Opinion of the Court.

they not being citizens of France. The amount of the whole claim as set forth in the memorial presented by Denis exceeded $100,000. The amount which General Canby, in 1865, recommended to be paid, as already stated, exceeded $36,000. Whatever the damages sustained by Foucher as estimated by the commission, that body could allow only one-fourth thereof, the proportion due to the plaintiffs in error. Any award to their co-legatees would have been invalid and void. They may be entitled to an equal share in the whole claim against the government of the United States; but if so they must resort to remedies provided by the laws of the United States for the prosecution of claims against them, or, if those remedies are inadequate to give this relief, they must apply to Congress. Relief by the commission under the treaty could be given only to those legatees who were at the time citizens of France.

On the hearing before the District Court, the brief of counsel for the French government, and of private counsel filed with the commission for the claimants, and letters of the latter counsel, were produced to show that no claim was pressed by them except on behalf of the plaintiffs in error; and also a letter of one of the commissioners, to show that no other claim was considered by the commission. Objection was taken to this evidence on the ground that the decision of the commission could not be interpreted by subsequent testimony, or by the arguments of counsel before it, or the opinions of attorneys employed in the case. As we understand the objection, it went to the competency of the testimony, rather than to its sufficiency. As a general rule, the judgment of a court or commission is to be interpreted by its own language and the pleadings or proceedings upon which it is founded. Extrinsic evidence to aid in its interpretation is inadmissible unless after reference to the pleadings and proceedings there remains some ambiguity or uncertainty in it. In such cases resort may be had to other evidence, as where, from the generality of the language in the pleadings, or proceedings as well as in the decision, it becomes necessary to ascertain and limit the extent of the judgment intended. Thus where a former judgment is pleaded in bar of a second action upon the same demand, it is

Syllabus.

competent to show by extrinsic evidence the identity of the demands in the two cases, if this does not appear on the face of the pleadings. Washington, Alexandria & Georgetown Steam Packet Co. v. Sickles, 24 How. 333; Miles v. Caldwell, 2 Wall. 35; Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U. S. 351, 355.

If it had been necessary to limit the effect of the award of the commission in the present case, we do not perceive any valid objection to extrinsic evidence for that purpose. The brief of counsel for the claimants would show the character and extent of their contention before that body. But letters of counsel and the letter of one of the commissioners can hardly be considered as competent evidence. Their declarations, if receivable at all, could only be so in the form of testimony given by them as witnesses in the case, and not in any ex parte written communication. But, though received as evidence, they could not have had any effect upon the decision as to the claim of the plaintiffs in error. Their claim rested on the treaty, which authorized no award in favor of any other parties before the commission. It is therefore immaterial that such evidence was received. The nature and extent of the award, and the parties entitled to it, depended upon considerations which such evidence could in no way affect.

It follows that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana must be

Reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to take further proceedings in accordance with this opinion; and it is so ordered.

BERNARDS TOWNSHIP v. MORRISON.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY.

No. 195. Argued January 30, 31, 1890.- Decided March 3, 1890.

All the questions presented and argued in this case have been often considered and decided by this court, and the court adheres to the decisions in

Opinion of the Court.

Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147; Bernards Township v. Stebbins, 109 U. S. 341; and New Providence v. Halsey, 117 U. S. 336.

Cotton v. New Providence, 47 N. J. Law, 401; and Mutual Benefit Life Co. v. Elizabeth, 42 N. J. Law, 235, approved.

The organization of townships and the number, character, and duties of their various officers are matters of legislative control.

Officers duly appointed under statute authority represent a municipality as fully as officers elected.

When the legislature has declared how an officer is to be selected, and the officer is selected in accordance with that declaration, his acts, within the scope of the powers given him by the legislature, bind the municipality.

IN CONTRACT, to recover on bonds issued by a municipal corporation. Judgment for the plaintiff, to review which this writ of error was sued out. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Alvah H. Clark and Mr. James R. English for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Cortlandt Parker for defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action on township bonds. Judgment was rendered against the township, and it alleges error. The bonds were issued under an act approved April 9, 1868, and found in the session laws of New Jersey for that year, pages 915, etc. Outside of the obligatory words, this was the form of the bond:

"This bond is one of a series of like tenor, amounting in the whole to the sum of one hundred and twenty-seven thousand dollars, issued on the faith and credit of said township in pursuance of an act entitled 'an act to authorize certain towns in the counties of Somerset, Morris, Essex and Union to issue bonds and take stock in the Passaic Valley and Peapack Railroad Company,' approved April 9, 1868.

"In testimony whereof, the undersigned, commissioners of the said township of Bernards, in the county of Somerset, to carry into effect the purposes and provisions of the said act, duly appointed, commissioned and sworn, have hereunto set

Opinion of the Court.

our hands and seals the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine.

The first section of the act provides that, upon the application in writing of twelve or more resident freeholders, the Circuit Court of the county shall appoint three resident freeholders to be commissioners.

Section two reads as follows:

"That it shall be lawful for said commissioners to borrow, on the faith and credit of their respective townships, such sums of money not exceeding ten per centum of the valuation of the real estate and landed property of such township, to be ascertained by the assessment rolls thereof respectively for the year eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, for a term not exceeding twenty-five years, at a rate of interest not exceeding seven per centum per annum, payable semi-annually, and to execute bonds therefor under their hands and seals respectively; the bonds so to be executed may be in such sums and payable at such times and places as the said commissioners and their successors may deem expedient; but no such debt shall be contracted or bonds issued by said commissioners of or for either of said townships, until the written consent shall have been obtained of the majority of the taxpayers of such township or their legal representatives appearing upon the last assessment roll as shall represent a majority of the landed property of such township (including lands owned by non-residents) appearing upon the last assessment roll of such township; such consent shall state the amount of money authorized to be raised in such township, and that the same is to be invested in the stock of the said railroad company, and the signatures shall be proved by one or more of the commissioners; the fact

Opinion of the Court.

that the persons signing such consent are a majority of the taxpayers of such township, and represent a majority of the real property of such township, shall be proved by the affidavit of the assessor of such township endorsed upon or annexed to such written consent, and the assessor of such township is hereby required to perform such service; such consent and affidavit shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the county in which such township is situated, and a certified copy thereof in the town clerk's office of such township, and the same or a certified copy thereof shall be evidence of the facts therein contained, and received as evidence in any court of this State, and before any judge or justice thereof."

By section three these commissioners were authorized to dispose of the bonds, and invest the money in railroad stock in the name of the township, to subscribe for and purchase stock in the railroad company, and to act at stockholders' meetings.

Section fourteen provides "that all bonds issued in accordance with the provisions of this act shall be registered in the office of the county clerk of the county in which the township is situated issuing the same, and the words 'registered in the county clerk's office' shall be printed or written across the face of each bond, attested by the signature of the county clerk when so registered, and no bond shall be valid unless so registered."

It is conceded that the commissioners were duly appointed; that the issue of bonds was not in excess of the amount authorized by the statute; that a paper purporting to contain the consent of the requisite number of taxpayers, duly verified by the affidavit of the township assessor, was filed in the office of the clerk of the county; and that the plaintiffs were bona fide holders. But the contention is that the consent roll did not in fact contain the requisite number of taxpayers, and that the affidavit of the assessor was not true; also that the commissioners did not borrow any money on the bonds, but disposed of them without lawful consideration. The Circuit Court held that these defences were unavailing against bona fide holders of the bonds; and with that ruling we concur. Indeed, all the questions which were earnestly presented and