form to the statutory authority.12 1267 A defective execution of the Joseph Tp. v. Rogers, 83 U. S. (16 Wall.) 644; Henry County V. Nicolay, 95 U. S. 619; Aspinwall v. Daviess County Com'rs, 22 How. (U. S.) 364; Chicot County v. Lewis, 103 U. S. 164; Tipton County v. Rogers Locomotive & Mach. Works, 103 U. S. 523; Walnut Tp. v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683. The word "inhabitants" as used in an act authorizing towns and cities to subscribe for railroad stock means "legal voters." Louisiana v. Taylor, 105 U. S. 454; People v. County of Tazewell, 22 Ill. 147; Illinois Midland R. Co. v. Town of Barnett, 85 Ill. 313; Evansville, I. & C. Straight Line R. Co. v. City of Evansville, 15 Ind. 395. The same result may be accomplished by a petition of two-thirds of the residents of the city. Thompson v. City of Peru, 29 Ind. 305. The petition of a majority of the resident freeholders in a city is not necessary to authorize a subscription to the capital stock of railroads. Lafayette, M. & B. R. Co. v. Gei ger, 34 Ind. 185; Bowling Green & M. R. Co. v. Warren County Ct., 73 Ky. (10 Bush) 711; Madison County Ct. v. Richmond, I & T. F. R. Co., 80 Ky. 16; Portland & O. R. Co. v. Inhabitants of Standish, 65 Me. 63; City of St. Louis v. Alexander, 23 Mo. 483; Bank of Rome v. Village of Rome, 18 N. Y. 38; Starin v. Town of Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439; Hill v. Forsythe County Com'rs, 67 N. C. 368. Mercer County v. Pittsburgh & E. R. Co., 27 Pa. 389. If the statute require the amount of the proposed subscription to be first recommended by a board of designated officers, such recommendation must be definite as to the amount; they cannot delegate their discretion. McCallie v. Town of Chattanooga, 40 Tenn. (3 Head) 317. Where the power is given directly to the mayor and aldermen of a municipal corporation, the question of subscribing to the capital stock of a railroad corporation need not be submitted to a vote of the inhabitants of the city. Winston v. Tennessee & P. R. Co., 60 Tenn. (1 Baxt.) 60; State v. Blackstone, 63 Wis. 362. Instead of an election, a petition of the taxpayers of the municipality may be necessary to authorize a subscription to the stock of a railroad corporation. 1267 People v. Dutcher, 56 Ill. 144. "Amboy being a township organ ized under the general township law, the presumption would be, unless a contrary intention was expressed, that the election should be held in the mode prescribed for its government. Where legislation is adopted in reference to the action of an incorporated body and no mode is prescribed in which it shall be performed, the presumption must be indulged that it is intended that the body shall act through its officers and in the course usually adopted and authorized by the law governing the action of the body. And this being the rule, when the legislature has authorized this township as a corporate body to hold an election, and has prescribed no mode, a majority of the court hold that it was designed to authorize it to be in the manner township elections are required to be held in the election of their officers, and not under the gen power often results in a similar condition so far as the legality of aid granted is concerned as the entire absence of it.1268 In spite of the strictures and criticisms upon the granting of aid directly or indirectly to railroad corporations, there is much to be said in favor of this action as an economic proposition. The largest and best growth and development of any part of the country is absolutely and completely dependent upon the facilities for marketing its products. If these are insufficient or entirely lacking, such a result will not be effected and in proportion to the increase of these facilities and the opportunity to market products at reasonable rates will be found the greatest natural development. With this follows a great increase in the value of all property and in the commercial and industrial activities of the people. From this condition, again, will naturally follow an increased ability to raise the necessary sums by taxation for the purpose of meeting public expenses and performing governmental duties. $483. Public investments. The authority sometimes is granted public corporations to invest their surplus funds in the stocks or bonds of private corporations.1269 This right is not usually considered as the equivalent of granting aid to such enterprises. If the exercise of the power in this regard is not strictly guarded and limited, however, public officials may, through a desire to aid some local or private enterprise, make unwise or losing investments of public mon eral election laws. And it appears that this election was conducted in conformity to the law of its organization." Harding v. Rockford, R. I. & St. L. R. Co., 65 Ill. 90. 