376 special powers, parties dealing with them in an official capacity must, at their peril, ascertain the scope of this authority and a public corporation will not be bound by such acts except when coming within the principles as thus strictly applied and interpreted. The doctrine of estoppel based upon admissions will not apply in doubtful cases; the authority of the officer or agent must clearly appear.377 A doubt will be construed in favor of the corporation and against one claiming an estoppel or an advantage from an admission.378 way Com'rs, 84 Ill. 279; Cook County v. Harms, 108 II. 151; Buena Vista County v. Iowa Falls & Sioux City R. Co., 46 Iowa, 226; Wells v. Grubb, 58 Iowa, 384; Hanks v. North, 58 Iowa, 396; Mason & Ford Co. v. Com., 18 Ky. L. R. 371, 36 S. W. 570; State v. Bradbury, 40 Me. 154; State v. McKay, 43 Mo. 594; Blanchard v. Inhabitants of Ayer, 148 Mass. 174, 19 N. E. 209; Stoner v. Keith County, 48 Neb. 279, 67 N. W. 311; O'Leary v. Board of Education, 93 N. Y. 1; Greene v. State, 8 Ohio, 310; Sullivan County v. Ruth, 106 Tenn. 85, 59 S. W. 138; City of Tyler v. Adams (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S. W. 119; Town of Burlington v. Town of Calais, 1 Vt. 391; Boyers v. Crane, 1 W. Va. 176. 376 Huthsing v. Bosquet, 17 Fed. 54; Barton v. Swepston, 44 Ark. 437; Sutro v. Pettit, 74 Cal. 332; Broadwell v. Chapin, 2 Ill. App. 511; Welker v. Hinge, 16 Ill. App. 326; Tamm v. Lavalle, 92 Ill. 263; Rissing v. City of Ft. Wayne, 137 Ind. 427, 37 N. E. 328; Newman v. Sylvester, 42 Ind. 106; Carpenter v. Union Dist. Tp., 58 Iowa, 335; City of New Orleans v. Tulane Educational Fund's Adm'r, 46 La. Ann. 861, 15 So. 161; City of Baltimore v. Eschbach, 18 Md. 282; City of Baltimore v. Reynolds, 20 Md. 10; Mitchell v. St. Louis County Com'rs, 24 Minn. 459; First Nat. Bank of Detroit v. Becker County Com'rs, 81 Minn. 95, 83 N. W. 468; State v. Bank of State, 45 Mo. 528; State v. Hays, 52 Mo. 578; Sooy v. State, 39 N. J. Law, 135. The city comptroller is not its agent for the purpose of making statements with respect to the moral standing of the city treasurer and it is not, therefore, bound by them. Delafield v. Illinois, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 192; Micheltree v. Sweezy, 70 Pa. 278; Spafford v. Town of Norwich, 71 Vt. 78, 42 Atl. 970. See, also, authorities cited under §§ 643 et seq., ante. But see State v. Gloyd, 14 Wash. 5, 44 Pac. 103. 377 La Salle County v. Simmons, 10 Ill. 513; Clark v. City of Des Moines, 19 Iowa, 199; Hardin County v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 92 Ky. 412, 17 S. W. 860; Mitchell v. City of Rockland, 41 Me. 363; Firt Nat. Bank of Sturgis v. Watkins, 21 Mich. 483; Bogart v. Lamotte Tp., 79 Mich. 294, 44 N. W. 612; West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden Horse R. Co., 53 N. J. Eq. 163; Starin v. Town of Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439; Green v. North Buffalo Tp., 56 Pa. 110; Carolina Nat. Bank v. State, 60 S. C. 465, 38 S. E. 629. 378 Waters' Case, 4 Ct. Cl. 389; Logan County Sup'rs v. City of Lincon, 81 Ill. 156; Weston v. City of Syracuse, 158 N. Y. 274, 53 N. E. 12, 43 L. R. A. 678. § 667. Liability to the government or a public body. Public officials or employes in many cases are charged with the custody of public moneys which include as a legal duty the caring for its safety,379 the disbursement of it in accordance with the law,380 and the keeping of accounts that form a record of their official acts in these respects.381 The legal disbursement of publie moneys include its payment by them during their term of office to those to whom this action is authorized 382 and a surrender of such as may remain in their hands upon the expiration of their term of office to the official succeeding them,383 and for a failure to perform these duties properly they and their sureties are personally responsible.384 The loss of public funds may occur, as already stated, through the negligence or dishonest action of the officia! 