jury to determine 123 and finally, the subject of evidence as affected by the presumptions of law in favor of the existence of authority 124 and the correctness of the action under consideration.125 § 1165. Defenses. The subject of defenses naturally is considered in the discussion of the rights and powers of parties in respect to the questions the subject of particular litigation. These have already been considered under their appropriate heads in previous sections of this work. The statute of limitations whether general or special provisions as a defense is open equally to public corporations ast to private individuals,126 and also the defenses of laches,127 lack Town of Greenwich, 133 N. Y. 152; 30 N. E. 842; Johnson v. Pawnee County Com'rs, 7 Okl. 686, 50 Pac. 701. The burden of proof is upon a county to establish a defense that it was indebted beyond the Federal limitation. Jones v. City of Portland, 35 Or. 512, 58 Pac. 657; Cooper v. City of Dallas, 83 Tex. 239, 18 S. W. 565; Smith V. Whiteside (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S. W. 381; City of Tyler v. Adams (Tex. Civ. App.) 62 S. W. 119; Richmond & W. P. Land, Nav. & Imp. Co. v. Town of West Point, 94 Va. 668, 27 S. E. 460; Berg v. City of Milwaukee, 83 Wis. 599, 53 N. W. 890. See, also, § 1058, ante. 123 Mulholland v. City of New York, 113 N. Y. 631, 20 N. E. 856; Mansel v. Fulmer, 175 Pa. 377, 31 Atl. 794; Bastian v. City of Philadelphia, 180 Pa. 227, 36 Atl. 746; Chafee v. City of Aiken, 57 S. C. 507, 35 S. E. 800. Question of dedication one for the jury. Gordon v. Denton County (Tex. Civ. App.) 48 S. W. 737; Denison & P. S. R. Co. v. James, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 358, 49 S. W. 660. See §§ 728, 738, 1042, 1057 and 1066, ante. 124 City of Goshen v. Alford, 154 Ind. 58, 55 N. E. 27; State v. City of Shreveport, 27 La. Ann. 623; Belo v. Forsythe County Com'rs, 76 N. C. 489; Nalle v. City of Austin, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 595, 56 S. W. 954; City of Seattle v. McDonald, 26 Wash. 98, 66 Pac. 145. But see Bessey v. Unity Plantation, 65 Me. 342. 125 Fanning v. Leviston, 93 Cal. 186; San Diego Water Co. v. City of San Diego, 118 Cal. 556, 50 Pac. 633. Evidence must be clear and satisfactory to overcome the presumption of the correctness of action by a city council. Barrett v. Falls City Artificial Stone Co., 21 Ky. L. R. 669, 52 S. W. 947; Elder v. Cassily, 21 Ky. L. R. 1274, 54 S. W. 836; State v. Inhabitants of City of Trenton, 53 N. J. Law, 132, 20 Atl. 1076, 11 L. R. A. 410. The presumption exists that a municipal ordinance is reasonable and therefore legal. 126 Cressey v. Meyer, 138 U. S. 525; Schloss v. County Com'rs, 1 Colo. App. 145, 28 Pac. 18; Cross v. Grant County Com'rs, 9 N. M. 410, 54 Pac. 880; Brown v. Painter, 44 Iowa, 368; Ralston v. Town of Wes of power, fraud,128 and absence of liability either as to a particu ton, 46 W. Va. 544, 33 S. E. 326. Limitations run against municipal corporations the same as persons. Commonwealth v. Haly, 21 Ky. L. R. 666, 51 S. W. 430. A limitation I will not commence to run against the commonwealth until it has consented to be sued. City of Louisville v. McGill, 21 Ky. L. R. 718, 52 S. W. 1053. Special legislation of six months as to actions against cities for injuries held special legislation and unconstitutional. Preston v. City of Louisville, 84 Ky. 118; Rosetta Gravel-Paving & Imp. Co. v. Kennedy, 51 La. Ann. 1535, 26 So. 468; Klass v. City of Detroit, 129 Mich. 35, 88 N. W. 204; Greeley v. Cascade County, 22 Mont. 580, 57 Pac. 274; Swaney v. Gage County, 64 Neb. 627, 90 N. W. 542; In re Opening of Beck St., 19 Misc. 