11 Broomall's Appeal. 75 Pa. St. 173. As to the power of county commissioners to lease premises or rent rooms for county purposes: see Gardner v. Dakota County, 21 Minn. 33; Commissioners etc. v. Barnett, 14 Kan. 627. Compare Ford v. Mayor etc. 4 Hun, 587. Commissioners have a right prima facie to purchase land for a home for the county poor: Holten v. Lake County, 55 Ind. 194. Compare Stew. art v. Otoe County, 2 Neb. 177; Thayer v. McGee, 20 Mich. 195; Supervisors etc. v. Gorrell, 20 Gratt. 484.

12 Burnett v. Abbott, 51 Ind. 254.

13 Harney r. Indianapolis etc. R. R. Co. 32 Ind. 244; and see Hooper v. Ely, 46 Mo. 505; Rothrock v. Carr, 55 Ind. 334; Warren County etc. Co. v. Barr, id. 30; Railroad Co. r. Blanchard, 54 Ill. 240; Jenifer v. Commissioners etc. 2 Disn. 189; Wells v. Supervisors, 102 U. S. 625.

14 Police Jury v. Britton, 15 Wall. 566; Flagg v. Parish of St. Charles, 27 La. An. 319; Sterling v. Parish etc. 26 id. 59; Capmartin v. Police Jury, 23 id. 190.

§ 318. County bonds, warrants, etc.—- The legis lature may authorize the issue and sale of county bonds, by the proper authorities, as a means to provide funds for paying a valid indebtedness of the county; and bonds so issued are negotiable,2 and cannot be subjected, in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, to equi ties between the county and the original payee. Such bonds are personal property, and are deemed to have their situs wherever they may be placed for safe keeping. Money realized from the sale of the bonds of a county, legally issued by authority of the legislature, is the corporate property of the county, and the county treasurer is the legal custodian of it until paid out pursuant to law. If it be stolen or procured by fraud from the county treasury, the county alone can maintain an action to recover the same, subject, however, like other municipal rights, to the control of the legislature. It is doubtful whether the officers of a county have implied power to issue orders or warrants which shall be free from equities in the hands of holders; but warrants or orders issued by such officers have been deemed so far negotiable as to render parties indorsing them liable as indorsers. A county warrant payable out of a special fund cannot be collected against the county after that fund has been exhausted. But if a claim is not required

7

6

by law to be paid out of a special fund, a warrant there

BOONE CORP.-42.

1

for is valid, though drawn upon a fund not appropriate to the character of the allowance.10

1 Barrett v. Schuyler County, 44 Mo. 197; Comm'rs etc. v. People, 5 Neb. 127; Chaska Co. v. Supervisors etc. 6 Minn. 204; Moran v. Miami County, 2 Black, 722; Ritchie v. Franklyn County, 22 Wall. 67. Compare Steins v. Franklin County, 48 Mo. 167; Dent v. Cook, 45 Ga.

323.

2 Mercer County v. Hacket, 1 Wall. 83; Clapp v. Cedar County, 5 Iowa, 15; Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327. Compare Douglass v. County of Pike, 101 U. S. 677.

3 Mercer County v. Hacket, 1 Wall. 83; De Voss v. Richmond, 18 Gratt. 338; Barrett v. Schuyler County, 44 Mo. 197; Lynde v. The County, 16 Wall. 6; Craig v. Vicksburg, 31 Miss. 216.

4 State v. Cunningham, 51 Mo. 479. 5 People v. Ingersoll, 58 N. Y. 1.

6 People v. Ingersoll, 58 N. Y. 1.

7 See Smith v. Chesire, 13 Gray, 318; People v. County, 11 Cal. 170; Emery v. Mariaville, 56 Me. 315; Comm'rs v. Keller, 6 Kan. 510; School District v. Thompson, 5 Minn. 280; People v. Gray, 23 Cal. 125; Clark . Polk County, 19 Iowa, 247; Douglass v. Virginia City, 5 Nev. 147; Smith v. Law, 21 N. Y. 296; Bauer v. Franklin County, 51 Mo. 205; School District v. Stough, 4 Neb. 357; Newell v. School Directors, 68 Ill. 514; Wall v. County of Monroe, 103 U. S. 74; County of Ouachita v. Wolcott, id. 559.

8 Campbell v. Polk County, 3 Iowa, 467; Bull v. Sims, 23 N. Y. 570. Compare Keller v. Hicks, 22 Cal. 457. Payment of a county order or warrant by the treasurer or other proper officer, acting in good faith, discharges the indebtedness, although such payment was made after maturity of the order: Sweet v. Comm'rs etc. 16 Minn. 106.

