of public authorities which involves a disposition of public property acquired for public uses and with public moneys should be restricted in every possible manner. The practical application of the principles above render attempts not made in accordance with the statute or without authority illegal and, therefore, void.1300 The same rules practically apply to the lease of public property varied as the difference in legal effect between an absolute sale of property and a grant of a limited interest may warrant or require.1801 E. 500; Crow v. Warren County Com'rs, 118 Ind. 51, 20 N. E. 642; Wisconsin v. Torinus, 24 Minn. 332; Jefferson County v. Grafton, 74 Miss. 435, 36 L. R. A. 798; Urch v. City of Portsmouth, 69 N. H. 162, 44 Atl. 112; Stenberg v. State, 50 Neb. 127; Shimer v. Inhabitants of Town of Phillipsburg, 58 N. J. Law, 506, 33 Atl. 852; Town of East Hampton v. Bowman, 136 N. Y. 521, 32 N. E. 987, affirming 60 Hun, 163, 14 N. Y. Supp. 668. An action against a vendor for the purchase price is not a ratification of unauthorized acts of public officials. Beckrich v. City of North Tonawanda, 57 App. Div. 563, 67 N. Y. Supp. 992; Dean v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 474, 31 S. W. 378. But see Larned v. Jenkins, 113 Fed. 634. A deed authorized by law is presumably valid and cannot be clearly assailed. 1300 Young v. Mahoning County Com'rs, 53 Fed. 895; Haydenfeldt v. Hitchcock, 15 Cal. 514; Gardner v. Dakota County Com'rs, 21 Minn. 33; Urch v. City of Portsmouth, 69 N. H. 162, 44 Atl. 112; Den d. Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. Law (1 Dutch.) 633; Gwyn v. Coffey, 117 N. C. 469, 23 S. E. 331; McReynolds v. Broussard, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 409, 45 S. W. 760; Central Wharf & Warehouse Co. v. City of Corpus Christi, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 390, 57 S. W. 982; Rice v. Ashland County, 114 Wis. 130, 89 N. W. 908. 1301 City of New Orleans V. Steamship Co., 87 U. S. (20 Wall.) 387;; Illinois & St. L. R. & C. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 2 Dill. 70, Fed. Cas. No. 7,007; State v. Baxter, 50 Ark. 447, 8 S. W. 188; Hirsch v. City of Brunswick, 114 Ga. 776, 40 S. E. 786; State v. Taylor, 28 La. Ann. 460; Millsaps v. Town of Monroe, 37 La. Ann. 641; Dill v. Inhabitants of Wareham, 48 Mass. (7 Metcf.) 438; Inhabitants of Town of Rockport v. Rockport Granite Co., 177 Mass. 246, 58 N. E. 1017, 51 L. R. A. 779; Worden v. City of New Bedford, 131 Mass. 23. A city has the right to let one of its public buildings to be used occasionally for other purposes either with or without compensation. See, also, as holding the same, Jones v. Inhabitants of Sanford, 66 Me. 585; and Stone v. City of Oconomowoc, 71 Wis. 155, 36 N. W. 829. Wells v. Pressy, 105 Mo. 164, 16 S. W. 670; McDonald v. Schneider, 27 Mo. 405; Southern Development Co. of Nevada v. City of Douglass, 26 Nev. 50, 63 Pac. 38; Tilyou v. Town of Gravesend, 104 N. Y. 356, 10 N. E. 542; Evans v. Hughes County, 3 S. D. 580, 54 N. W. 603; $938. Disposition by gift. If the existence of a universal rule of action can be claimed as applying to all public corporations without limitation, that rule would undoubtedly be the universal restriction, constitutional, statutory or both or implied which prohibits a public corporation from making a grant or gift of public property or of public privileges to private individuals solely for private uses.1802 The reasons for this rule are too clear to warrant further discussion. Smith v. Heuston, 6 Ohio 101; Baily v. City of Philadelphia, 184 Pa. 594, 39 Atl. 494, 39 L. R. A. 837. A lease by a city of its gas works for a long term of years when made within statutory authority is valid being made in its business or proprietary capacity. Town of Lemington v. Stevens, 48 Vt. 38. A lease of public lands by the town selectmen may be enjoined by them after the expiration of their term of office. As to the power of the public corporation to mortgage its property see the following cases: Adams v. City of Rome, 59 Ga. 765; Middleton Sav. Bank v. City of Dubuque, 15 Iowa, 394, and Adams v. