including bridges,505 making appropriation for these purposes and for establishing roads extending into different towns. § 575. Character of duties. The performance of their duties is regarded as personal and, because involving this element, are not capable of delegation to subordinate agents or employes; it is the judgment and discretion of the individual that is trusted by the electors rather than that of some unknown person to be selected by him.506 Where the Devoe v. SmeltLarson v. Fitz Kennedy v. Dubuque, C. & M. R. Co., 34 Iowa, 421; Everett v. Pottawattamie County Sup'rs, 93 Iowa, 721, 61 N. W. 1062; zer, 86 Iowa, 385; gerald, 87 Iowa, 402; Willis v. Sproule, 13 Kan. 257. The proceedings of county commissioners in the establishment of county roads are judicial in their nature and when they act either in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, their proceedings are entitled to the same respect from superior courts as proceedings of other tribunals of special limited and inferior jurisdiction. Inhabitants of New Vineyard v. Somerset County, 15 Me. 21; Cyr v. Defour, 62 Me. 20. The right of county commissioners to locate a highway cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding. Hughes v. Mermod, 121 Mo. 98; Mitchell v. Holderness, 34 N. H. 209; Conover v. Bird, 56 N. J. Law, 228; State v. Treasurer of Wood County, 17 Ohio, 184; Com. v. Kline, 162 Pa. 499; Van Antwerp v. Dell Rapids Tp., 3 S. D. 305, 53 N. W. 82; Robinson v. Winch, 66 Vt. 110. 505 Pierce V. Elmore County Com'rs, 117 Ala. 569; Spier v. Baker, 120 Cal. 370, 41 L. R. A. 196; City of Lansing v. State Auditors, 111 Mich. 327; State v. Tibbets, 52 Neb. 228; State v. Stewart, 52 Neb. 243; Bryant v. Dakota County, 53 Neb. 755; Seabolt v. Northumber land County Com'rs, 187 Pa. 318; Alexandria County Sup'rs v. City Council of Alexandria, 95 Va. 469; McEldowney v. Wyatt, 44 W. Va. 711, 45 L. R. A. 609. 506 Attorney General v. Lowell, 67 N. H. 198, 38 Atl. 270; French v. Dunn County, 58 Wis. 402. But the power to purchase a suitable farm for a county poor house may be delegated by a board of county commissioners to a committee of its members. "The statute also declares that the powers of a county as a body corporate can only be exercised by the county board 'or in pursuance of a resolution or or dinance by them adopted.' Section 652. The power to purchase the farm was exercised by the committee pursuant to a resolution adopted by the board. The action taken seems to conform to both the letter and the spirit of the law in respect to the execution of corporate authority unless there is something in the nature of the act to be performed which rendered it essential it should be executed by the entire board. There are, doubtless, powers vested in the county board which could not be delegated to any committee. The statute must have a reasonable interpretation so as to make it practic performance of a duty is obligatory, the element of discretion is not involved and upon a refusal its performance may be compelled by mandamus issued by the proper authorities.507 These county boards of administration are bodies of limited jurisdiction legally capable of performing only such duties and exercising those powers that may be expressly granted to them by statutory or constitutional authority.508 The rule of strict construction applies to their acts and, without doubt, action by them in excess of their authority is void and legally incapable of creating rights or liabilities.509 able in the transaction of county business. The power to purchase a poor-farm can be as well exercised by a competent committee as by the whole body." Following Rockwood v. Woodford, 25 Wis. 443, and distinguishing Lauenstein v. City of Fon du Lac, 28 Wis. 336; Lord v. City of Oconto, 47 Wis. 386. 507 People v. La Salle County Sup'rs, 84 Ill. 303. The construction of a jail can be compelled by mandamus if there is no suitable one in existence. People v. Superior Ct., 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 114; Hull V. Oneida County Sup'rs, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 259. 508 McDonald v. Maddux, 11 Cal. 187; People v. Bircham, 12 Cal. 50; McDaniel v. Yuba County, 14 Cal. 444; Robinson v. City & County Sup'rs of Sacramento, 16 Cal. 208; San Joaquin County v. Jones, 18 Cal. 327; Territory v. Cass County Com'rs, 6 Dak. 39. The legislature has power to increase or decrease the number of county commissioners, re-arrange the districts, enlarge or diminish their duties. Pulaski County v. Thompson, 83 Ga. 270. 9 S. E. 1065; Strange v. Bell, 11 Ga. 103; Potts v. Henderson, 2 Ind. 327; Games v. Robb, 8 Iowa, 193; Feek v. Bloomingdale Tp., 82 Mich. 393, 10 L. R. A. 69; Wilcox v. Paddock, 65 Mich. 23; Bray v. Chosen Abb. Corp. Vol. II-29 Freeholders of Hudson County, 50 N. J. Law, 82; State v. Gracey, 11 Nev. 223; People v. Schenectady County Sup'rs, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 408; Ruckles v. State, 1 Or. 347; Frost v. Cherry, 122 Pa. 417; Cunningham v. Squires, 2 W. Va. 422. 