Cited by

of Sibley, –94 (Minn. 1881) (holding that defendant was not entitled to money that plaintiff paid defendant for project, when defendant was not authorized to undertake the project and defendant failed to deliver).

It had no authority to make it; no one of its officers, nor all of them together, had authority to make it.” A municipal or public corporation may recover back from the payee unauthorized payments of its funds, whether the payee be another public corporation as in Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , , and Village of Glencoe v. County of McLeod, 40 Minn. 44 , , or an individual as in City of Chaska v. Hedman, supra, and Burns v. Essling, 154 Minn. 304 , .

Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ; Village of Glencoe v. County of McLeod, 40 Minn. 44 , ; City of Chaska v. Hedman, 53 Minn. 525 , ; City of Fergus Falls v. Fergus Falls Hotel Co. 80 Minn. 165 , , 50 L. R. A. 170, 81 Am.

.” As expressed by Justice Mitchell in Sibley v. County of Pine, 31 Minn. 201 , , there is a “moral obligation, resting upon every person, natural or artificial, to make restitution where they have received without consideration the money of another which they have no right to retain.” Other cases which have announced and applied the rule are Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ; Valentine v. City of St.

promise is required at all, and to say, as was -said by Mitchell, J., in Sibley v. County of Pine, 31 Minn. 201 , : “The obligation * * * to repay * * * arises from the moral obligation, resting upon every person, * * * to make restitution where they have received without consideration the money of another, which they have no right to retain.” See also Borough of Henderson v. Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ; for it was truly said by Lord Chief Justice Holt two hundred .years ago that “themotion of promi

199 ; Village of Pillager v. Hewett, 98 Minn. 265 , ; Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ; Laird Norton Yards v. City of Rochester, 117 Minn. 114 , ; White v. City of Chatfield, 116 Minn. 371 , .

The attempted contract is not ultra vires in the primary sense of the term, and for that reason incapable of ratification to any extent, as is held in Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , 11 * ; City of Chaska v. Hedman, 53 Minn. 525 , , and Jackson v. Board of Education, 112 Minn. 167 , .

The case of Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , , is claimed by plaintiffs to be decisive in their favor.

In Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , , the rule is clearly stated.

We find nothing to disturb this conclusion in the cases to which respondent refers us. Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 519 , ; Bates v. Bassett, 60 Vt. 530 , 15 Atl.

R. A. 656); to pay money to aid in building a shoe factory within its limits (City of Chaska v. Hedman, 53 Minn. 525 , ); to aid in the construction of a dam for the purpose of improving a private water power (Coates v. Campbell, 37 Minn. 498 , ); to construct a building for the use of another municipality or other third person (Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ; Village of Glencoe v. County of McLeod, 40 Minn. 44 , ); or without authority to buy real estate (Ba *219 zill

The case of Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , , cited by plaintiff’s counsel, is not opposed to this conclusion, for in that case there was a total want of power on the part of the county under any circumstances to enter into the contract which was the sole consideration for the payment of the money which the borough sought by the action to recover

State v. Foley, 30 Minn. 350 , ; Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ; Coates v. Campbell, 37 Minn. 498 , ; City of Chaska v. Hedman, 53 Minn. 525 , ; City of Fergus Falls v. Fergus Falls Hotel Co., 80 Minn. 165 , .

Again, this subject was referred to in Borough v. County, 28 Minn. 515 , .

Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

The case is to be distinguished from Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 518 , ( .)

Gilfillan, C. J. Except as to the claim that the cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations this case is precisely analogous to that in Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 , ( 11 N. W. Rep.

Brand v. Williams, 29 Minn. 238 ; Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 ; Sibley v. County of Pine, 31 Minn. 201 ; Bradford v. City of Chicago, 25 Ill.

Borough of Henderson v. County of Sibley, 28 Minn. 515 .