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 42 Tenn. (2 Coldw.) 645. 1302 Roberts v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 158 U. S. 1, affirming 42 Fed. 734, and distinguishing Whiting v. Sheboygan & F. du L. R. Co., 25 Wis. 167; City of Eufaula v. McNab, 67 Ala. 588; City of Patty v. Colgan, 97 Cal. 251, 31 Pac. 1133, 18 L. R. A. 744. An appropriation for benefit of sufferers from floods held void. Bourn v. Hart, 93 Cal. 321, 28 Pac. 951, 15 L. R. A. 431. An appropriation by the legislature to an individual on account of personal injuries sustained by him while in service of the state and for which the state is not legally responsible is a gift within the California constitution, § 31, art. IV. Conlin v. Board of Sup'rs of City of San Francisco, 99 Cal. 17, 33 Pac. 753, 21 L. R. A. 474; State v. Hart, 144 Ind. 107, 43 N. E. 7, 33 L. R. A. 118; Brockman v. City of Creston, 79 Iowa, 587, 44 N. W. 822; Trustees of Hawesville V. Hawes' Heirs, 69 Ky. (6 Bush) 232; Xiques v. Bujac, 7 La. Ann. 498; Allen v. Inhabitants of Marion, 93 Mass. (11 Allen) 108. Wendell v. City of Newark, 63 N. J. Law, 216, 42 Atl. 767. A city clerk is under no obligation to furnish gratuitously to private persons certified copies of municipal records. Adamson v. Nassau Electric R. Co., 12 Misc. 600, 33 N. Y. Supp. 732; Bush v. Board of Sup'rs of Orange County, 10 App. Div. 542, 42 N. Y. Supp. 417; City of New York v. Union Ferry Co., 55 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 138; Gumpert v. Hay, 202 Pa. 340, 51 Atl. 968. Exchange of property between city and county held valid. Madden v. Hardy 92 Tex. 613, 50 S. W. 926; Weekes v. City of Galveston, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 102, 51 S. W. 544; City of Cleburne v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 66 Tex. 457; Ellis v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 77 Wis. 114, 45 N. W. 811. See, also, §§ 410 et seq., ante. But see Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. In the legislature as representing the state is vested primarily an absolute control of all public property including highways, limited only by well recognized principles and constitutional provisions. It has power to open, improve, repair or vacate public highways,1303 but this power is usually delegated to local or subordinate political agencies because of greater convenience and a wider familiarity of the local authorities with local necessities and conditions.1304 The power is one which is not usually implied but must be expressly given,1805 but where the power is granted 649, 27 Pac. 1089, 14 L. R. A. 459; Daggett v. Colgan, 92 Cal. 53, 28 Pac. 51, 14 L. R. A. 474. Appropriation for state exhibit at World's Fair held constitutional. Thomas v. Inhabitants of Marshfield, 27 Mass. (10 Pick.) 364; Belcher Sugar Refining Co. v. St. Louis Grain Elevator Co., 101 Mo. 192, 13 S. W. 822, 8 L. R. A. 801; State v. Schwieckardt, 109 Mo. 496, 19 S. W. 47; Perry v. Keene, 58 N. H. 40. Aid to railroad held valid. State v. Babcock, 19 Neb. 230. Donations may be made under legislative authority giving municipalities power to aid internal improvements. Vaughn V. Board of Com'rs of Forsyth County, 118 N. C. 636, 24 S. E. 425. County donations authorized to a state home for feeble-minded persons. Cutting v. Taylor, 3 S. D. 11, 51 N. W. 949, 15 L. R. A. 691. Donations to private fire companies sustained. Lund v. Chippewa Co., 93 Wis. 640, 67 N. W. 927, 34 L. R. A. 131. 