379 People v. Haines, 10 Ill. 528; Trustees of Tp. 13 S. R. 3 W. v. Misenheimer, 78 Ill. 22; Killian v. State, 15 Ind. App. 261, 43 N. E. 955; State v. Powell, 40 La. Ann. 234, 4 So. 46. 380 United States v. Laub, 12 Pet. (U. S.) 1; Russell v. Tate, 52 Ark. 541, 13 S. W. 130, 7 L. R. A. 180; Avery v. Pima County (Ariz.) 60 Pac. 702; City of East St. Louis v. Flannigen, 34 Ill. App. 596. The payment of public moneys by a city treasurer in a manner not authorized by law cannot be ratified by a city council. State v. Windle, 156 Ind. 648, 59 N. E. 276; Freeman v. Otis, 9 Mass. 272. The disbursing official may be also liable to one from whom he wrongfully withholds money. Kas v. State, 63 Neb. 581, 88 N. W. 776; State v. Bætz, 44 Wis. 624. 381 See § 698, post. 382 Spurlock v. State (C. C. A.) 52 Fed. 382. A public officer is liable on his official bond when he refuses to pay an order properly issued or, in the absence of funds, to endorse it as required by law. Barnes v. Hudman, 57 Ala. 504; Wood v. Greene County Com'rs, 60 Ga. 556; Boardman v. Hayne, 29 383 Taylor County v. Standley, 79 Iowa, 666, 44 N. W. 911; Mason v. Fractional School Dist. No. 1, 34 Mich. 228; Baily v. Com. (Pa.) 10 Atl. 764; Aiken County v. Murray, 35 S. C. 508, 14 S. E. 954; State v. Assmann, 46 S. C. 554, 24 S. E. 673; City of Huron v. Meyers, 13 S. D. 420, 83 N. W. 553. Interest coupons paid in good faith by a city treasurer should be credited to him in his settlement with the city. Sigel School Directors v. Coe, 40 Wis. 103. 384 United States v. Ripley, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 18; Barnes v. Hudman, 57 Ala. 504; McKee V. Monterey County, 51 Cal. 275; Warren County v. Jeffrey, 18 Ill. 329; Taggart v. State, 49 Ind. 42; Sac County v. Hobbs, 72 Iowa, 69; Snyder v. Board of Education, 16 Kan. 542; Perley v. Muskegon County, 32 Mich. 132; Gerken v. Sibley County, 39 Minn. 433; Town of White Sulphur Springs v. Pierce, 21 Mont. 130; Iredell County Com'rs v. Wasson, 82 N. C. 308. See sections 618-626, ante. 385 See 623: State v. Lanier, 31 charged with their keeping or without his default. The weight of authority is to the effect that where no special exemption is madeby law, the fact that a loss occurs without their fault does not release them from a liability to the government or the public corporation they represent for the moneys so lost.380 The care of public property and records may also be entrusted to public officials and employes and the use and control of it is governed by the same principles regulating the use of public money in so far as they may be made applicable.387 La. Ann. 423; Cumberland County v. Pennell, 69 Me. 370. 386 United States v. Prescott, 3 How. (U. S.) 578; Boyden v. United States, 80 U. S. (13 Wall.) 17; Stapp v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 219; Holman v. United States, 11 Ct. Cl. 642; State v. Houston, 83 Ala. 361, 3 So. 859; City of Healdsburg v. Mulligan, 113 Cal. 205, 33 L. R. A. 461; Davis v. Dunlevy, 11 Colo. App. 344; Wilson v. People, 19 Colo. 199; Adams v. State, 82 Ill. 132; Halbert v. State, 22 Ind. 125; Morbeck v. State, 28 Ind. 86; Bluff Creek Tp. v. Hardinbrook, 40 Iowa, 130; Lowry v. Polk County, 51 Iowa, 50, 49 N. W. 1049; Board of Control v. Royes, 48 La. Ann. 1061, 20 So. 182; Hennepin County Com'rs v. Jones, 18 Minn. 199 (Gil. 182); Redwood County Com'rs v. Tower, 28 Minn. 45; Perley v. Muskegon