84 in its collective sense has suffered or will suffer injury or damage from an act or the existence of a condition, it alone is competent to bring an action or maintain a suit either for the purpose of obtaining redress or preventing the injury. In these cases a private person is not, as a general rule, permitted to act as a party plaintiff.83 Inaction or lack of good faith by public authorities in respect to a matter in which public interests are involved may warrant a private individual in the prosecution of an action for their protection. Where, however, an individual suffers damage from the doing of an act, peculiar and especial to himself in excess of or in addition to that suffered by or sustained by him as a member of the community or the public corporation, it is not necessary for him to await action by the public authorities but he may properly sue to secure the necessary and desired relief.85 In either case where rights of public corporations are to be determined the action or proceedings should be brought and maintained in the name of that corporation,se unless designated officials are authorized so to act.87 83 Fitch v. San Francisco County Sup'rs, 122 Cal. 285, 54 Pac. 901; City of Macon v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co., 82 Ga. 501, 9 S. E. 1127; Cedar County v. Sager, 90 Iowa, 11, 57 N. W. 634; State Bank of Duluth v. Heney, 40 Minn. 145, 41 N. W. 411; Givens v. McIlroy, 79 Mo. App. 671; People v. Ingersoll, 58 N. Y. 1; State v. Welbes, 11 S. D. 86, 74 N. W. 820; Cleburne Water, Ice & Lighting Co. v. City of Cleburne, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 141, 35 S. W. 733; Birmingham v. Cheetham, 19 Wash. 657, 54 Pac. 37. But see Crane v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 74 Iowa, 330, 37 N. W. 397. 84 Hedges v. Dam, 72 Cal. 520, 14 Pac. 133. It is necessary to allege under these conditions a refusal or neglect on the part of the district attorney to institute the action. Cornell College v. Iowa County, 32 Iowa, 520; Commonwealth v. Tilton, 20 Ky. L. R. 1056, 48 S. W. Abb. Corp. Vol. III - 37. 148; Auditor v. Treasurer, 4 S. C. (4 Rich.) 311; Quaw v. Paff, 98 Wis. 586, 74 N. W. 369; Land, Log & Lumber Co. v. McIntyre, 100 Wis.. 245, 75 N. W. 964; In re Cole's Es-tate, 102 Wis. 1, 78 N. W. 402. 85 Burlington Sav. Bank v. City of Clinton, 111 Fed. 439. 86 Patrick v. Robinson, 83 Ala. 575, 3 So. 694; Montgomery County Com'rs v. Fry, 127 N. C. 258, 37 S. E. 259; State v. Wood, 51 Ark. 205, 10 S. W. 624; Sutter County v. McGriff, 130 Cal. 124, 62 Pac. 412; People v. Curtis, 1 Idaho, 753; United States v. Shoup, 2 Idaho, 459, 21 Pac. 656; Smith v. Ellis, 7 Idaho, 196, 61 Pac. 695. An action to remove a public officer is a penal one and therefore properly commenced by the state as plaintiff. Town of Ofallon v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 45 Ill. App. 572; Tipton County Com'rs v. Kimberlin, 108 Ind. 449, 9 N. E. 407; Town of Noblesville v. § 1162. Defendant. The proper party defendant is that one against whom the right of action exists,88 and where the power to sue and be sued is given, McFarland, 57 Ind. 335; Yater v. State, 58 Ind. 299; Coffman V. Ralston V. Co., 53 Kan. Dodge City, M. & T. R. 337, 36 Pac. 712; Com. v. Tilton, 20 Ky. L. R. 1216, 49 S. W. 2; Willis v. Standard Oil Co., 50 Minn. 290, 52 N. W. 652; Kemp v. State (Miss.) 24 So. 695; State v. Mayes, 54 Miss. 417; Lincoln St. R. Co. v. City of Lincoln, 61 Neb. 109, 84 N. W. 802; State v. Welbes, 11 S. D. 86, 75 N. W. 820; State v. Fountain, 14 Wash. 236, 44 Pac. 270; Sweetwater County Com'rs v. Young, 3 Wyo. 684. But see State v. Headlee, 18 Wash. 220, 51 Pac. 369. See, also, Jackson County v. Derrick, 117 Ala. 348; Hickory County v. Fugate, 143 Mo. 71; City of Bethany v. Howard, 149 Mo. 504, 51 S. W. 94. 