Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/508

 at the date of ratification had the power to ratify. No such facts appear in the case at bar. Not only are the Dakota cases against the power of the voters of the district to make or authorize the contract that was made, but the cases of Kane v. School District No. 3, 52 Wis. 502, and School District v. Stough, 4 Neb. 357, also hold the same doctrine.

The statement of appellant’s counsel as to the progressive limitation of the doctrine of ultra vires is true as to private but not as to public corporations. Zottman v. San Francisco, 20 Cal. 96; Clark v. City, 19 Iowa 199; Mayor v. Ray, 19 Wall. 468; Dillon on Mun. Cor. (3d Ed.) § 504; School Dist. v. Stone, 106 U. 8. 183; Dartsmouth Savings Bank v. School Dist., 43 N. W. 822; Bank v. School Tp., ante p. 26.

A rehearing having been granted the case was argued by Messrs. Jones and McLaren, for appellant, and by Mr. Remington for respondent. The opinion handed down after the rehearing was filed March 16, 1891.

, C. J. The plaintiff, seeking judgment in the court below, based its claim upon four alleged warrants, signed by defendant’s clerk and director, and drawn in the usual form upon defendant’s treasurer. When these papers were received in evidence they created a presumption of liability against the defendant and in favor of plaintiff, assuming that plaintiff had established its title to them. This apparent liability defendant claims to have overthrown by undisputed evidence, and the trial court so held directing a verdict in favor of defendant. Defendant’s successful defense was the illegality of the pretended warrants for want of power to contract the indebtedness which they represented. If the uncontroverted facts justify the conclusion against the defendant’s power to incur the debt, then the warrants are void. Their issue adds nothing to the force of the original claim. They create nonew debt. No estoppel can rest upon them. Their negotiation for value before maturity will not confer any greater rights upon the purchaser. All who deal with them, either originally or by subsequent purchase, are affected by every defense to the pretended debt they represent. Bank v. Willow Lake Tp., ante p. 26, 44.N. W. Rep.