571, 44 N. Y. Supp. 1087. The statute of limitations runs against a municipal corporation the same as an individual. Hartman v. Hunter, 56 Ohio St. 175, 46 N. E. 577. Statute of limitations runs against a municipal corporation. Municipal Security Co. v. Baker County, 39 Or. 396, 65 Pac. 369; Shelby County v. Bickford, 102 Tenn. 395, 52 S. W. 772; Galbraith v. City of Knoxville, 105 Tenn. 453, 58 S. W. 643; State v. Town of McMinnville, 106 Tenn. 384, 61 S. W. 785; City of Dallas v. Young (Tex. Civ. App.) 28 S. W. 1036; Johnson v. Llano County, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 421, 39 S. W. 995; Schaefer v. City of Fond du Lac, 104 Wis. 39, 80 N. W. 59. But see City of New Orleans v. Fisher, 180 U. S. 185, modifying 91 Fed. 574; Roberts v. Blaine County (C. C. A.) 90 Fed. 63, 47 L. R. A. 459; Fremont County v. Brandon, 6 Idaho, 482, 56 Pac. 264. The statute of limitations should not run against the right of a county to recover public moneys wrongfully withheld by a public official. See, also, as holding the same, Pike County v. Cadwell, 78 Ill. App. 201. But see as to the contrary, Bannock County v. Bell, 8 Idaho, 1, 67 Pac. 710; Thoeni v. City of Dubuque, 115 Iowa, 482, 88 N. W. 967; Foxworthy v. Hastings, 23 Neb. 772, 37 N. W. 657; Dinwiddie County v. Stuart, 28 Grat. (Va.) 526. See, also, United States v. Louisiana, 123 U. S. 32, 8 Sup. Ct. 17. V. 127 City of Helena V. United States, 104 Fed. 113; Cunningham Borough of Merchantville, 61 N. J. Law, 466, 39 Atl. 639; Stetler v. Borough of East Rutherford, 65 N. J. Law, 528, 47 Atl. 489; Hayday v. Ocean City, 67 N. J. Law, 155, 50 Atl. 584; Scott v. Strawn, 85 Pa. 471; Commonwealth v. Bala & B. M. Turnpike Co., 153 Pa. 47, 25 Atl. 1105; State v. Sponaugle, 45 W. Va. 415, 32 S. E. 283, 43 L. R. A. 727. In the absence of a statutory provision to that effect, laches is not imputable to the state. But see Hart v. United States, 95 U. S. 316; Haehnlen v. Com., 13 Pa. 617; State v. City of Columbia (Tenn. Ch. App.) 52 S. W. 511. See, also, People v. Brady, 49 App. Div. 238, 63 N. Y. Supp. 145. 128 Darnell v. Keller, 18 Ind. App. 103, 45 N. E. 676; Nelson v. City of New York, 53 Hun, 630, 5 N. Y. Supp. 688; Weston v. City of Syracuse, 158 N. Y. 274, 53 N. E. 12, 43 L. R. A. 678. lar case 129 or generally.130 The principles which determine the availability of these and many other defenses have already been sufficiently considered and the reader is referred to the index for the subject in which he is especially interested. 129 City of Davenport v. Lord, 76 U. S. (9 Wall.) 409; Denison v. City of Columbus, 62 Fed. 775. The fact that a railroad in whose aid bonds were issued built a different road from the one originally chartered is no defense in an action by an innocent holder of the bonds. City of Gladstone v. Throop (C. C. A.) 71 Fed. 341. Irregularities in making an assessment is no defense in an action on local assessment bonds. Second Ward Sav. Bank v. City of Huron, 80 Fed. 660. That the proceeds of municipal bonds were used for illegal purposes is no defense in an action on them. Hill v. City of Indianapolis, 92 Fed. 467. An injunction is no defense in an action against a city on a claim where neither of the parties to the action were parties in the injunction proceedings. Town of Colorado City v. Townsend, 9 Colo. App. 249, 47 Pac. 663. Where a town contracts with a person for electric lights, the source of the light is immaterial. San Juan County Com'rs v. Tulley, 17 Colo. App. 113, 67 Pac. 346. See as holding same principle, Miller v. Board of Com'rs of Weld County, 17 Colo. App. 120, 67 Pac. 347; Clinton County v. Pace, 59 Ill. App. 