9 Campbell v. Polk County, 49 Mo. 214; and see Comm'rs v. Cox. 1 Ind. 403; Day v. Callow, 39 Cal. 593; Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 id. 255; Mitchell v. Speer, 39 Ga. 56.

10 Supervisors v. Klein, 51 Miss. 807. Compare Montague v. Horan, 12 Wis. 599; Kelley v. Mayor etc. 4 Hill, 263; International Bank v. Franklin County, 65 Mo. 105; 27 Am. R. 261.

§ 319. Liability of county for wrongs.-Counties are not subject to common-law liabilities of persons generally,1 and are liable for wrongs only when committed in the use or misuse of the corporate powers conferred on them.2 The statute which creates them prescribes all their duties, and imposes all the liabilities to which they are subject; and they are not liable to persons injured by the wrongful neglect of duty, or wrongful acts of their officers or agents, done in the course of the execution of corporate powers, or in the performance of corporate duties, unless such liability be expressly imposed by statute. Thus, there is no duty of maintaining bridges

cast by law upon counties as such;5 and in order to charge the county for the neglect of officers whose duty it is to cause bridges to be built, and the public roads to be kept in order, a statutory liability must be shown.5 Nor is a county responsible, unless made so by statute, for injuries caused by the unsafe and dangerous condi tion of county buildings; 7 as where a witness, in attendance at court, was injured in consequence of the negli gent omission of the agents or officers of the county to guard a dangerous opening leading into the cellar of the court-house. Nor is a county liable for damages sustained by adjoining residents or landowners, by reason of the erection or maintenance of a county jail, even though it is a nuisance; nor is it liable for an escape caused by the insufficiency of the jail; 10 nor for injuries sustained by an individual, through vacation of a road, ordered by the board of commissioners.11

1 Symonds v. Supervisors etc. 71 Ill. 355; Barbour County v. Horn, 48 Ala. 649; Larkin v. Saginaw County, 11 Mich. 88; Treadwell v. Comm'rs, 11 Ohio St. 190.

2 Barbour County v. Horn, 48 Ala. 649. Compare Hannon v. County of St. Louis, 62 Mo. 313.

3 Van Eppes v. Comm'rs, 25 Ala. 460; Jacobs v. Hamilton County, 1 Bond, 500; and see Bray v. Wallingford, 20 Conn. 416; Commonw. v. Brice, 22 Pa. St. 211.

4 Symonds v. Supervisors etc. 71 Ill. 355; State v. St. Louis County Court, 34 Mo. 546; Peters v. State, 9 Ga. 109; Scales v. Ordinary etc. 41 id. 225.

5 Scales v. Ordinary etc. 41 Ga. 225; and see Huffman v. San Joa. quin County, 21 Cal. 426; Cooley v. Freeholders, 3 Dutch. 415; Brabham v. Supervisors, 54 Miss. 363; 28 Am. R. 352; Wood v. Tipton County, 7 Baxt. 112; 32 Am. R. 561.

6 See Chicago v. McGinn, 51 Ill. 266; Wheatley v. Mercer, 9 Bush, 704; Eikenberry v. Township, 22 Kan. 556; 31 Am. R. 198; Humphreys v. County, 56 Pa. St. 204; Smoot v. Wetumpka, 24 Ala. 112; Barbour County v. Horn. 43 id. 649; Sims v. Butler County, 49 id. 110; Askew v. Hale County. 54 id. 639; 25 Am. R. 730; Krause v. Davis County, 44 Iowa, 141; Moreland v. Mitchell County, 40 id. 394; Penn Township v. Perry County, 78 l'a. St. 457; State v. Supervisors etc. 41 Wis. 28; Supervisors etc. v. Arrghi, 51 Miss. 667; House v. Board of Comm'rs, 60 Ind. 580; 28 Am. R. 657.

7 Comm'rs etc. v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. 109; and see Ward v. County of Hart, 12 Conn. 404; Haygood v. Justices, 20 Ga. 845; Morey v. Town of Newfane, 8 Barb. 645; Bigelow v. Randolph, 14 Gray, 541; Hol lenbeck r. Winnebago County, 95 Ill. 148; 35 Am. R. 151; Wood v. Tip. ton Co. 7 Baxt. 112; 32 Amn. R. 561.

