
    MATTHEW J. LAUGHLIN v. THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
    (17 C. Cls. R., 376; 116 U. S. R., 485.)
    
      On the claimant’s Appeal.
    
    A contractor receives from the Board of Public Works certificates of indebtedness instead of cash. He hypothecates them with one Blu-menburg, who fraudulently disposes of them. The transfer to B. is by delivery and indorsement in blank. The contractor gives notice to the treasurer of the Board, but neglects to notify the board of •audit, or to prefer a claim for the indebtedness. The holders present the certificates, and the Board audits them and they are subse- ■ quently paid.
    The Court below decides—
    (1.) The board of audit had by law full access to all the records, books, and papers of the Board of Public Works; but it did not have the custody of them, and was not bound to take official notice of every paper deposited in the mass of the archives of the District.
    
      (2.) Where notice of a person’s equities or right of property in certain certificates of indebtedness held by other persons was given to the treasurer of the Board of Public Works, it did not operate as notice to the District nor to the board of audit after the Board of Public Works had been abolished and the treasurer legislated out of office.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   The Chief Justice

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 25, 1886.  