1268 Bell v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 71 U. S. (4 Wall.) 598. The same principle will apply to an irregular exercise of the power. English v. Chicot County, 26 Ark. 454; Williams v. Town of Roberts, 88 Ill. 11. This case also holds that the legislature has no power to ratify such an act. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Jefferson County Com'rs, 17 Kan. 29; Com. v. Councils of Pittsburgh, 43 Pa. 391. But the performance of certain conditions may be waived by the public corporation. 1269 Wilson v. Mitchell, 43 Fla. 107, 30 So. 703; Traver v. Merrick County Com'rs, 14 Neb. 327; McKenzie v. Wooley, 39 La. Ann. 944; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 47 Pa. 189; Cook v. Sumner Spinning & Mfg. Co., 33 Tenn. (1 Sneed) 698. The authority must be expressly granted, it cannot be implied from the power to tax as ordinarily conferred on municipal corporations. eys entrusted to them. To prevent this and guard against loss, public officials are usually limited and restricted in their power to make investments except in certain designated securities.1270 These are usually limited to the mortgage bonds of a corporation or of stock upon which dividends have been declared for a prescribed number of consecutive years. * * 1270 State V. Nemaha County the county board empowered to do? Com'rs, 10 Kan. 569; Lewis v. Bour- It may make a subscription to the bon County Com'rs, 12 Kan. 186. capital stock of a railroad corpora"The statute reads: 'Section 1. tion. A subscription is a contract. The board of county commissioners A contract requires two parties. of any county, to, into, through, There can be no subscription of from or near which, whether in this stock without a corporation to reor any other state, any railroad is ceive the subscription. The county or may be located, may subscribe was not authorized to pledge its to the capital stock of any such funds to aid in building a railroad. railroad corporation in the name It could not bind itself to give so and for the benefit of such county, much for a road. The railroad not exceeding in amount project might be aided, it is true, but no such bonds shall be issued but only by virtue of the fact that until the question shall first be the corporation had obtained a resubmitted to a vote of the qualified sponsible subscriber for a large electors of the county,' etc. This amount of its stock. But before the statute grants to the commission- board could make a subscription to ers an extraordinary power. The the capital stock of any railroad constitutionality of such legislation corporation, the question must first has been questioned though sus- be submitted to a vote of the qualitained. Its wisdom has been denied fied electors. What question? Maneven when its constitutionality has ifestly the question of making the been sustained. To prevent abuse subscription,-entering into the conof this power, a specific and express authority from the voter is required. The manner of proceeding to obtain this authority is prescribed. Without legislative sanction, the assent of a majority of the voters would not bind the county, nor make valid bonds issued in pursuance thereof. The assent of a majority binds the county no further than the legislature has provided it shall, and a statutory power so liable to abuse should not, by construction, be enlarged beyond the plain warrant of the language used by the legislature. What is tract with the railroad corporation. * The granting of aid to strictly private enterprises has never been tolerated by any court; such use of the public moneys is regarded as illegal, and statutes or charter provisions attempting to grant such authority have been held without exception, when the question has been raised, unconstitutional and void.1271 If another rule of law were adopted, the greatest opportunity would be given for the corrupt misuse and waste of public moneys. No proposition of law in connection with the subject of public corporations is more thoroughly settled and with better reason than this.1272 board, the consummation of the contract. Bonds are to issue only in payment of stock already subscribed. If the language limits the question to that of issuing bonds, it limits it to that which implies a subscription already made, a contract already entered into, and therefore an existing and named corporation, the recipient of the subscription, and the party to the contract." Missouri River, Ft. S. & G. R. Co. v. Miami County Com'rs, 12 Kan. 230. 