If the parties who enter into a contract with a public corporation are required, either by statute or by the terms of their contract, to look solely to local assessments for their compensation, they cannot, in the absence of special circumstances, recover on the contract against the corporation personally.1 Even if the city contracts to collect such assessments and fails to take proper steps to do so, many authorities hold that the city does not incur any personal liability on the contract.2 The remedy of the creditors is to compel the officers by mandamus to collect the assessment,3 or to sue in equity to compel the city to exercise its powers in making and collecting the assessments.4 Some courts hold that the city is liable for breach of its contract to collect such assessments,5 on the theory that it is charged as trustee with the duty of collecting and apply-

Baker v. Seattle, 2 Wash. 576; 27 Pac. 462.

2 City of New Orleans v. Warner, 175 U. S. 120; modifying 81 Fed. 645; 26 C. C. A. 508; People v. May, 9 Colo. 404; 12 Pac. 838; Springfield v. Edwards, 84 111. 626; Law v. People, 87 111. 385; Swanson v. Ottumwa, 118 Ia. 161; 59 L. R. A. 620; 91 N. W. 1048. Contra, Ottumwa v. Water Supply Co., 119 Fed. 315; 59 L. R. A. 604, in which the Federal Court refused to take the same view of the liability of the city and the validity of the bond issue as that taken by the Supreme Court of the State in Swanson v. Ottumwa, 118 Ia. 1G1; 59 L. R. A. 620; 91 N. W. 1048.

3 Winston v. Spokane, 12 Wash.

524; 41 Pac. 888; Faulkner v. Seattle, 19 Wash. 320; 53 Pac. 365.

4 Laporte v. Gamewell, etc., Co., 146 Ind. 466; 58 Am. St. Rep. 359; 35 L. R. A. 686; 45 N. E. 588; Beard v. Hopkinsville, 95 Ky. 239; 44 Am. St. Rep. 222; 23 L. R. A. 402; 24 S. W. 872.

5 Way v. Fox, 109 Ia. 340; 80 N. W. 405.

6 Edmundson v. School District, 98 Ia. 639; 60 Am. St. Rep. 224; 67 N. W. 671. See Grand Island, etc., R. R. Co. v. Baker, 6 Wyom. 369; 71 Am. St. Rep. 926; 34 L. R. A. 835; 45 Pac. 494.

7 For injury sustained by defect in highway. McAleer v. Angell, 19 R. I. 688; 36 Atl. 588.

8 People v. Salt Lake City, 23 Utah 13; 64 Pac. 460.

1 Vickrey v. Sioux City, 115 Fed. 437; Foster v. Alton, 173 111. 587; 51 N. E. 76; affirming 74 111. App. 511; Affeld v. Detroit, 112 Mich. 560; 71 N. W. 151; Huntington v. Force, 152 Ind. 368; 53 N. E. 443; Kansas City v. Ward, 134 Mo. 172; 35 S. W. 600; Wheeler v. Poplar Bluff, 149 Mo. 36; 49 S. W. 1088; Heller v. Milwaukee, 96 Wis. 134; 70 N. W. 1111. The same principle applies where the debt incurred is payable exclusively out of a special tax. Raton Waterworks Co. v. Raton, 9 N. M. 70; 49 Pac. 898; reversed on another point, 174 U. S. 360.

2 Pontiac v. Paving Co., 94 Fed. 65; 36 C. C. A. 88; 48 L. R. A. 326 (rehearing denied, 96 Fed. 679) ; Greencastle v. Allen, 43 Ind. 347; Goodrich v. Detroit, 12 Mich. 279; Soule v. Seattle, 6 Wash. 315, 324; 33 Pac. 384 (rehearing denied, 33 Pac. 1080) ; German, etc., Bank v. Spokane, 17 Wash. 315; 38 L. R. A. 259; 47 Pac. 1103; 49 Pac. 542 (overruling McEwan v. Spokane, 16 Wash. 212; 47 Pac. 433); Wilson v. Aberdeen, 19 Wash. 89; 52 Pac. 524; Rhode Island, etc.. Co. v. Spokane, 19 Wash. 616; 53 Pac. 1104;

Northwestern Lumber Co. v. Aberdeen, 20 Wash. 102; 54 Pac. 935; Fletcher v. Oshkosh, 18 Wis. 228. "The city is. not required to collect the tax and pay it over to the contractor." Thornton v. Clinton, 148 Mo. 648; 50 S. W. 295.

3 People v. Syracuse, 144 N. Y. 63; 38 N. E. 1006 (though in New York such remedy is not exclusive) ; Wilson v. Aberdeen, 19 Wash. 89; 52 Pac. 524.

4 Burlington Savings Bank v. Clinton, 111 Fed. 439; Farson v. Sioux City, 106 Fed. 278.

5 Clayburgh v. Chicago, 25 111. 535; 79 Am. Dec. 346; Foster v. Alton, 173 111. 587; 51 N. E. 76; affirming 74 111. App. 511; Weston v. Syracuse, 158 N. Y. 274; 70 Am. St. Rep. 472; 43 L. R. A. 678; 53 N. E. 12; reversing 82 Hun (N. Y.) 67; Reilly v. Albany, 112 N. Y. 30; 19 N. E. 508; Commercial National Bank v. Portland, 24 Or. 188; 41 Am. St. Rep. 854; 33 Pac. 532. "It could not be supposed that he was not only to earn his compensation, but also to set in motion and keep in operation the several agencies of the city government over which he had no control, to place ing the assessments.6 If the special assessment is collected by the city, and the funds arising therefrom are then embezzled by a city official in whose custody they are, the city becomes liable for warrants drawn on such fund, though it was not liable originally.7 The liability of the city in case the assessment proves to be unenforceable is a question on which there is a conflict of authority. In some jurisdictions the city is liable if by reason of its own lack of compliance with the law the assessments fail, even if it is not primarily liable,8 and even if the limit of the city's indebtedness has been exceeded.9 So if the city has no authority to make the improvement at the expense of the abutting property, the contractor is allowed to recover from the city even if he has agreed that he will be entitled in no event to recover from the city.10 In other jurisdictions a different view obtains. If the special assessment is invalid, because the ordinance levying it is irregular, it has been held that the contractor has no remedy and cannot recover.11

If, however, the contract is one on which the corporation is primarily liable, a partial or total failure of the assessments does not discharge the liability of the corporation.12