County, 32 Mich. 132; Bristol v. Johnson, 34 Mich. 123; Adams v. Lee, 72 Miss. 281, 16 So. 243; Griffin v. Mississippi Levee Com'rs, 71 Miss. 767; Adams v. Lee, 72 Miss. 281; Arnold v. State, 77 Miss. 463, 27 So. 596; School Dist. of Orrick v. Dorton, 145 Mo. 304, 46 S. W. 948; Jefferson County Com'rs v. Lineberger, 3 Mont. 231; City of Great Falls v. Hanks, 21 Mont. 83; State v. Hill, 47 Neb. 456; Bush v. Johnson County, 48 Neb. 1, 66 N. W. 1023, 32 L. R. A. 223; Thoms sen v. Hall County, 63 Neb. 777, 89 N. W. 389, 57 L. R. A. 303; Village of Oneida v. Thompson, 92 Hun, 16, 37 N. Y. 889; City of Johnstown. v. Rodgers, 20 Misc. 262, 45 N. Y.. Supp. 661; Kilby v. First Nat. Bank of Carthage, 32 Misc. 370, 66 N. Y. Supp. 579; Tillinghast v. Merrill, 151 N. Y. 135, 45 N. E. 375, 34 L. R. A. 678; State v. Clarke, 73 N. C. 255; Nason v. Directors of Poor, 126 Pa. 445, 17 Atl. 616; State v. Copeland, 96 Tenn. 296, 31 L. R. A. 844; McKinney v. Robinson, 84 Tex. 489. See authorities cited under §§ 607, 608. See, also, many authorities cited Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) p. 374. But see City of Healdsburg v. Mulligan, 113 Cal. 205, 45 Pac. 337, 33 L. R. A. 461; Dreyer v. People, 188 Ill. 40, 58 N.. E. 620, 59 N. E. 424, 58 L. R. A. 869; Inhabitants of Cumberland County v. Pennell, 69 Me. 357; City of Livingston v. Woods, 20 Mont. 91, 49 Pac. 437; Albany County Sup'rs v. Dorr, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 440; York County v. Watson, 15 S. C. 1; Fairchild v. Hedges, 14 Wash. 117, 44 Pac. 125, 31 L. R. A. 851; Roberts. v. Laramie County Com'rs, 8 Wyo. 177, 56 Pac. 915. 387 United States v. Thomas, 82 U. S. (15 Wall.) 337. A public officer is relieved from any liability where property in his charge has been forcibly seized and destroyed' 388 Interest on public moneys. An interesting question may arise relative to the responsibility of a public official to whom is entrusted the care of public moneys for the interest accumulating upon such funds while they are in his possession. Where the law provides in express terms that interest accruing upon deposits of public moneys become and remain a part of the public funds, no doubt as to the duty of an officer can arise in this respect. Where, however, there are no statutory provisions regulating this, the personal use of this may, it has been held in some few cases, create no personal liability to the public corporation,389 but the better reason as well as the weight of authority is in support of the doctrine that all accruing interest upon public funds becomes a part of them and a failure to account for it in the same manner as the principal will make a public officer or employe and his sureties personally responsible.300 Where public moneys are wrongfully withheld, interest is clearly chargeable.391 § 668. Personal liability of officers and agents; contracts. A liability may be created against the individual or his principals ex contractu or as founded upon a tort. In respect to the liability of a public officer or agent on a contract executed by him by a public enemy. Chambers v. Stringer, 62 Ala. 596; Healdsburg V. Mulligan, 113 Cal. 205, 33 L. R. A. 461; Wilson v. People, 19 Colo. 199, 22 L. R. A. 449; Wooley v. Baldwin, 101 N. Y. 688; Land, Log & Lumber Co. v. McIntyre, 100 Wis. 245, 75 N. W. 964. 388 United States v. Denvir, 106 U. S. 536; Sheridan v. Van Winkle, 43 N. J. Law, 125; People v. Gasherie, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 71; State v. Ruth, 9 S. D. 84; People v. Dolan, 5 Wyo. 245, 39 Pac. 752. See, also, 6 Am. Dec. 263. 