schools is commonly recognized, yet as it is governmental and discretionary in its character, there is no absolute obligation resting upon the state or a community to supply educational facilities. The performance of the duty cannot be compelled, neither will any liability arise from a failure to perform." § 1068. Maintenance of public schools. The funds by which a public school system is maintained are either those provided by the state at large from particular sources,. investments, state school taxes and special state taxes, or by local and special action, voted and collected by individual school districts. These may be required by legislative act and without their consent to raise money by taxation for the support of certain designated schools.10 The Federal government has made liberal donations of the public lands to the various states, the proceeds of the sale of which are used in the establishment of general school funds, the income from which is appropriated to particular and 11 7 Neal v. Burrows, 34 Ark. 491; See, also, Fiske v. Inhabitants of Huntington, 179 Mass. 571, 61 N. E. 260. A town which fails to provide a school house may be required to pay the tuition in the high school of another town of children attending that school and who have completed their courses of study in the former town. 8 Francis v. Peevey, 132 Ala, 58, 31 So. 372; Auditor General v. State Treasurer, 45 Mich. 161; State v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 190, 60 S. W. 1093. Taxation of collateral inheritances, the income to be devoted to educational purposes, legal. School Dist. of Agency v. Wallace, 75 Mo. App. 317; Webb County v. School Trustees of Laredo, 95 Tex. 131, 65 S. W. 878, reversing (Tex. Civ. App.) 64 S. W. 486. Elberg v. San Luis Obispo County, 112 Cal. 316, 41 Pac. 475, 44 Pac. 572; City of Gainesville v. Simmons, 96 Ga. 477, 23 S. E. 508; Burgess v. Pue, 2 Gill (Md.) 254; Public School Com'rs v. Allegheny County Com'rs, 20 Md. 449; Chamberlain v. Board of Education of Cranbury, 57 N. J. Law, 605; School Dist. No. 74 v. Long, 2 Okl. 460. 10 Jenkins v. Inhabitants of Andover, 103 Mass. 94. 11 Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U. S. 517; Stoutz v. Brown, 5 Dill. 445, Fed. Cas. No. 13,505; Roberts v. Columbet, 63 Cal. 22; Baker v. Newland, 25 Kan. 25; Telle v. School Board, 44 La. Ann. 365, 10 So. 801; Bres v. Louviere, 37 La. Ann. 736; State v. Batchelder, 7 Minn. 121 (Gil. 79); Bishop v. McDonald, 27 Miss. 371; Kissell v. St. Louis Public Schools, 16 Mo. 553; Patterson v. Fagan, 38 Mo. 70; Glasgow v. Baker, 85 Mo. 559; State v. Crumb, 157 Mo. 545, 57 S. W. 1030; Coombs v. Lane, 4 Ohio St. 112; Hurst v. Hawn, 5 Or. 275; Lowry v. Francis, 10 Tenn. (2 Yerg.) 534; Martin v. State, 29 Tenn. (10 Humph.) 157; Romine v. various schools either as designated in the acts of Congress appropriating the land 12 or by enactment of the state legislatures.13 School funds can only be legally used for the purpose specified; neither the principal, the income, nor any part, can be diverted or appropriated for other objects.14 It is common by constitutional or legislative enactment to provide for the investment of public school funds.15 Officials charged by law with their care and control are limited strictly to their authority 16 and acquire no right or title to the fund as against the corporation under which they held office; they are regarded as agents merely of the beneficiaries for whose benefit they hold the funds.17 The principle of strict construction applies and laws or constitutional directions are uni State, 7 Wash. 215, 34 Pac. 924; State v. Town of Jericho, 12 Vt. 127. 