Opinion of the Court. A new agreement, on sufficient consideration, was made, by which the judgment itself, the coupons on which it was recovered, and the bonds of which these coupons were a part, were all surrendered and destroyed, and other bonds and other coupons were accepted in their place, payable at a more distant date and with a lower rate of interest, with the effect of extinguishing the judgment now sought to be reversed, so that the plaintiff in that judgment could not issue execution on it, though there is no supersedeas bond, to secure its payment. It is a valid compromise and settlement of a much larger claim, but it includes this judgment necessarily. It extinguishes the cause of action in this case. If valid, it is a bar to any prosecution of the suit in the Circuit Court, though we should reverse this judgment on the record as it stands for errors which may be found in it. To examine these errors and reverse the judgment is a fruitless proceeding, because when the plaintiff has secured his object the relation of the parties is unchanged, and must stand or fall on the terms of the compromise. It is said that to recognize this compromise and grant this motion is to assume original instead of appellate jurisdiction. But this court is compelled, as all courts are, to receive evidence dehors the record affecting their proceeding in a case before them on error or appeal. The death of one of the parties after a writ of error or appeal requires a new proceeding to supply his place. The transfer of the interest of one of the parties by assignment or by a judicial proceeding in another court, as in bankruptcy or otherwise, is brought to the attention of the court by evidence outside of the original record, and acted on. A release of errors may be filed as a bar to the writ. A settlement of the controversy, with an agreement to dismiss the appeal or writ of error, or any stipulation as to proceedings in this court, signed by the parties, will be enforced, as an agreement to submit the case on printed argument alone, within the time allowed by the rule of this court. This court has dismissed several suits on grounds much more liable to the objection raised than the present case, as in the VOL. CXII-15 Opinion of the Court. case of Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419, where the plaintiff in error, having bought out the defendant's interest in the matter in controversy, and having control of both sides of the litigation in the suit, still sought for other purposes to have the case decided by this court. On evidence of this by affidavits the court dismissed the writ. Similar cases in regard to suits establishing patent rights or holding them void by the inferior courts, as in Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251, 254, Wood Paper Co. v. Heft, 8 Wall. 333, 336, have been dismissed, because the parties to the suit having settled the matter, so.that there was no longer a real controversy, one or both of them was seeking a judgment of this court for improper purposes, in regard to a question which exists no longer between those parties. It is by reason of the necessity of the case that the evidence by which such matters are brought to the attention of the court must be that, not found in the transcript of the original case, because it occurred since that record was made up. To refuse to receive appropriate evidence of such facts for that reason is to deliver up the court as a blind instrument for the perpetration of fraud, and to make its proceedings by such refusal the means of inflicting gross injustice. The cases and precedents we have mentioned are sufficient to show that the proposition of plaintiff in error is untenable. In the case of the Board of Liquidation v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co., 109 U. S. 221, 223, a question arose on the presentation of an order made by the authorities of the city of New Orleans to dismiss a suit in this court in which that city was plaintiff in error. The order was based on a compromise between those authorities and the railroad company, which the board of liquidation intervening here alleged to be without authority and fraudulent. The court here did not disregard the compromise or the order of the city to dismiss the case, but, considering that the question of authority in the mayor and council of the city to make the compromise, and of the alleged fraud in making it, required the power of a court of original jurisdiction to investigate and decide thereon, continued the case in this court until that was done in the proper court. But when this was ascertained in favor of the Syllabus action of the mayor and council, the suit was dismissed here on the basis of that compromise order. In the case before us we see no reason to impeach the transaction by which the new bonds were substituted for the old, and for the judgment we are asked to reverse, and The writ of error is dismissed. ANDERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. BEAL. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Submitted January 9, 1885.