Bonds issued after the limit has been exceeded, for the purin the hands of the city the funds necessary to enable it to pay its obligations."Reilly v. Albany, 112 N. Y. 30, 42; 19 N. E. 508.

6 Vickery v. Sioux City, 104 Fed. 164.

7 Potter v. New Whatcom, 20 Wash. 589; 72 Am. St. Rep. 135; 56 Pac. 394.

8 Gable v. Altoona, 200 Pa. St. 15; 49 Atl. 367; Addyston, etc., Co. v. Corry, 197 Pa. St. 41; 80 Am. St. Rep. 812; 46 Atl. 1035.

9 Ft. Dodge, etc., Co. v. Ft. Dodge, 115 Ia. 568; 89 N. W. 7.

10 Louisville v. Bitzer, - Ky. - ; 61 L. R. A. 434; 73 S. W. 1115.

11 (Village of) Park Ridge v. Robinson, 198 111. 571; 92 Am. St. Rep. 276; 65 N. E. 104.

12 Burlington Savings Bank v. Clinton, 106 Fed. 269; State v. Commissioners, 37 O. S. 526; Lewis v. Taylor, 18 Ohio C. C. 443; 10 Ohio C. D. 205; Addyston, etc., Co. v. Corry, 197 Pa. St. 41; 80 Am. St. Rep. 812; 46 Atl. 1035; Belton v. Stirling (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. 1027.

Pose of taking up pre-existing valid bonds,1 or warrants,2 or a valid indebtedness,3 or a valid judgment,4 are valid, even if the bonds are to be sold and their proceeds used to take up valid bonds, and for a short time they increased the debt beyond the limit.5 In any event the new bonds must be so dated that double interest is not paid by the city for any period of time.8 There is a conflict of authority on this question, however; and some courts hold that the new bonds thus issued are invalid since there is no assurance that the money received from the sale of the new bonds will be applied to discharge the earlier issue.7 The correct procedure is said to be to place the new bonds in the hands of a trustee for delivery when the old bonds were delivered up and cancelled,8 or to exchange the new bonds for the old.9 So if the valuation of property has shrunk so that earlier bonds, valid when issued, are in excess of the per cent of the valuation allowed by law, refunding bonds issued to take up such earlier bonds are valid.10 If the bonds issued in excess of the limit are used in part to refund valid debts, they are valid up to such amount.11 Refunding bonds are invalid if in excess of the limit of such bonds fixed by statute.13 If the pre-existing bonds are invalid as in excess of the limit of indebtedness the refunding bonds are invalid.13 Refunding bonds if issued to the proper parties may be made payable to bearer.14 "Warrants issued for a prior valid debt are not invalid though issued after the limit of indebtedness is exceeded.15

1 Fairfield v. School District, 116 Fed. 83S; Lyon Co. v. Bank, 100 Fed. 337; 40 C. C. A. 391 (affirming 90 Fed. 523); Keene, etc., Bank v. Lyon Co., 97 Fed. 159; Huron v. Bank, 86 Fed. 272; 30 C. C. A. 38; 49 L. R. A. 534; Lake County v. Standley, 24 Colo. 1; 49 Pac. 23; Powell v. Madison, 107 Ind. 106; 8 N. E. 31; Heins v. Lincoln, 102 Ia. 69; 71 N. W. 189; Palmer v. Helena, 19 Mont. 61; 47 Pac. 209; Hyde v. Ewert, - S. D. - ; 91 N. W. 474; National, etc., Ins. Co. v. Mead, 13 S. D. 342; 83 N. W. 335; affirming on rehearing 13 S. D. 37; 82 X. W. 78.

2 Hotchkiss v. Marion, 12 Mont. 218; 29 Pac. 821; Morris v. Taylor, 31 Or. 62; 49 Pac. 660.

3 Independent School District v. Pew, 111 Fed. 1; 55 L. R. A. 364; 49 C. C. A. 198; Board, etc., of Lake County v. Bank, 108 Fed. 505; 47 C. C. A. 464; Board, etc., of Lake County v. Platt, 79 Fed. 567; 25 C. C. A. 87; Los Angeles v. Teed, 112 Cal. 319; 44 Pac. 580; Mc-Creight v. City of Camden, 49 S. C. 78; 26 S. E. 984; Hyde v. Ewert, - S. D. - ; 91 N. W. 474; Western, etc., Co. v. Lane, 7 S. D. 599; 65 N. W. 17.

4 Board, etc., of Lake County v. Platt, 79 Fed. 567; 25 C. C. A. 87; Board, etc., of Pratt County v. Society, etc., 90 Fed. 233; 32 C. C. A. 596; Jamison v. School District, 90 Fed. 387. But such bonds are invalid if the judgment has been bonded already. District of Rock Rapids v. Society, etc., 98 Ia. 581; 67 N. W. 370.

5 Huron v. Bank, 86 Fed. 272; 49 L. R. A. 534; 30 C. C. A. 38; Los Angeles v. Teed, 112 Cal. 319; 44 Pac. 580; Powell v. Madison, 107 Ind. 106; 8 N. E. 31; Hotchkiss v. Marion, 12 Mont. 218; 29 Pac. 821; Palmer v. Helena, 19 Mont. 61; 47 Pac. 209; Poughkeepsie v. Quintard, 136 N. Y. 275; 32 N. E. 764; Miller v. School District, 5 Wyom. 217; 39 Pac. 879.

6 Louisville v. Zimmerman, 101 Ky. 432; 41 S. W. 428.

7 Doon Township v. Cummins, 142 U. S. 366; Heins v. Lincoln, 102 Ia. 69; 71 N. W. 189; Birkholz v. Din-nie, 6 N. D. 511; 72 N. W. 931; State v. McGraw, 12 Wash. 541; 41 Pac. 893.