12 Jones v. Soulard, 24 How. (U. S.) 41; Long v. Brown, 4 Ala. 622; Cloud v. Danley, 16 Ark. 699; Sprayberry v. State, 62 Ala. 459. 13 Springfield Tp. v. Quick, 22 How. (U. S.) 56; Wyman v. Banvard, 22 Cal. 524; State v. Sickler, 9 Ind. 67; People v. Davenport, 30 Hun (N. Y.) 177; Heston v. Mayhew, 9 S. D. 501, 70 N. W. 635; Callvert v. Winsor, 26 Wash. 368, 67 Pac. 91. See, also, Fannin County v. Riddle, 51 Tex. 360. 14 Williams v. State, 65 Ark. 159; In re Loan of School Fund, 18 Colo. 195, 32 Pac. 273; State v. Fitzpatrick, 5 Idaho, 499, 51 Pac. 112; Illinois & Mich. Canal v. Haven, 10 Ill. (5 Gilman) 548. The rule also applies to school lands. Trustees of Schools v. Braner, 71 Ill. 546; Zartman v. State, 109 Ind. 360; Superintendent of Public Instruction v. Auditor of Public Accounts, 97 Ky. 180, 30 S. W. 404; State v. Board of Liquidators, 29 La. Ann. 77; Sun Mutual Ins. Co. v. Board of Liquidation, 31 La. Ann. 175; Pfeiffer v. Board of Education of Detroit, 118 Mich. 560, 42 L. R. A. 536; William Deering & Co. v. Peterson, 75 Minn. 118; State v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 190, 60 S. W. 1093; Otken v. Lamkin, 56 Miss. 758; Foote v. Brown, 60 Miss. 155. Funds raised for the support of the school during the current year cannot be used for the payment of outstanding school warrants. People v. Allen, 42 N. Y. 404; Gordon v. Cornes, 47 N. Y. 608; Jernigan v. Finley, 90 Tex. 205, 38 S. W. 24; Pacific Mfg. Co. v. School Dist. No. 7, 6 Wash. 121, 33 Pac. 68. See, also, Howard County Com'rs v. State, 120 Ind. 282, 22 N. E. 255. 15 McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662; Alexander v. Knox, 6 Sawy. 54, Fed. Cas. No. 170; Murray v. Smith, 28 Miss. 31; State v. Bank of Missouri, 45 Mo. 528; In re School Fund, 15 Neb. 684, 50 N. W. 272; State v. Westerfield, 23 Nev. 468, 49 Pac. 119. 16 In re School Fund, 15 Neb. 684, 50 N. W. 272; American Dock & Imp. Co. v. Public School Trustees, 35 N. J. Eq. (8 Stew.) 181. 17 School Town of Leesburgh v. Plain School Tp., 86 Ind. 582; Goulding v. Inhabitants of Peabody, 170 Mass. 483, 49 N. E. 752. versally regarded as mandatory in their character,18 the purpose being to protect school funds from loss by misappropriation or unwise investment. § 1069. School funds; special; how raised. The greater part of funds necessary to the public maintenance of public schools is raised through the levy and collection of taxes upon property within their jurisdiction by local districts.19 It is common also to devote by charter or statutory provision the proceeds of certain special taxes, funds or license fees to the maintenance of public schools. 20 These cannot be used for other pur 18 McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662; In re Loan of School Fund, 18 Colo. 195, 32 Pac. 273; State v. Babcock, 17 Neb. 610. 19 State v. Volusia County Com'rs, 28 Fla. 793, 10 So. 14; State v. Mathews, 150 Ind. 597; School Dist. No. 76 v. Ryker, 64 Kan. 612, 68 Pac. 34; Paintsville School Dist. v. Davis, 23 Ky. L. R. 838, 64 S. W. 438; Hundley v. Singleton, 23 Ky. L. R. 2006, 66 S. W. 279. Slight irregularities will not vitiate an election imposing a local tax for the support of public schools. School Dist. No. 1 v. Deering, 91 Me. 516; Robeson v. Mellick, 25 N. J. Law (1 Dutch.) 563. A school tax cannot lawfully exceed double the amount apportioned a town from a state school fund. State v. Clerk of Middletown, 24 N. J. Law (4 Zab.) 124. A vote at a town meeting to raise "all that the law will allow for schools" is not void. School Dist. No. 2 v. Lambert, 28 Or. 209; Joint School Dist. No. 8 v. School Dist. N. 5, 92 Wis. 608. 