576. The fact that a claim when originally presented and allowed in part was not sworn to is no defense against a county in a quantum meruit action for services rendered. City of Bloomington v. Perdue, 99 Ill. 329. It is no defense in an action for a per sonal injury arising from a defective sidewalk that the city is already indebted to an amount exceeding the constitutional limitation. People v. Talmadge, 194 Ill. 67, 61 N. E. 1049; Davenport Gaslight & Coke Co. v. City of Davenport, 13 Iowa, 229. Inability to pay on account of tax limit having been reached is no defense in an action on a legal contract. Merrill v. Marshall County, 74 Iowa, 24, 36 N. W. 778. In an action for moneys voted by a township, the county cannot set up as a defense that the company had sold its property before the taxes became due. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Jefferson County Com'rs, 12 Kan. 127. An injunction restraining county commissioners from issuing certain bonds in a proceeding to which the persons claiming a right to them are not parties is no bar to an action by them to compel an issue of the bonds. Kansas City v. McDonald, 60 Kan. 481, 57 Pac. 123, 45 L. R. A. 429. The fact that a city secured an accident policy for one of its firemen, the amount of which was paid to the widow, is no defense in an action by her against the city for its negligence in case of death. Bank of Santa Fe v. Board of Com'rs of Haskell County, 61 Kan. 785, 60 Pac. 1062; City of Louisville v. Muldoon, 20 Ky. L. R. 1576, 49 S. W. 791. Defects in an original construction of improvement. Petter v. Allen, 21 Ky. L.. § 1166. Judgment. The usual rules of law apply in the rendition of a judgment against a public corporation since, in the first instance, where a state invokes the aid of a court for any purpose it consents to abide by the decision of that court whether favorable or adverse and is bound by the doctrine of res adjudicata to the same extent as an ordinary suitor.131 This principle also applies where, by R. 1122, 54 S. W. 174. The defense is available that a street improvement was made without ordinance authority. Murray v. Kansas City, 47 Mo. App. 105; Neosho City Water Co. v. City of Neosho, 136 Mo. 498. A city may be estopped from setting up nonacceptance of waterworks as a defense when it has actually used the hydrants. State v. School Dist. No. 24, 13 Neb. 78. Irregularities in the organization of a school district is no defense in an application for mandamus to compel the payment of its bonds. F. C. Austin Mfg. Co. v. Brown County, 65 Neb. 60, 90 N. W. 929; Manchester & K. R. Co. v. City of Keene, 62 N. H. 81. That a railroad company has made no compensation to a private owner for land taken for its right of way cannot be urged as a defense by the city to recover money voted by it to aid in its construction. Kent v. Village of North Tarrytown, 26 Misc. 86, 56 N. Y. Supp. 885. A defense of no funds is not available to a legal claim unless there were none at the time the services were rendered. Street v. Craven County Com'rs, 70 N. C. 644; Scranton v. Jermyn, 156 Pa. 107, 27 Atl. 66. An objection that a local improvement contract was void in that it was awarded by resolution instead of by ordinance will not be sustained in an action against a property owner to recover a local assessment. Thomas Kane & Co. v. Hughes County, 12 S. D. 438, 81 N. W. 894; Rice V. Dickson Car Wheel Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 65 S. W. 645. Breach of contract. See, also, Lawrence County Sup'rs v. Sage, 89 Ill. 265; Iowa Brick Co. v. City of Des Moines, 111 Iowa, 272, 82 N. W. 922. See §§ 1154, 1155, ante. 130 