The forty-first section is as follows :

"The council is authorized to borrow money for any object in their discretion, if at a regularly notified meeting, under a notice stating distinctly the nature and object of the loan, and the amount thereof as nearly as practicable, the voters of the city may determine in favor of the loan by a majority of two-thirds of the legal voters at the said election, and the said loan can in no case be diverted from the specified object."

to

The legislature, in 1867, also passed "An Act to authorize the common council of the city of Plattsmouth to raise money erect a central or high-school building, and for other purposes." So much of the act as is material here is contained in the following:

"SECT. 1. Be it enacted by the council and house of representatives of the Territory of Nebraska, That the mayor and common council of the city of Plattsmouth shall, by virtue of their office, be commissioners of the school-house fund in and for said city, and the common council shall perform all the duties of such commissioners, and shall possess all the rights, powers, and authority, and be subject to the same restraints of township boards of education, for the purpose of raising money required for erecting, purchasing, and