20 City of East St. Louis v. Launtz, 20 111 App. 644; State v. Marion County Com'rs, 85 Ind. 489. Unclaimed money and valuables found on dead bodies belong to the com mon school fund of the county, not the state. School City of South Bend v. Jaquith, 90 Ind. 495; Tippecanoe County Com'rs v. State, 92 Ind. 353; Taggart v. State, 142 Ind. 668, 40 N. E. 260, 42 N. E. 352; Pfau v. State, 148 Ind. 539, 47 N. E. 927; Woodward v. Gregg, 3 G. Greene (Iowa) 287; Lucas County v. Wilson, 61 Iowa, 141; Portwood v. Baskett, 64 Miss. 213; State v. Heins, 14 Neb. 477; State v. Wilcox, 17 Neb. 219; State v. Brodboll, 28 Neb. 254, 44 N. W. 186; State v. Fenton, 29 Neb. 348, 45 N. W. 464. State v. White, 29 Neb. 288, 45 N. W. 631. Where a village includes within its limits portions of three school districts, moneys raised by village authorities for liquor licenses will be equally divided among them. Kas v. State, 63 Neb. 581, 88 N. W. 776, holding constitutional Neb. Comp. 1901, c. 80, § 28, providing that where portions of one or more than one school district are inIcluded in the corporate school limits of the state, license moneys are to be divided among these districts in proportion to the number of persons of school age in the whole of each district. Board of Education of Vance poses.21 Taxes levied by a school district on property within its jurisdiction belong to it 22 and must be paid by the officer in charge to the trustees or proper officers of that district. An action will lie against one wrongfully withholding these moneys or paying them to districts not entitled to them.23 They are authorized by law to levy and collect, in the manner provided, certain sums for the support of the schools,24 others for the purchase of school sites and the erection of school houses.2 County v. Town of Henderson, 126 N. C. 689, 36 S. E. 158. N. C. Laws 1889, c. 128, § 2, providing that no action shall be brought against any town to recover fines or penalties collected and making it apply to existing actions, violates contract clause of Federal constitution and therefore is void. State v. Folk, 45 S. C. 491, 23 S. E. 628; State v. Derham, 54 S. C. 349, 32 S. E. 418; Ex parte Cooper, 3 Tex. App. 489; State v. Casey, 5 Wis. 318. 21 State v. Helms, 136 Ind. 122, 35 N. E. 893; Zartman v. State, 109 Ind. 360; School Dist. v. Edwards, 46 Wis. 150. 22 School Dist. No. 8 v. Gibbs, 52 Kan. 564, 35 Pac. 222; Pontotoc Independent School Corp. v. Johnson (Tex. Civ. App.) 59 S. W. 53. But see Paintsville School Dist. V. Davis, 23 Ky. L. R. 838, 64 S. W. 438. 23 Burns v. Minter, 12 Ala. 316; School Directors v. School Trustees, 61 Ill. App. 89; Hadley v. State, 66 Ind. 271. The rule applies to interest as well as principal. District Township of High Lake v. Espeset, 75 Iowa, 500, 39 N. W. 809; Honey Creek District Township v. Floete, 59 Iowa, 109; Independent School District v. Hubbard, 110 Iowa, 58, 81 N. W. 241. Where a treasurer of a school district makes a settlement and produces the funds in his control as he is required by law to do, this is in the absence of fraud or mistake conclusive, and no inquiry can be made as to the source of the necessary funds. Hadley v. State, 66 Ind. 271; East Carroll Parish School Board v. Union Parish School Board, 36 La. Ann. 806; School Dist. No. 9 v. Deshon, 51 Me. 454; School Dist. No. 13 v. Dean, 17 Mich. 223; School Dist. No. 9 v. School Dist. No. 5, 40 Mich. 551; School Dist. No. 10 v. Thelander, 31 Minn. 333; State v. Fenton, 29 Neb. 