-Decided January 26, 1885. Bonds issued by Anderson County, in Kansas, under legislative authority, and in payment of its subscription to the stock of a railroad company, after the majority of the voters of the county had, at an election, voted in favor of subscribing for the stock and issuing the bonds, recited, on their face, the wrong statute, but also stated that they were issued "in pursuance to the vote of the electors of Anderson County, September 13, 1869." The statute in force required that at least 30 days' notice of the election should be given, and made it the duty of the Board of County Commissioners to subscribe for the stock and issue the bonds, after such assent of the majority of the voters had been given. In a suit against the board on coupons due on the bonds, brought by a bona fide holder of them, it appeared, by record evidence, that the board made an order for the election 33 days before it was to be held, and had canvassed the returns and certified that there was a majority of voters in favor of the proposition, and had made such vote the basis of their action in subscribing for the stock and issuing the bonds to the company; and the court directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff; Held : (1.) The statement in the bonds, as to the vote, was equivalent to a statement that the vote was one lawful and regular in form, and such as the law then in force required, as to prior notice; (2.) As respected the plaintiff, evidence by the defendant to show less than 30 days' notice of the election could not avail; (3.) The case was within the decision in Town of Coloma v. Eaves, 92 U. S. 484. (4.) The rights of the plaintiff were not affected by any dealing by the board with the stock subscribed for; (5.) The issue or use of the bonds not having been enjoined, for two years and Statement of Facts. a half, between the day of election and the .ime the company parted with the bonds for value, and the county having, for 10 years, paid the interest annually on the bonds, it was estopped, as against the plaintiff, from defending on the ground of a want of proper notice of the election. (6.) As the bill of exceptions contained all the evidence, and the defendant did not ask to go to the jury on any question of fact, and the questions were wholly questions of law, and a verdict for the defendant would have been set aside, it was proper to direct a verdict for the plaintiff. This was an action at law, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas, by Thomas P. Beal, against the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Anderson, in the State of Kansas, to recover the amount of 90 coupons for $70 each due January 1, 1881, and the same amount due January 1, 1882. The coupons were cut from bonds alike except as to their numbers, of the following form: "No. County of Anderson. United States of America, 1,000. State of Kansas. Know all men by these presents, that the county of Anderson acknowledges to owe and promises to pay to Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston Railroad Co., or bearer, one thousand dollars, lawful money of the United States of America, on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred, at the Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. Bank, in the city of New York, with interest at the rate of seven per centum per annum, payable annually on the first day of January in each year, on the surrender of the annexed coupons as they severally become due. This bond is executed and issued under the provisions of, and in conformity to, An Act of the Legislature of the State of Kansas, approved February 26, 1866, entitled, An Act to amend an Act entitled An Act to authorize counties and cities to issue bonds to railroad companies, approved February 10, 1865, and in pursuance to the vote of the electors of Anderson County, of September 13, 1869. In testimony whereof, The Board of County Commissioners of the said county of Anderson have caused these presents to be signed by the chairman of said Board and by the clerk of Statement of Facts. the county, and to be sealed with the seal of said county, and to be registered by the treasurer of said county. The county of Anderson, State of Kansas, will pay to the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston Railroad Company, or bearer, at the Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.'s Bank, in the city of New York, on the first day of January, A. D. 188-, seventy dollars, interest due on their bond. J. H. WILLIAMS, The petition averred, as to each bond, that it erroneously recited that it was issued under the provisions of the act of February 20, 1866, whereas it was issued "under the provisions of, and in conformity to, the laws of the State of Kansas then in force, and in pursuance to the vote of the electors of Anderson County, of September 13, 1869, at an election regularly and duly ordered and held for that purpose;" that the bond was issued in payment of a subscription theretofore made by the county to the capital stock of the Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston Railroad Company; that on March 27, 1872, the bond was duly registered in the office of the auditor of the State; that, as each coupon falling due prior to January 1, 1881, matured, the same was paid by the officers of the county with the proceeds of a tax levied and collected each year by said county from its tax-payers for that purpose; and that, after said registration, and before the coupons became due, they became, for value, the property of the plaintiff. The answer admitted, that, pursuant to an order passed by the Board of County Commissioners of the county, on the 11th of August, 1869, ordering a special election therefor, the said board submitted to the qualified voters of the county the ques |