509 Coman v. State, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 241. County commissioners have no authority to extend the time provided by law for the payment of revenues received by the collector and county revenues. White V. Conover, 5 Blackf. (Ind.) 462. County commissioners are authorized by statute to establish roads of a width not exceeding forty feet. An order establishing a road of indefinite width is void. Cushing v. Inhabitants of Stoughton, 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 389. A town having appointed a committee for an illegal purpose but with authority to defend all actions growing out of it is liable for professional services rendered by counsel employed by the committee in defense of such action. Mitchell v. St. Louis County Com'rs, 24 Minn. 459; State v. Clarke, 73 N. C. 255; Auerbach v. Salt Lake County, 23 Utah, 103, 63 Pac. 907. It does not always follow that under no circumstance can a liability be cre ated when some of the members § 576. Character of duties continued. Within the scope of their discretionary powers and duties, however, their determination is ordinarily conclusive 510 either in respect to the nature or kind and manner of work to be performed as well as the compensation to be paid therefor,511 but where the statutes fix the compensation, any allowance in excess is void.512 Since such boards are bodies of limited jurisdiction, it is also equally clear that they cannot, even in the performance of duties legally assigned to them, violate statutory provisions, incur indebtedness or take any action that can be considered as contrary to law. 513 Within their power, contracts made by them cannot be are guilty of fraud with reference to some part of the transaction. 510 People V. Marin County Sup'rs, 10 Cal. 344. County supervisors are authorized to require "new bonds whenever they deem it necessary." The question of necessity is left to their sound legal discretion exercised after examination of facts in each particular case. Waugh v. Chauncey, 13 Cal. 11; Schuyler County Sup'rs v. People, 25 Ill. 181; Colton v. Hanchett, 13 Ill. 615; Andrews v. Knox County Sup'rs, 70 Ill. 65; Sims v. Monroe County Com'rs, 39 Ind. 40; Dudley V. Blountsville & D. Turnpike Co., 39 Ind. 288; Carroll County Com'rs V. Richardson, 54 Ind. 153; Rothrock v. Carr, 55 Ind. 334. This discretion is a legal, not a personal one; they cannot make an allowance for that which there is no legal authority. Hunting County Com'rs v. Beaver, 156 Ind. 450, 60 N. E. 150; Brewer v. Boston, C. & F. R. Co., 113 Mass. 52. The action of county commissioners upon a subject within their jurisdiction cannot be impeached collaterally and is conclusive upon all parties in an action at law. Ragoss v. Cuming County, 36 Neb. 375; People v. Carpenter, 24 N. Y. 86. The presumption of law is in favor of the validity of legislative action by a board of county supervisors and the burden of proving its illegality is upon the party impeaching the act. Long v. Richmond County, 76 N. C. 273. So long as county commissioners act within their powers, the courts will not assume to control the exercise or their discretion and will not, therefore, inquire into a charge that a tax levied by them is insufficient. Burwell v. Vance County Com'rs, 93 N. C. 73; Boran & Guckes v. Darke County, 21 Ohio St. 311. 511 Washington County v. Porter, 128 Ala. 278, 29 So. 185; People v. La Salle County Sup'rs, 84 Ill. 303. A county board of supervisors has the sole and discretionary power under Illinois statutes to determine the size, cost and quality of materials of which a county jail shall be constructed. 512 People V. Dutchess County Sup'rs, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 508. Neither can county supervisors refuse to pay the compensation allowed by law. 513 Laforge v. Magee, 6 Cal. 285; Foster v. Coleman, 10 Cal. 279; Mc arbitrarily rescinded or impaired without creating a liability against the county which they represent.514 They equally with other public officers have no power to impair, destroy or interfere with private property without taking such action, if any, as may be required by the statutes or constitution.515 They must act not only within the scope of their authority but also as a body and at some regular or special meeting called and held in the manner provided by rule or by law.516 But this will not preclude them ordinarily from transacting business on other days unless the rule or statute is mandatory fixing their time of meeting.517 § 577. Performance of duties. Motives that may have influenced the official conduct of the members of a board of county