389 State v. Walsen, 17 Colo. 170, 28 Pac. 1119, 15 L. R. A. 456; Hughes v. People, 82 Ill. 78; Cooper v. People, 85 Ill. 417; Com. v. Godshaw, 13 Ky. L. R. 572, 17 S. W. 737; Richmond County Sup'rs v. Wandel, 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 33. 390 United States v. Denvir, 106 U. S. 536; United States v. Mosby, 133 U. S. 273. The treasurer of the United States must account for interest on public moneys deposited in banks. McPhillips v. McGrath, 117 Ala. 549, 23 So. 721; Sheridan v. Van Winkle, 43 N. J. Law, 125; Maloy v. Bernalillo County Com'rs, 10 N. M. 638, 62 Pac. 1106; Richmond County Sup'rs v. Wandel, 6 Lans. (N. Y.) 33; City of New York v. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank, 56 Hun, 649, 11 N. Y. Supp. 95; Clark v. Sheldon, 134 N. Y. 333, 19 L. R. A. 138; Eshelby v. Board of Education, 66 Ohio St. 71, 63 N. E. 586; State v. Ruth, 9 S. D. 84. 391 United States v. Denvir, 106 U. S. 536; Bullock v. The Governor, 2 Port. (Ala.) 484; Marks v. Purdue University, 56 Ind. 228; Sheri on behalf of his principal, the presumption of law exists that no personal liability was intended to be assumed,392 and this is especially true where public officers or agents in the regular performance of their official duties or functions enter into contract relations with third parties.393 Clear intent. Where the intent is clear, however, that the officer or employe is acting for himself and not for the public corporation which officially he represents, the contract will be considered a personal one and not binding upon the corporation, although from its execution a doubt may arise in respect to the parties.394 $669. Torts. Officers and employes of public corporations perform their duties under a threefold division of the powers of government,. namely, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, and each dan v. Van Winkle, 43 N. J. Law, 125; Maloy v. Bernalillo County Com'rs, 10 N. M. 638, 62 Pac. 1106; Clark v. Sheldon, 57 Hun, 586, 10 N. S. Supp. 357; Id., 134 N. Y. 333, 19 L. R. A. 138; State v. Ruth, 9 S. D. 84; State v. Allen (Tenn. Ch. App.) 46 S. W. 303. 392 Parks v. Ross, 11 How. (U. S.) 362; Stone v. Mason, 2 Cranch, 431, Fed. Cas. No. 13,485; Sanborn v. Neal, 4 Minn. 126 (Gil. 83) Town of Hanover v. Eaton, 3 N. H. 38; Gill v. Brown, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 385; Cook v. Irvine, 5 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 492; McKagen v. Windham, 59 S. C. 434, 38 S. E. 2. 393 Comer v. Bankhead, 70 Ala. 493; Mann v. Richardson, 66 Ill. 481; Perrin v. Lyman's Adm'r, 32 Ind. 16; Jackson Tp. v. Home Ins. Co., 54 Ind. 184; Pine Civil Tp. v. Huber Mfg. Co., 83 Ind. 121; Lyon v. Adamson, 7 Iowa, 509; Armstrong v. Borland, 35 Iowa, 537; Willett v. Young, 82 Iowa, 292, 11 L. R. A. 115; Cutler v. Inhabitants of Ashland, 121 Mass. 588; Andrews v. Estes, 11 Me. 267; Fowler v. Atkinson, 6 Minn. 578 (Gil. 412); McDonald v. Franklin County, 2 Mo. 217; Hodges v. Runyan, 30 Mo. 491; Woodes v. Dennett, 9 N. H. 55; Delano v. Goodwin, 48 N. H.. 203; Knight v. Clark, 48 N. J. Law, 22; Miller v. Board, 15 Misc. 322, 37 N. Y. Supp. 766; Brazee v. Stewart, 59 App. Div. 476, 69 N. Y. Supp. 231; Robinson v. Howard, 84 N. C. 151; West v. Jones, 9 Watts (Pa.) 27; Leet v. Shedd, 42 Vt. 277. But see Sharp v. Smith, 32 III. App. 336; Hobbs v. Cowden, 20 Ind. 310; Bayliss v. Pearson, 15 Iowa, 279; Wing v. Glick, 56 Iowa, 473; Mechem, Agency, §§ 426 and 806 et seq. 394 Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch (U. S.) 345. "The intent of the officer to bind himself personally must be very apparent indeed, to induce a construction of the contract.' White v. Williams, 49 Ala. 130; Samuel's Ex'r v. McDowell, 1 Har. (Del.) 108; McCracken v. Lavalle, 41 III. App. 573; Field v. Towle, 34 Me. 405; Hodges v. Runyan, 30 Mo. |