87 McDonough County v. Markham, 19 Ill. 149; Barber v. Trustees of Schools, 51 Ill. 396; Manor v. State, 149 Ind. 310, 49 N. E. 160; Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Iddings, 28 Ind. App. 504; 62 N. E. 112; Blake v. Johnson County Com'rs, 18 Kan. 266; Anderson v. Green, 21 Ky. L. R. 1439, 55 S. W. 420; Merrill v. Village of Kalamazoo, 35 Mich. 211; Johr v. St. Clair County Sup'rs, 38 Mich. 532; Moreland v. City of Detroit, 130 Mich. 343, 89 N. W. 935; Simmons v. Holmes, 49 Miss. 134; Potter v. Norris, 26 N. H. 330; Auburn Excise Com'rs v. Burtis, 103 N. Y. 136; Burke County Com'rs v. Catawba Lumber Co., 115 N. C. 590, 20 S. E. 707, 847; Wake County Com'rs v. Magnin, 78 N. C. 181; Perry ss Davenport v. Dodge County, 105 U. S. 237. Collection of bonds. Beckwith v. City of Racine, 7 Biss. 142, Fed. Cas. No. 1,213. The enforcement of the obligations of a town consolidated with others must be against those towns. Burlington Sav. Bank v. City of Clinton, 106 Fed. 269. A city is the proper party defendant in an action on bonds issued by it for making local improvements, although they are to be paid moneys from special assessments against abutting property. Shapter v. City & County of San Francisco, 110 Fed. 615. Proper defendants designated on default of local improvement bonds. Carmichael v. Lawrence, 47 Ind. 554; City of Huntington v. Day, 55 Ind. 7; Jackson Tp. v. Barnes, 55 Ind. 136; Emmert v. De Long, 12 Kan. 67; Sepp v. McCann, 47 Minn. 364, 50 N. W. 246. Under Sp. Laws Minn. 1889, c. 360, § 1, relative to contractor's bond, the city is not a necessary party to an action on such a bond brought to enforce a claim for labor performed on the work covered by the contract. Van Horn v. Kittitas County, 59 N. Y. Supp. 883, affirmed 46 App. Div. 623, 61 N. Y. Supp. 1150; Chatham County Com'rs v. Thorne, 117 N. C. 211, 23 S. E. 184; Lucier v. Granger, 20 R. I. 364, 39 Atl. 190; Gordon v. Weaver (Tenn. Ch. App.) 53 S. W. 740; Berlin Iron Bridge 89 90 the corporate name alone should be used or that one which is specially designated by statutory provisions, if any. Public officials are not proper defendants unless so required or permitted by statute in a case brought against the corporation which they represent. That a judgment or decree against a public corporation be legal, it is necessary that it be made a party to the proceeding.92 91 § 1163. Pleadings. A particular discussion of the principles of law involved and included in pleadings presented or filed in actions by and against public corporations, except as necessarily discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter, is not within the scope of this work which is not designed primarily as a text book of practice. A few cases cited under appropriate heads may, however, be use Co. v. City of San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 408; Landon v. Village of Rutland, 41 Vt. 681; City of Seattle v. Baxter, 20 Wash. 714, 55 Pac. 320. A wife is a necessary party in an action to foreclose an assessment lien on community property on which she and her husband reside. Spokane & I. Lumber Co. v. Boyd, 28 Wash. 90, 68 Pac. 337. 89 Pickens County Com'rs v. Bank of Commerce, 97 U. S. 374; Phillips County Com'rs v. Churning, 4 Colo. App. 321, 35 Pac. 918; Town of Dexter v. Gay, 115 Ga. 765, 42 S. E. 94; Arnett v. Decatur County Com'rs, 75 Ga. 782; De Kalb County Com'rs v. Auburn Foundry & Mach. Works, 14 Ind. App. 214, 42 N. E. 689; Wright v. Stockman, 59 Ind. 65; Collins v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 70 Hun, 583, 24 N. Y. Supp. 234; Thacher v. Board of Supervisors of Steuben County Sup'rs, 21 Misc. 271, 47 N. Y. Supp. 124; Loughran v. City of Hickory, 129 N. C. 281, 40 S. E. 46; Town of Latonia v. Hopkins, 20 Ky. L. R. 620, 47 S. W. 248; Siegel v. Town of Liberty, 111 Wis. 470, 87 N. W. 487. 