Hoagland v. State (Cal.) 22 Pac. 142. The defense that the work was a public one engaged in by the state for the common good may be interposed in an action for damages. See, also, Green v. State, 73 Cal. 29, 11 Pac. 602, 14 Pac, 610. City of Chicago v. Norton Milling Co., 97 Ill. App. 651. A munici pal corporation may be estopped to raise the defense of ultra vires where the contract is within its power though irregularly entered into. Knapp v. City of Hoboken, 39 N. J. Law 394; Richmond County Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Children v. City of New York, 73 App. Div. 607, 77 N. Y. Supp. 41. The defense of ultra vires cannot be raised by demurrer when the complaint merely sets out the contract, the performance, and a refusal to pay. 131 Bloxham v. Florida Cent. & law, a subordinate public corporation is made the subject of suit.132 If there has been an appearance on the part of the corporation 133 and the court has jurisdiction,134 a legal judgment can be rendered which is not subject to collateral attack 135 and which will bear interest.136 § 1167. Execution. The property of public corporations acquired by them for public purposes and in their capacity as governmental agents is held P. R. Co., 35 Fla. 625, 17 So. 902. Consent by the state is an essential requisite to a valid judgment against either the state or officers of the state which would operate as a judgment against the state. State v. Gaines, 46 La. Ann. 431, 15 So. 174. Consent is necessary. State v. Kennedy, 60 Neb. 300, 83 N. W. 87; Clements v. State, 77 N. C. 142. 132 Erskine v. Steele County, 87 Fed. 630; Higgins v. City of San Diego Water Co., 118 Cal. 524, 45 Pac. 824, 50 Pac. 670; People v. May, 9 Colo. 414, 15 Pac. 36; Sybert v. Ellis, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 229; City of Wyandotte v. Zeitz, 21 Kan. 649; Byrne v. Parish of East Carroll, 45 La. Ann. 392, 12 So. 521. A contractor constructing a levee cannot recover judgment against the parish and ignore the means agreed upon in his contract to secure payment. State v. Board of Liquidation of City Debt, 51 La. Ann. 1142, 26 So. 55; Interstate Transp. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 52 La. Ann. 1859, 28 So. 310; Thompson v. Village of Mecosta, 127 Mich. 522, 86 N. W. 1044. Sufficiency of findings considered. Wiggin v. City of St. Louis, 135 Mo. 558, 35 S. W. 528; Sharp v. City of New York, 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 572; In re Taxpayers and Freeholders of Village of Plattsburgh, 27 App. Div. 353, 50 N. Y. Supp. 356; Holihan v. City of New York, 33 Misc. 249, 68 N. Y. Supp. 148; Mulholland v. City of New York, 113 N. Y. 631, 20 N. E. 856; City of Cincinnati V. Diekmeier, 31 Ohio St. 243; Austin Mfg. Co. v. Ayr Tp., 17 Pa. Super. Ct. 419; Town of Rutland v. Bixby (Wis.) 37 N. W. 228; Herman v. City of Oconto, 100 Wis. 391, 76 N. W. 364. But see State v. Dodge County Com'rs, 10 Neb. 20. 133 People v. Madden, 133 Cal. 347, 65 Pac. 741; Smith v. State, 64 Kan. 730, 68 Pac. 641; State v. Lancaster County Bank, 8 Neb. 218. Consent of the attorney general, however, will not aid a judgment where the petition fails to state a cause of action against the state. State v. Headlee, 19 Wash. 477, 53 Pac. 948. 134 The Lucy, 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) 307. "No consent of counsel can give jurisdiction." Oil City v. McAboy, 74 Pa. 249. Consent cannot give jurisdiction. 135 Stevens v. Miller, 3 Kan. App. 192, 43 Pac. 439; Holihan v. City of New York, 33 Misc. 249, 68 N. Y. Sunn. 148. 136 Nevada County v. Hicks, 50 Ark. 416, 8 S. W. 180. A judgment against a county will draw interest |