1303 Haynes v. Thomas, 7 Ind. 38; City of Eudora v. Darling, 54 Kan. 654, 39 Pac. 184; Haywood v. City of Charlestown, 34 N. H. 23; Bauer v. Andrews, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 359; McGee's Appeal, 114 Pa. 470. 1304 State V. Putnam County Com'rs, 23 Fla. 632, 3 So. 164. The inclusion of a portion of a county road within the city limits does not affect a vacation of it. Williams v. Carey, 73 Iowa, 194, 34 N. W. 813; Curry v. Place, 99 Mich. 524; Blocker v. State, 72 Miss. 720, 18 So. 388; Gargan v. Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co., 11 Ky. L. R. 489, 12 S. W. 259; Lindsay v. City of Omaha, 30 Neb. 512, 46 N. W. 627; State v. Elizabeth City, 54 N. J. Law, 495, 24 Atl. 495; Newell v. Bassett, 33 N. J. Law, 26; Hammer v. Elizabeth City, 67 N. J. Law, 129, 50 Atl. 451. The city of Elizabeth is not authorized to make a conditional vacation of a public street. Buchholz v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 148 N. Y. 640; McGee's Appeal, 114 Pa. 470, 8 Atl. 237; In re Vacation of Union Street, Pottsville Borough, 140 Pa. 525, 21 Atl. 406; Wetherill v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 195 Pa. 156, 45 Atl. 658. See, also, cases cited generally under this subject. 1305 City of Texarkana v. Leach, 66 Ark. 40, 48 S. W. 807; Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Ocala St. & S. R. Co., 39 Fla. 306, 22 So. 692; City of Louisville v. Bannon, 18 Ky. L. R. 10, 35 S. W. 120; City of Paris v. Lilleston, 22 Ky. L. R. to vacate the whole of the street, it has been held to include the implied right to narrow or vacate a portion of it.1306 The vacation of public highways is usually co-extensive with the power to establish them and dependent, so far as its existence and its delegation, therefore, upon the same principles of law.1307 Occasion for vacation. The vacation of highways as in the case of the creation of them is usually discretionary with local public authorities 1308 and their action in this respect may be warranted and dictated by an insufficiency of revenues or the fact that a particular highway may be unnecessary or undesirable or all of these reasons combined. As stated later, a municipal corporation proper is charged with a certain duty in respect to the maintenance of its streets and upon a failure to perform its duty there may result a liability to those sustaining injuries by reason of its nonperformance. The fact that a municipal corporation, therefore, may have insufficient revenues with which to properly 1506, 60 S. W. 919; Hoboken Land & Imp. Co. v. City of Hoboken, 36 N. J. Law, 540; Jersey City v. Central R. Co., 40 N. J. Eq. (13 Stew.) 417; Brandt v. City of Milwaukee, 69 Wis. 386, 34 N. W. 246; Brock v. Hishen, 40 Wis. 674. 1306 City of Mt. Carmel v. Shaw, 155 III. 37, 39 N. E. 584, 27 L. R. A. 580; Newell v. Bassett, 33 N. J. Law, 26; In re Swanson Street, 163 Pa. 323, 30 Atl. 207. 