Other statutes of this group forbid contracts incurring liability which cannot be paid out of taxes for that fiscal year.1 Under a statute of this class the fact that interest on the debt incurred, and an amount to be paid into the sinking fund sufficient to discharge the debt ultimately are, when added together, within the annual income of the city, does not prevent a debt in excess of the income from being invalid.2 Persons who work for the city must take notice of such provision,3 and debts contracted in violation thereof cannot be paid out of the next year's taxes.4 Such provisions cannot be evaded by buying goods on credit extending to the next fiscal year.5 In determining what the revenue is money lost by a bank failure must be included in the estimate of revenue.6 A liability incurred when there was sufficient money on hand to discharge it is not avoided because the fund is exhausted before the claim is presented,7 and a debt contracted against a special fund must be paid though prior debts not out of such fund cannot be paid.8 Where debts are invalid if they exceed the amount of taxes for that year less certain specified municipal expenditures for necessary purposes, it is error to deduct other items of expense than those fixed by statute from the year's taxes.9 The year for which such debts and revenues are to be estimated is prima facie a calendar year.10 If a fiscal year is intended the council may change the time of beginning thereof if they do not thereby make two fiscal years out of one.11
7 Herman v. Oconto, 110 Wis. 660; 86 N. W. 681.
8 Blanks v. Monroe, 110 La. 944; 34 So. 921.
1 Weaver v. San Francisco, 111 Cal. 319; 43 Pac. 972; Bradford v. San Francisco, 112 Cal. 537; 44 Pac. 912; Montague v. English, 119 Cal. 225; 51 Pac. 327; Phillips v. Reed, 107 Ia. 331; 76 N. W. 850; 77 N. W. 1031 (citing Shaw v. Statler, 74 Cal. 258; 15 Pac. 833; Putnam v. Grand Rapids, 58 Mich. 416; 25 N. W. 330; State v. Martin, 27 Neb. 441; 43 N. W. 244); Grady v. Landram (Ky.), 63 S. W. 284; State v. St. Paul, Judge, etc., 107 La. 777; 32 So. 88; Trump Mfg. Co. v. Buchanan, 116 Mich. 113; 74
N. W. 466; Greenville v. Laurent, 75 Miss. 456; 23 So. 185. This restriction exists only by statute. Mitchell v. Negaunee, 113 Mich. 359; 67 Am. St. Rep. 468; 38 L. R. A. 157; 71 N. W. 646.
2 Richmond v. Powell, 101 Ky. 7; 27 S. W. 1.
3 Weaver v. San Francisco, 111 Cal. 319; 43 Pac. 972.
4 Montague v. English, 119 Cal. 225; 51 Pac. 327.
5 Trump Mfg. Co. v. Buchanan, 116 Mich. 113; 74 N. W. 466; Merchants' National Bank v. Spates, 41 W. Va. 27; 56 Am. St. Rep. 828; 23 S. E. 681.
6 Higgins v. San Diego, 131 Cal. 294; 63 Pac. 470.