Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/288

 from any oral authorization of the act, it is difficult to see how anything short of such a vote, or of an act of the legislature, can render the county liable on this contract. Mere use of the property by officials should not be evidence of ratification. The people cannot prevent such use, nor are they under obligations to take steps to prevent such use. Neither are they required to cause to be removed from the county building, property which was placed there without their consent; such consent as evidenced by a vote of the people, being necessary to bind them. The legislature has prescribed the mode of ascertaining their will towards such extraordinary expenditures. It is by a vote of the people. It would be a dangerous doctrine that any other conduct of the people would be sufficient evidence of their will as to such unusalunusual [sic] expenditures, for it would be impossible to determine by any other test whether a majority of the people were desirous of incurring such a debt. It is to such majority that the law con- fides the power, and the only safe rule to ascertain whether a majority of the people favor the project is by a popular vote. «In the following cases the defendants retained the benefits of the void contracts, and yet it was adjudged that there was no liability on that account: People v. Gleason, (N.Y. App.) 25 N. E. Rep. 4; Dickinson v. City of Poughkeepsie, 75 N. Y. 65; McDonald v. Mayor, etc., 68 N. Y. 23. The mere auditing of the claim by the board of county commissioners did not validate the contract. People v. Gleason, (N. Y. App.) 25 N. E. Rep. 4. This case is very much in point on the merits of the case at bar.

It appearing from this record the warrant was issued to pay an illegal debt, and their being no evidence of ratification thereof, the defendant was fully justified in refusing to attest the warrant under § 187 of the state constitution. See State v. Hill, 32 Minn. 275, 20 N. W. Rep. 196; High, Extr. Rem. § 40. We do not wish to be understood as deciding that the illegality of this claim is finally settled, so far as the facts are concerned, the County of Eddy not being a party to this proceeding.

The order is affirmed. All concur.

(55 N. W. Rep. 585.)