1307 People v. Nankin Highway Com'rs, 15 Mich. 347. See cases on vacation of streets by municipal corporations in 33 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 1308 Florida Cent. & P. R. R. R. Co. v. Ocala St. & S. R. R. Co., 39 Fla. 306, 22 So. 692; Meyer v. Village of Teutopolis, 131 Ill. 552, 23 N. E. 651. Where the discretionary power exists to vacate, it is no objection that it was exercised for the benefit of a private corporation. Leeds v. City of Richmond, 102 Ind. 372; Weaver v. Templin, 113 Ind. 298; Platt v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. (Iowa) 31 N. W. 883; Spitzer v. Runyan, 113 Iowa, 619, 85 N. W. 782; Pillsbury v. City of Augusta, 79 Me. 71, 8 Atl. 150; Com. v. Inhabitants of Roxbury, 8 Mass. 457; Riggs v. Board of Education of Detroit, 27 Mich. 262; Horton v. Williams, 99 Mich. 423; Atkinson v. Wykoff, 58 Mo. App. 86; Glasgow v. City of St. Louis, 107 Mo. 198; Knapp, Stout & Co. v. City of St. Louis, 153 Mo. 560, 55 S. W. 104; Id., 156 Mo. 343, 56 S. W. 1102; Village of Bellevue v. Bellevue Imp. Co., 65 Neb. 52, 90 N. W. 1002; United New Jersey R. & Canal Co. v. National Docks, etc. R. Co., 57 N. J. Law, 523, 31 Atl. 981; In re Road in McCandless Tp., 110 Pa. 605, 1 Atl. 594; Attorney-General v. Shepard, 23 R. I. 9, 49 Atl. 39; State v. Taylor, 107 Tenn. 455, 64 S. W. 766. But see Town of Cromwell v. Connecticut Brown Stone Quarry Co., 50 Conn. 470. See, also, §§ 807 et seq., ante. repair and maintain public streets within its limits will be a valid reason for the vacation of some one or more of them.1 1309 A public highway also whether urban or suburban many be rendered. unnecessary or undesirable by reason of the opening or existence of other public roads.1310 A vacation of a public highway is, therefore, based primarily upon a general benefit of the community 1811 though the fact that it is sometimes done for the advantage of abutting owners will not render a vacation void otherwise legal.1312 $940. Manner of vacation. The vacation of a highway can only be effected through the carrying out of certain prescribed proceedings in an orderly manner. These may be originated either by the public authorities 1309 Tuftonborough v. Fox, 58 N. H. 416; In re Palo Alto Road, 160 Pa. 104; Anderson v. Turbeville, 46 Tenn. (6 Cold.) 150. But see Ashcraft v. Lee, 81 N. C. 135. 1310 Scutt v. Town of Southbury, 55 Conn. 405, 11 Atl. 854; Ponder v. Shannon, 54 Ga. 187; Green v. Ayers, 31 Ind. 248; Limming v. Barnett, 134 Ind. 332, 33 N. E. 1098; Rector v. Christy, 114 Iowa, 471, 87 N. W. 489; Bradbury v. Walton, 14 Ky. L. R. 823, 21 S. W. 869; Robertson v. McDowell, 15 Ky. L. R. 503, 24 S. W. 7; Com. v. Inhabitants of Roxbury, 8 Mass. 457; Phelps v. Pacific R. Co., 51 Mo. 477; Bethlehem's Petition, 20 N. H. 210; Town of Hopkinton's Petition, 27 N. H. 133; Petition of Marlborough, 45 N. H. 556; People v. Nichols, 51 N. Y. 470; Miller v. Oakwood Tp., 9 N. D. 623, 84 N. W. 556; De Forest v. Wheeler, 5 Ohio St. 286; In re Loretto Road, 29 Pa. 350; In re Vacation of Henry Street, 123 Pa. 346, 16 Atl. 785; In re Vacation of Public Road in Palo Alto, 160 Pa. 104, 28 Atl. 649; In re Swanson Street, 163 Pa. 323, 30 Atl. 207. 1311 Douglass v. City Council of Montgomery, 118 Ala. 599, 24 So. 745, 43 L. R. A. 376; Whitsett v. Union Depot & R. Co., 10 Colo. 243, 15 Pac. 339; Smith V. McDowell, 148 Ill. 51, 35 N. E. 141, 22 L. R. A. 393; Warren v. Lyons City, 22 Iowa, 351; Glasgow v. City of St. Louis, 87 Mo. 678; Winchester v. Capron, 63 N. H. 605; Portland & W. V. R. Co. v. City of Portland, 14 Or. 188; In re Palo Alto Road, 160 Pa. 104. 1312 City of Mt. Carmel v. Shaw, 155 Ill. 37, 39 N. E. 584, 27 L. R. A. 580, reversing 52 Ill. App. 429; Hayes v. Tyler, 85 Iowa, 126, 52 N. W. 116; City of Marshalltown v. Forney, 61 Iowa, 578; Knapp, Stout & Company v. City of St. Louis, 153 Mo. 560, 55 S. W. 104; Village of Bellevue v. Bellevue Imp. Co., 65 Neb. 52, 90 N. W. 1002; State v. Elizabeth City, 54 N. J. Law, 462, 24 Atl. 495. |