8 Comm'rs etc. v. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. 109.

9 Wehn v. Comm'rs etc. 5 Neb. 494; 25 Am. R. 197.

10

Governor v. Justices etc. 19 Ga. 97.

11 Comm'rs etc. v. Venard, 10 Kan. 95.

§ 320. Allowance of county claims.—In the exercise of the power to audit and allow claims, the auditing board must confine itself to the allowance of such claims as grow out of contracts which the county has authority to make, and which are legally chargeable against the county. It has been held that boards of audit, in auditing claims against a county, act judicially, and that their decisions are conclusive and binding alike upon the county and the claimant.3 In Missouri, they act only as the financial agents of their respective counties, and settlements made by them are open to the correction of mistakes. So in New York, the board of supervisors of a county has power to rescind a resolution auditing and allowing a claim against the county, upon discovery of a mistake or error.5 But where the board has not exceeded its powers, the auditor cannot assume to set up his judgment in opposition to that of the board, in respect to the issuance of a warrant on an account against the county.8 A state legislature has not power to enact that no existing claim against a certain county shall be considered a legal claim, unless audited and allowed by a board of commissioners created by the act; nor can it require the creditors of a county to surrender their evidences of indebtedness, and accept new ones differing in terms from the old. Services of a medical man, rendered in making a post-mortem examination at request of the coroner," or by order of the district attorney, 10 are properly chargeable against the county. So of medical services rendered to prisoners by authority of the county board; 12 or medical services rendered to persons as paupers of a township in pursuance of an employment by the proper township trustee.18 A county is liable for the costs of an unsuc cessful action prosecuted for its benefit. 14 And where a county fails to provide a jail, it may be held liable for the

expense of guarding a prisoner removed thither by change of venue. 15 But a county is not liable for the wages of a jailer appointed by the sheriff; 16 nor for compensation to an attorney appointed by the court to conduct the defense of a pauper prisoner.17 Nor can a board of supervisors lawfu.ly engage a county in or bind it to the payment of the expenses of a litigation by an individual to establish his right to an office, and the audit and payment of such a claim is unlawful.18

1 English v. Chicot County, 26 Ark. 454.

2 Supervisors etc. v. Ellis, 59 N. Y. 620; Linden v. Case, 46 Cal. 171. Oral allowance of a claim by the board not good: Cricket v. State, 18 Ohio St. 9.

3 Arthur v. Adam, 49 Miss. 404; Commissioners etc. v. Gregory, 42 Ind. 32.

4 State v. Roberts, 62 Mo. 388; Reppy v. Jefferson County, 47 id. 66. 5 People v. Supervisors etc. 65 N. Y. 222. Compare People v. Green, 64 Barb. 162; Supervisors etc. v. Roche, 65 Ill. 77.

6 Babcock v. Goodrich. 47 Cal. 498; and see State v. Richter, 37 Wis. 275; State v. Buckles, 39 Ind. 272; People v. Supervisors, 45 N. Y. 196. 7 Rose v. Estudillo, 39 Cal. 270.

8 People v. Morse, 43 Cal. 534.

9 Allegheny County v. Shaw, 34 Pa. St. 301.

10 Sherman v. Supervisors etc. 30 How. Pr. 173. 11 Sherman v. Supervisors etc. 30 How. Pr. 173.

12 Roberts v. Commissioners etc. 10 Kan. 29. Compare Commonw. v. Hall, 7 Watts, 290.

13 Commissioners etc. v. Holman, 34 Ind. 256.

14 Dover v. State, 45 Ala. 244. Compare People v. Supervisors, 45 N. Y. 196.

15 Ransom v. Gentry County, 48 Mo. 341. Compare James v. Commissioners etc. 5 Neb. 38; Davis v. Commissioners etc. 9 Kan. 635; Commissioners etc. v. Commissioners etc. 75 No. Car. 240.

16 Union County r. Patton, 63 Ill. 458.

17 Lamont v. Solano County, 49 Cal. 158; People v. Supervisors etc. 78 N. Y. 622; Posey v. Mobile County, 50 Ala. 6. But see Gordon v. Commissioners etc. 52 Ind. 322.

18 Supervisors etc. v. Ellis. 59 N. Y. 620. The board of supervisors may employ a person to take charge of the county offices in the courthouse, and the expense incurred thereby is a legal county charge: Conway v. Mayor etc. 6 Daly 515.

§ 321. Suit against county.-Suit may be brought against a county as such, upon any complete cause of action or claim against it, for which no other specific remedy is provided by law. But it is made a general