commissioners cannot be made the subject of judicial inquiry for the purpose of impeaching their official acts; this rule, it will be remembered, applies to all mem Donald v. Maddux, 11 Cal. 187; Colton v. Hanchett, 13 Ill. 615; Perry v. Kinnear, 42 Ill. 160. Supervisors are not authorized to appropriate any portion of the county funds to the compensation of the circuit judge. Rothrock v. Carr, 55 Ind. 334; District Attorney Bristol County Com'rs, 80 Mass. (14 Gray) 138; Chemung Canal Bank v. Chemung County Sup'rs, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 517. County supervisors have no authority to issue bills of exchange. Jackson V. Cory, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 301. V. 514 McDaniel v. Yuba County, 14 Cal. 444; Jackson County Com'rs v. King, 7 Ind. 721; People v. Edmonds, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 529; Id., 19 Barb. 468. 515 Bibb County Com'rs v. Harris, 71 Ga. 250; Plum v. Morris Canal & Banking Co., 10 N. J. Eq. (2 Stockt.) 256. No city has the right in a proper exercise of its corporate powers to occupy or appropriate private property without compensation or damage directly or incidentally private property. Allen v. Smith (Tenn. Ch. App.) 47 S. W. 206. 516 Douglass V. Baker County Com rs, 23 Fla. 419; Oliver V. Keightley, 24 Ind. 514; Torr v. State, 115 Ind. 188; Mitchell County Sup'rs v. Horton, 75 Iowa, 271; Stafford County Com'rs v. State, 40 Kan. 21; Joslyn v. Franklin County Com'rs, 81 Mass. (15 Gray) 567; Cassin v. Zavalla County, 70 Tex. 419. 517 People v. Murray, 15 Cal. 221. "The rule is general that when time is prescribed to a public body in the exercise of a function in which the public is concerned, the period designated is not of the essence of the authority but is a mere directory provision." Tuohy v. Chase, 30 Cal. 524; People v. Allen, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 486; People v. Peck, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 604; People v. Green, 75 N. C. 329; State v. Raborn, 60 S. C. 78, 38 S. E. 260. 518 bers of legislative bodies.5: Their duties are so numerous and diverse and so dependent upon the special terms of particular legislation that no more than a general statement of the principles governing their action can be given in this connection.519 While the duties of county commissioners or supervisors are numerous in extent and diverse in character, being either quasi legislative, judicial or executive, yet, in all matters relating to the exercise of the police power and in all fiscal regulations they are generally allowed to perform the duties that may be enjoined upon them by law without any particular or searching examination into the character of the powers conferred and whether it is proper and legal that they should be exercised by such boards.520 Encroachment, however, by them upon the duties legally assigned to other branches of the government, will not be sustained.521 In the exercise of their various duties, those rules or principles of law which apply generally may apply to the particular duty under consideration whether executive, administrative or legislative in its character. 522 § 578. Legal character. These as well as other boards created by law have been considered sometimes of themselves as public quasi corporations 523 and, 518 Page v. Hardin, 47 Ky. (8 B. Mon.) 648; Webster v. Washington County, 26 Minn. 220. "The principle invoked by plaintiffs that no man shall be a judge in his own cause, and the authorities cited in its support have no application to the facts of this case. Whatever may be thought of the propriety of Cover's conduct in the premises he violated no legal principle nor any statute that has been brought to the attention of the court. In respect to the motives that may have governed his official conduct and action, that is not a subject of which the courts can take any cognizance in a matter of this kind." Shannon v. City of Portsmouth, 54 N. H. 183. 519 See the title "County Commissioners, 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) p. 975. 520 Willis v. Sproule, 13 Kan. 257. In respect to ministerial acts, while superior courts or bodies should adhere to the principle that they are tribunals of special and inferior legislation, yet their proceedings should be considered liberally so as not invalidate them for immaterial irregularities. Chaska Co. v. Carver County Sup'rs, 6 Minn. 204 (Gil. 130); State v. Ormsby County Com'rs, 7 Nev. 392. 521 Rodman v. Harcourt, 43 Ky. (4 B. Mon.) 224. 522 People v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 592; Plummer v. Inhabitants of Waterville, 32 Me. 566. The right of a board of county commissioners to act must appear from their records which must show jurisdictional facts. 523 People v. Hester, 6 Cal. 679; Stermer v. La Plata County Com'rs, |