Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/505

the same time and the opinion in which is written by the same judge, to-wit: The Capital Bank of St. Paul v. School District No. 85, 42 N. W.R.774. In this last case the supreme court says: “they expended more than could legally have been collected by tax on the property of the district in one year;” yet affirms a judgment against the district for the full amount of the warrants and interest, while in the case against district 53, where the board had done the same thing, the court holds the warrants void, and affirms a judgment in favor of the district. The only difference between the two cases so far as this question is involved was, that in the former case the action of the board was ratified, in the latter it was not. The courts in such case, because of the action of the inhabitants in ratifying such contract, will construe it as one to be paid out of the revenues from year to year to be obtained under the statutes providing for and limiting taxation. The territorial supreme court reached the conclusion that the district may make a contract—at least by ratification—incurring a liability greater than can be provided for by the taxation of the year in which it is made. Applying the results of that decision to the facts of this case it is decisive of it. We say there wag abundant evidence tending to show that the district had ratified the acts of the district board in building this house and issuing these orders. See, also, Sullivan v. School District 39, 18 Pac. R. (Kans.) 287; Everts v. District Township Rose Grove, 41 N. W. 478; Andrews et al v. School District No. 4, 33 N. W. 217; Sherman ef al v. Fitch, 98 Mass. 59; City of Conyers v. Kirk et al, 3S. E. Rep. (Ga.) 442; Fisher et al v. Inhab. School District No. 17, 58 Mass. 496; Keyser v. School District, 35 N. H. 477; Kimball v. School District, 28 Vt. 8; Jordan v. School District, 33 Me. 170; Coney v. Somerset, 44 N. Y. S. 445; Banks v. Albany, 92 N. Y. 363; Read v. Plattsmouth, 107 U. 8S. 568; Corwin v. Wallace, 17 Iowa 374; Humphrey v. Association, 50 Iowa, 607; Pinches y. Church, 55 Ct. 183; Brown v. Atchison, 17 Pac. R. 4665. Again, the school district having accepted the fruits of the contract, and thereby having made the contract its own, will not be heard to say that it had no power to make such contract and is not bound thereby. Corporations neither private nor muni-