Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/427

 Mandamus is the proper remedy to enforce the payment by a municipal corporation of an official salary, the amount of which is fixed.” Speed v. Common Council of City of Detroit et al, 100 Mich. 92; 58 N. W. 638; McBride v. Grand Rapids, 47 Mich. 236; 10 N. W. 353 followed.

L. H. Connolly, for respondents.

The cost of special improvement must be raised through special assessment of the property abutting upon and benefitted by the improvement and without cost to the general taxpayer. Pine Tree Lumber Co. v. City of Fargo, 12 N. D. 360.

, C. J. This action is one where the plaintiff sought to procure the district court of Morton county to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus against the president of the board of city commissioners and the city auditor of the city of Mandan, to compel them to issue warrants for the amounts hereinafter mentioned against the general funds of the city.

The case was tried by the court. It refused to issue the writ, and dismissed the action.

The material facts are as follows: During the year 1919 and 1920 the city of Mandan installed a special system of street lighting, under § 3745 of the Compiled Laws of North Dakota of 1913, as amended by chap. 69 of the Session Laws of 1915. A special street lighting district and a special assessment fund for said district were created. The plaintiff published the resolutions in connection therewith, and certain notices for bids. At the time of these publications, no special fund had been provided, the special street lighting system not having been at this time fully established. At the time these publications were made, no question was raised about the method of paying the printer for the publication of them. Subsequently the street lighting system was established in accordance with the laws above mentioned, and the city made contracts for the installation of the lighting system. The commission levied special assessments upon the property within the improvement district, subject to levy for the cost of the lighting system, and afterward plaintiff published the special assessment list, giving two publications thereof. It presented two bills to the city: One for $280.72, which was allowed November 8, 1920; the other for $292.16, which was allowed December