90 City of Gainesville v. Caldwell, 81 Ga. 76, 7 S. E. 99; Sims v. McClure, 52 Ind. 267; Neely v. Town of Yorkville, 10 S. C. (10 Rich.) 141. 91 Board of Education of Atchison v. De Kay, 148 U. S. 591; Doeg v. Cook, 126 Cal. 213, 58 Pac. 707; Collins v. Hudson, 54 Ga. 25; Rock Island County v. Steele, 31 Ill. 543; Starr v. State, 149 Ind. 592, 49 N. E. 591; Heritage v. Bronnenberg, 25 Ind. App. 692, 58 N. E. 1064; Baldwin v. Ohio Tp., 63 Kan. 885, 65 Pac. 700; Hill v. Livingston County Sup'rs, 12 N. Y. (2 Kern.) 52; Matteson v. Whaley, 19 R. I. 648, 35 Atl. 692; Romine v. State, 7 Wash. 215, 34 Pac. 924; State v. Headlee, 18 Wash. 220, 51 Pac. 369. County officer may be a nominal party. But see Presque Isle County Sup'rs v. Thompson, 61 Fed. 914. 92 Allen v. Turner, 77 Mass. (11 Gray) 436; Maxwell V. Auditor General, 125 Mich. 621, 84 N. W. ful to the practitioner. A question most frequently arises as to the sufficiency of the pleadings, in cases involving torts, claims,** the payment, issue or legality of bonds," or other obligations to 93 City of Huntsville v. Ewing, 116 Ala. 576, 22 So. 984; Schroeder v. Cobert County, 66 Ala. 137; Kellogg v. City of New Britain, 62 Conn. 232, 24 Atl. 996; Cook v. City of Ansonia, 66 Conn. 413, 34 Atl. 183; Downs v. Smyrna Com'rs, 2 Penn. (Del.) 132, 45 Atl. 717; Keehn v. McGillicuddy, 15 Ind. App. 580, 44 N. E. 554; City of Alexandria v. Young, 20 Ind. App. 672, 51 N. E. 109; City of Indianapolis v. Crans, 28 Ind. App. 584, 63 N. E. 478; Campbell v. City of Kalamazoo, 80 Mich. 655, 45 N. W. 652; Noble v. Kansas City, 95 Mo. App. 167, 68 S. W. 969; Tomlin v. Hildreth, 65 N. J. Law, 438, 47 Atl. 649; Frisby v. Town of Marshall, 119 N. C. 570, 26 S. E. 251; Redford v. Coggeshall, 19 R. I. 313, 36 Atl. 89; Lucier v. Granger, 20 R. I. 364, 39 Atl. 190; Rusher v. City of Dallas, 83 Tex. 151, 18 S. W. 333; City of San Antonio v. Mullaly, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 596, 33 S. W. 256; McCray v. Town of Fairmont, 46 W. Va. 442, 33 S. E. 245; Meinzer v. City of Racine, 68 Wis. 241, 32 N. W. 139; Smith v. City of Eau Claire, 78 Wis. 457, 47 N. W. 830; Koch v. City of Ashland, 83 Wis. 361, 53 N. W. 674. 94 Nance v. People, 25 Colo. 252, 54 Pac. 631; Johnson V. Yuba County, 103 Cal. 528, 37 Pac. 538; Rio Grande County Com'rs V. Bloom, 14 Colo. App. 187, 59 Pac. 417; Maddox v. Randolph County, 65 Ga. 216; First Nat. Bank of Billings v. Custer County Com'rs, 7 Mont. 464, 17 Pac. 551; School Dists. of Hamilton County v. School Dist. No. 9, 12 Neb. 241. The dec 93 laration should show that the indebtedness was one which could be legally incurred. Livingston v. School Dist. No. 7, 11 S. D. 150, 76 N. W. 301; Fenton v. Salt Lake County, 4 Utah, 466, 11 Pac. 611. Where the statutes require the presentation of a claim to the county court, it is necessary for a complainant to allege that it has been so presented and disallowed. Howard v. City of Oshkosh, 33 Wis. 309. 