348, 45 N. W. 464; Guthrie v. State, 47 Neb. 819, 66 N. W. 853; Public Schools v. Hammell, 31 N. J. Law, 446; Prosser v. Behrens, 58 N. J. Law, 276, 33 Atl. 282; Hartford Tp. Board of Education v. Thompson, 33 Ohio St. 321. But see School Dist. No. 3 v. Riverside Tp., 67 Mich. 404, 34 N. W. 886; Fox v. Kountze, 58 Neb. 439, 78 N. W. 712; Lyme Board of Education v. Board of Education, 44 Ohio St. 278; School Dist. No. 1 v. Town of Bridport, 63 Vt. 383, 22 Atl. 570; Town of Cassville v. Morris, 14 Wis. 440. See, also, Gridley School Dist. v. Stout, 134 Cal. 592, 66 Pac. 785. 24 Commercial Bank v. Sandford, 103 Fed. 98; White v. City of Decatur, 119 Ala. 476, 23 So. 999; People v. Sargent, 44 Cal. 430; Bramwell v. Guheen, 3 Idaho, 347, 29 Pac. 110. A literal compliance with the Bonds; debt incurred. This subject has been previously considered.26 In many instances the amounts necessary for the construction and equipment of public school buildings are too large to be raised by the levy of a yearly tax. An issue of bonds is consequently resorted to. When authorized by law a vote of the people of the district at a time designated and in the manner required is an essential requisite to their validity." The form is also commonly fixed by law. 28 Constitutional or statutory provisions may exist which limit the incurring of indebtedness for designated purposes, and, in accordance with the rules previously laid down, bonds issued or an obligation incurred in excess of a debt limitation where the power is absolutely lacking will be regarded as Void.30 requirements of an act providing for the levy of a special school tax is necessary to its validity. Bradley v. Case, 4 Ill. (3 Scam.) 585; Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. People, 195 Ill. 423, 63 N. E. 262; Koelling v. People, 196 Ill. 353, 63 N. E. 735. An ordinance levying a tax for school purposes which specified one amount as required for building purposes and another amount for educational purposes is sufficiently definite under Hurd's Rev. St. 1899, p. 1556, it being unnecessary to separate the amounts for building and site and to specify the items embraced under educational purposes. Otis v. People, 196 Ill. 542, 63 N. E. 1053; Anne Arun. del County School Com'rs v. Gantt, 73 Md. 521; Board of Education of Detroit v. Common Council, 80 Mich. 548, 45 N. W. 585; Parker v. State (Miss.) 10 So. 571. 25 Otis v. People, 196 III. 542, 63 N. E. 1053; Harmony Tp. v. Osborne, 9 Ind. 458; State v. Edwards, 151 Mo. 472, 52 S. W. 373; Pierce, Butler & Pierce Mfg. Co. v. Bleckwenn, 131 N. Y. 570, 30 N. E. 67; Hackett Emporium Borough Abb. Corp. Vol. III-26. V. School Dist., 150 Pa. 220, 24 Atl. 26 See §§ 169 et seq., ante. Oswego City Sav. Bank v. Board of Education, 35 Misc. 540, 72 N. Y. Supp. 15. 27 Ashuelot Nat. Bank v. School Dist. No. 7, 56 Fed. 197, 5 C. C. A. 468; Board of Education of Topeka v. Welch, 51 Kan. 792; Smith v. Proctor, 130 N. Y. 319, 29 N. E. 312, 14 L. R. A. 403. A vote in favor of bonds by a majority of those voting is sufficient to authorize their issue although this majority is less than one-half the voters actually present at the meeting. Parkinson v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 28 Wash. 335, 68 Pac. 875. See, also, §§ 169 et seq., ante. 28 Oswego City Sav. Bank v. Board of Education, 35 Misc. 540, 72 N. Y. Supp. 15. See §§ 169 et seq., ante. 29 Bauer v. School Dist. No. 127, 78 Mo. App. 442. See §§ 140 et seq., and 169 et seq., ante. 30 Everett v. Independent School Dist. of Rock Rapids, 109 Fed. 697. The proportion of an excess issue of |