It is the duty of a municipality to erect its public buildings where they will best serve public convenience. As any inducement of a private nature to place or maintain such a building in a particular location will necessarily tend to the neglect of this duty an agreement of the municipality in consideration of such an inducement is invalid. 29

404, 55 Am. Rep. 719; Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. v. Southern Ind. R. Co., 38 Ind. App. 234, 70 N. E. 843; First Nat. Bank v. Hendrie, 49 Iowa, 402, 31 Am. Rep. 153; Williamson v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 Iowa, 126, 4 N. W. 870, 36 Am. Rep. 206; St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. Ryan, 11 Kans. 602, 15 Am. Rep. 357; Baird v. Salina Northern R. Co., 103 Kans. 452, 173 Pac. 1069, L. R. A. 1918 F. 1201; Lexington Ac. R. Co. v. Moore, 140 Ky. 514, 131 S. W. 257; Pacific Railroad Co. v. Seely, 45 Mo. 212, 100 Am. Dec. 369; Montclair Academy v. North Jersey St. Ry. Co., 65 N. J. L. 328, 47 Atl. 890; Levy v. Tatum (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 941; Horner v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 38 Wis. 165. See also Beasley v, Texas & Pac. R. Co., 191 U. S. 492, 48 L. Ed. 274, 24 S. Ct. 164.

25 McCowen v. Pew, 153 Calif. 735, 96 Pac. 893, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 800; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489, 106

Pac. 464, 25 L. R. A. 967; Fuller v. Dame, 18 Pick. 472; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Ralston, 41 Ohio St. 573. See also Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond & D. Extension Co., 129 U. S. 643, 32 L. Ed. 819,9 S. Ct. Rep. 402; Holladay v. Patterson, 5 Or. 177.

26 Woodstock Iron Co. v. Richmond & D. Extension Co., 129 U. S. 643, 32 L. Ed. 819, 9 S. Ct. Rep. 402.

27 Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71, 25 L. Ed. 950 (leasing); Denver Ac. R. Co. v. Atchison Ac. R. Co., 15 Fed. 650 (division of territory); State v. Hartford & New Haven R. Co., 29 Conn. 538 (discontinuance of necessary service); Peoria etc. R. Co. v. Coal Valley Min. Co., 68 111. 489 (rebate).

28 Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396, 32 L. Ed. 979, 9 S. Ct. Rep. 553 (restraint of competition); St. Louis v. Gas Light Co., 5 Mo. App. 484, 529 (division of territory).

For this reason an agreement by an individual to procure the location or maintenance of a public building in a certain place, or an agreement in consideration of such procurement is invalid; 30 and though an agreement by individuals to bear part of the cost of public improvements is not necessarily invalid,81 a contract whereby for a consideration citizens agree to advocate 32 or oppose 33 a public improvement is invalid, unless at least the matter is one in which the promisor has an individual property interest, which will be peculiarly affected.34