95 Nauvoo v. Ritter, 97 U. S. 389; Lincoln Tp. v. Cambria Iron Co., 103 U. S. 412; Alabama v. Burr, 115 U. S. 413; Hopper v. Covington, 118 U. S. 148; Gilson v. Town of Dayton, 122 U. S. 59, 8 Sup. Ct. 66; Bissell v. Spring Valley Tp., 28 Fed. 54; Bangor Sav. Bank v. City of Stillwater, 45 Fed. 544; Shepard v. Tulare Irr. Dist., 94 Fed. 1; Hughes County v. Livingston, 104 Fed. 306; Kahn v. San Francisco City & County Sup'rs (Cal.) 12 Pac. 478; City of Kokomo v. State, 57 Ind. 152; Mosher v. Independent School Dist., 42 Iowa, 632; Catron v. La. Fayette County, 106 Mo. 659, 17 S. W. 577; Donaldson v. Butler County, 98 Mo. 163, 11 S. W. 572; Rahway Sav. Inst. v. City of Rahway, 53 N. J. Law, 48, 20 Atl. 756; Board of Education of Ridgefield Tp. v. Board of Education of Borough Cliffside Park, 63 N. J. Law, 371, 43 Atl. 722; Cotton v. Inhabitants of New Providence, 47 N. J. Law, 401; Brownell v. Town of Greenwich, 114 N. Y. 518, 22 N. E. 24, 4 L. R. A. 685; Vaughn v. Board Com'rs of Forsyth County Com'rs, pay 96 public contracts; 7 the validity 98 or enforcement of laws 118 N. C. 636, 24 S. E. 425; Richardson V. Marshall County, 100 Tenn. 346, 45 S. W. 440; Commonwealth v. Tunstall, 86 Va. 372, 10 S. E. 414. 96 Richards v. Independent School Dist. of Rock Rapids, 46 Fed. 460; Moll v. School Directors, 23 Ill. App. 508; Craig School Tp. v. Scott, 124 Ind. 72, 24 N. E. 585. School district note. Kittenger v. Monroe School Tp., 3 Ind. App. 411, 29 N. E. 931; City of Connersville v. Connersville Hydraulic Co., 86 Ind. 184. City order. Nevin v. Gaertner, 20 Ky. L. R. 1022, 48 S. W. 153; Middlesborough Town & Land Co. v. Knoll, 21 Ky. L. R. 1399, 55 S. W. 205; First Nat. Bank V. Board Com'rs of Becker County Com'rs, 81 Minn. 95, 83 N. W. 468; Taylor v. Chickasaw County Sup'rs (Miss.) 16 So. 907; Pollock v. Stanton County, 57 Neb. 399, 77 N. W. 1081; Hughes v. Craven County Com'rs, 107 N. C. 598, 12 S. E. 465; Roger Mills County Com'rs v. Sauer, 8 Okl. 409, 58 Pac. 625; Dorothy v. Pierce, 27 Or. 373, 41 Pac. 668; Sherwood v. La Salle County (Tex. Civ. App.) 26 S. W. 650; City of Waco v. McNeill (Tex. Civ. App.) 29 S. W. 1109; Biddle v. City of Terrell, 82 Tex. 335; Brown v. Town Board of School Directors, 77 Wis. 27, 45 N. W. 678. School order. Marvin v. Town of Jacobs, 77 Wis. 31, 45 N. W. 679. Town order. 97 Raisch v. City & County of San Francisco, 80 Cal. 1, 22 Pac. 22; Willey v. City of Columbus, 109 Ga. 295, 34 S. E. 575; Milburn v. Glynn County, 109 Ga. 473, 34 S. E. 848; City of Peoria v. Fruin-Bain brick Construction Co., 169 Ill. 36, 48 N. E. 435; City of Logansport v. Dykeman, 116 Ind. 15, 17 N. E. 587; Smith v. Miami County Com'rs, 6 Ind. App. 153, 33 N. E. 243; Leffenbaugh v. Foster, 40 Ind. 382; Town of Petersburg v. Petersburg Elec. Light, Power & Waterworks Co., 16 Ind. App. 151, 44 N. E. 814; Clinton School Tp. v. Lebanon Nat. Bank, 18 Ind. App. 42, 47 N. E. 349; Town of Gosport v. Pritchard, 156 Ind. 400, 59 N. E. 1058; Foland v. Town of Frankton, 142 Ind. 546, 41 N. E. 1031; State v. Feagans, 148 Ind. 621, 48 N. E. 225; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. City of Topeka, 6 Kan. App. 133, 50 Pac. 904; City of Louisville v. Gosnell, 22 Ky. L. R. 1524, 60 S. W. 411; City of Baltimore v. Keyser, 72 Md. 106, 19 Atl. 706; Folsom v. Chicago County, 28 Minn. 324; Chambers v. City of St. Joseph, 33 Mo. App. 536; Dinsmore v. Livingston County, 60 Mo. 241; McCormick v. City of St. Louis, 166 Mo. 315, 65 S. W. 1038; Devers v. Howard, 88 Mo. App. 253; Tullock v. Webster County, 46 Neb. 211, 64 N. W. 705; Knowles v. City of New York, 37 Misc. 195, 75 N. Y. Supp. 189; McNulty v. City of New York, 168 N. Y. 117, 61 N. E. 111; City of Wellston v. Morgan, 65 Ohio St. 219, 62 N. E. 127. A petition in an action ex contractu must declare on a contract made according to statute, since municipal corporations are not impliedly liable in matters ex contractu. Klamath County v. Leavitt, 32 Or. 437; Shearer V. Hutchinson County, 10 S. D. 9; Meek v. Meade County, 12 S. D. 162, 80 N. W. 182; City of Galveston v. Devlin, 84 Tex. 319, 19 S. W. 395; Texas Water & |