1271 Cooley, Taxation (2d Ed.) p. 115; Citizens Sav. & Lean Ass'n V. City of Topeka, 87 U. S. (20 Wall.) 655; City of Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487; Commercial Nat. Bank v. Iola, 2 Dill. 353, Fed. Cas. No. 3,061, affirmed, 87 U. S. (20 Wall.) 655; Scammon v. City of Chicago, 44 Ill. 269; English v. People, 96 Ill. 566; Warren County Agricultural Joint Stock Co. V. Barr, 55 Ind. 30; Opinion of Justices, 58 Me. 590; Allen v. Jay, 60 Me. 124; Luques v. Inhabitants of Dresden, 77 Me. 186; People v. Township Board of Salem, 20 Mich. 452; Silsbee v. Stockle, 44 Mich. 561; Weismer v. Douglas, 64 N. Y. 91; Town of Wauwatosa v. Gunyon, 25 Wis. 271; Attorney General v. City of Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400. See, also, authorities cited under §§ 301, 302, 303, ante. 1272 See, also, authorities cited at length in §§ 414-417, ante. Lewis v. City of Shreveport, 3 Woods, 205, Fed. Cas. No. 8,331, affirmed, 108 U. S. 282; Heslep v. City of Sacramento, 2 Cal. 580; Bissell v. City of Kankakee, 64 Ill. 249; Mather v. City of Ottawa, 114 Ill. 659; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 28; Hooper v. Emery, 14 Me. 375; Brewer Brick Co. v. Inhabitants of Brewer, 62 Me. 62; Jenkins v. Inhabitants of Andover, 103 Mass. 94; Coates v. Campbell, 27 Minn. 498; Bloodgood v. Mohawk & H. R. Co., 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 9; Sharpless v. City of Philadelphia, 21 Pa. 147; Hammett v. City of Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 146. The question of the character of a certain purpose, whether public or private, is for judicial determination. Scott v. Alexander, 23 S. C. 120. See Bayle v. City of New Orleans, 23 Fed. 843, involving the validity of an appropriation of public moneys for the purpose of transporting the old Liberty bell from Philadelphia to New Orleans for a centennial exhibition in the latter place. See, also, cases cited in preceding note. Ohio Val. Iron Works v. Town of Moundsville, 11 W. Va. 1. § 484. Claims. Independent of, and in addition to, the various obligations and purposes above given, and to which the public moneys can be legally appropriated and used, is the further one authorizing expenditures, for the payment of legally established claims against public corporations. Claims are naturally divided into two classes, those involving the presentment and payment of what can be termed liquidated or absolute demands, and those involving the settlement and allowance of unliquidated claims. The former class including negotiable bonds and securities, warrants, orders, judgments and other fixed, definite and certain demands against public corporations,1273 the validity of which is usually already established and which, if not, is determined by principles already discussed under the sections treating these questions. The other class of claims, and that which will be considered in succeeding sections, relate to those which are either unliquidated in amount or those where it is not certain what is due or how much is owing and which are based upon some contract provision either express or implied for the rendition of a service, either personal in its character or involving the supply of some commodity; claims which neither one of the parties to the contract can alone render certain. The unliquidated claims of this class have usually for their basis a tort. 1273 Morgan v. City of Beloit, 74 U. S. (7 Wall.) 613; Lincoln County v. Luning, 133 U. S. 529; City of New Orleans v. Fisher, 180 U. S. 185; Vincent v. Lincoln County, 62 Fed. 705. Judgments. Campbells ville Lumber Co. v. Hubbert (C. C. A.) 112 Fed. 718; Shipman v. District of Columbia, 18 Ct. Cl. 291; Caldwell v. Dunklin, 65 Ala. 461; Goyne v. Ashley County, 31 Ark. 552; Sawyer v. Colgan, 102 Cal. 283, 36 Pac. 580; Jolly v. Woodworth, 4 Idaho, 496, 42 Pac. 512; City of Chicago v. People, 98 Ill. App. 517; Flint & P. M. R. Co. v. Board of State Auditors, 102 Mich. 500, 60 N. W. 971; Guilder v. City of Otsego, 20 Minn. 74 (Gil. 59); Taylor v. Chickasaw County Sup'rs, 70 Miss. 87, 12 So. 210; Horner v. Coffey, 25 Miss. 434. The private property of a person, or resident of a town, cannot be taken to satisfy a judgment against the town. Ayres V. Thurston County, 63 Neb. 96, 88 N. W. 178; State v. Lander County Com'rs, 22 Nev. 71, 35 Pac. 300; Parker v. Saratoga County, 106 N. Y. 392, 13 N. E. 308. Claims which must be presented to the county board for audit and allowance do not include bonds and notes duly issued and payable. State v. Daggett, 28 Wash. 1, 68 Pac. 340. It is not necessary that salaries of city officers fixed by the |