A contract lasting for a considerable time calling for the performance of services to the corporation and payment therefor in installments as such services are rendered is, by the weight of authority, a liability of the corporation only for so much as is earned and due and not for future unearned installments, in determining the debts of the corporation.1 Contracts for a

33 Keller v. Scranton, 202 Pa. St. 586; 52 Atl. 26; State v. Blake, 26 Wash. 237; 66 Pac. 396; Hazel-tine v. Blake, 26 Wash. 231; 66 Pac. 394.

34 Ryes v. St. Croix Co., 108 Wis. 136; 83 N. W. 637.

35 Herman v. Oconto, 110 Wis. 660; 86 N. W. 681.

1 Walla Walla v. Water Co., 172 U. S. 1; affirming 60 Fed. 957; Cen-terville v. Guaranty Co., 118 Fed. 332; 55 C. C. A. 348; Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Water Co., 113 Fed. 560; Anoka, etc., Co. v. Anoka, 109 Fed. 580; Cunningham v. Cleveland, 98 Fed. 657; 39 C. C. A. 211; Kiehl v. South Bend, 76 Fed. 921; 36 L. R. A. 228; Budd v. Budd, 59 Fed. 735; McBean v. Fresno, 112 Cal. 159; 53 Am. St. Rep. 191; 31 L. R. A. 794; 44 Pac. 358; Smilie v. Fresno Co., 112 Cal. 311; 44 Pac. 556; Higgins v. San Diego, 118 Cal. 524; 45 Pac. 824; modified on rehearing 50 Pac. 670; People v. Pacheco, 27 Cal. 175; Koppikus v. State Capitol Commissioners, 16 Cal. 248; State v. Mc-Cauley, 15 Cal. 429; Denver v. Hubbard, 17 Colo. App. 346; 68 Pac. 993; Carlyle v. Carlyle Water & Power Co., 140 111. 445; 29 N. E. 556; East St. Louis v. Coke Co., 98 111. 415; 38 Am. Rep. 97; La Porte v. Gamewell, etc., Co., 146 Ind. 466; 58 Am. St. Rep. 359; 35 L. R. A. 686; 45 N. E. 588; City of South Bend v. Reynolds, 155 Ind. 70; 49 L. R. A. 795; 57 N. E. 706; Seward v. Liberty, 142 Ind. 551; 42 N. E. 39; Foland v. Frank-ton, 142 Ind. 546; 41 N. E. 1031; Crowder v. Sullivan, 128 Ind. 486; 13 L. R. A. 647; 28 N. E. 94: Valparaiso v. Gardner, 97 Ind. 1; 49 Am. Rep. 416; Dively v. Cedar apply of light and water are the most common examples of this sort. Where this view is taken, the financial condition of the city when any given installment becomes due determines the validity of the contract as to that installment.2

Other authorities hold that all the sums which may he payable under such contract in the future must be added to determine whether the limit is exceeded.3 All the installments to become due under such a contract have been counted as a present debt under a provision forbidding incurring a debt without provision for paying the same.4 In many cases it has not been necessary to decide whether installments payable when services are rendered should be added in determining the existing amount of indebtedness. If the limit of indebtedness has already been reached such contract creates a debt for at least the first installment and if no tax is levied to pay such installment the contract is void.5 A similar result follows if the

Falls, 27 Ia. 227; Grant v. Davenport, 36 Ia. 396; Creston Waterworks Co. v. Creston, 101 Ia. 687; 70 X. W. 739; New Orleans, etc., Co. v. New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 188; 7 So. 559; Smith v. Dedham, 144 Mass. 177; 10 N. E. 782; Lud-ington, etc., Co. v. Ludington, 119 Mich. 480; 78 N. W. 558; Lamar Water, etc., Co. v. Lamar, 140 Mo. 145; 39 S. W. 768; Lamar, etc., Co. v. Lamar, 128 Mo. 188; 32 L. R. A. 157; 31 S. W. 756; 26 S. W. 1025; Saleno v. Neosho, 127 Mo. 627; 48 Am. St. Rep. 653; 27 L. R. A. 769; 30 S. W. 190; Weston v. Syracuse, 17 N. Y. 110; Territory v. Oklahoma, 2 Okla. 158; 37 Pac. 1094; Wade v. Oakmont Borough, 165 Pa. St. 479; 30 Atl. 959; Seitzinger v. Tamaqua, 187 Pa. St. 539; 41 Atl. 454; Stedman v. Berlin, 97 Wis. 505; 73 N. W. 57.

2 Keihl v. South Bend, 76 Fed. 921; 36 L. R. A. 228.

3 City of Dawson v. Waterworks Co., 106 Ga. 696; 32 S. E. 907; overruling in part Spann v. Webster Co., 64 Ga. 498; Cabaniss v. Hill, 74 Ga. 845; Kuchli v. Electric Co.,

58 Minn. 418; 49 Am. St. Rep., 523;

59 N. W. 1088; State v. Helena, 24 Mont. 521; 81 Am. St. Rep. 453; 55 L. R. A. 336; 63 Pac. 99; Niles Waterworks v. Niles, 59 Mich. 311; 26 N. W. 525; State v. City of Bay-onne, 55 N. J. L. 241; 26 Atl. 81; Salem Water Co. v. Salem, 5 Or. 29; Erie's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 398; Duncan v. Charleston, 60 S. C. 532; 39 S. E. 265.

4 Dawson v. Waterworks Co., 102 Ga. 594; 29 S. E. 755; State v. Bay-onne, 55 N. J. L. 241; 26 Atl. 81.

5 Chicago v. McDonald. 176 111. 404; 52 N. E. 982; (holding remarks in East St. Louis Co. v. Coke Co., 98 111. 415; 38 Am. Rep. 97; and Carlyle v. Power Co.. 140 111. 445; 29 N. E. 556; obiter as in those cases the limit was not reached when the debt was incurred) ; Beard v. Hopkinsville, 95 Ky. 239; 44 Am. St. Rep. 222; 23 L. R. A. 402; liability exceeds the appropriation.6 Even if the income from the property thus brought,7 or from taxes which the city means to levy,8 will probably exceed the amount of the annual installments the contract is invalid if it imposes a liability on the city. In other cases a somewhat different view of such a contract is taken. It is held void if it is not shown that the annual revenues from the property will pay for the installments.9 If the contract is really one of purchase of a plant outright, the price to be paid under the guise of annual rentals, the total cost must be counted as a debt existing when the contract is made, and if the limit of indebtedness is then exceeded, such contract is invalid.10 If the annual installments are to be paid out of the receipts from the property bought and no liability attaches to the city, such contract is valid even if the limit of indebtedness is exceeded.11

Other authorities have held that no appropriation in advance for future installments was necessary where a contract could be based only on an appropriation.12 It is sufficient if an appropriation be made each year to cover the installment accruing in that year.13 Under such a statute a five-year contract for lighting was held invalid where there was no appropriation for more than two months.14 So where the statute requires the certificate of the proper officer that there are sufficient funds in the treasury, such certificate need not be made for future installments.15 An ordinance fixing the rate of hydrant rentals is not a contract, does not create a debt, and hence is valid even if the limit is reached.16

24 S. W. 872; State v. Atlantic City, 49 N. J. L. 558; 9 Atl. 759.

6 Atlantic City Waterworks Co. v. Read, 50 N. J. L. 665; 15 Atl. 10.

7 Beard v. Hopkinsville, 95 Ky. 239; 44 Am. St. Rep. 222; 23 L. R A. 402; 24 S. W. 872; State ex rel. Read v. Atlantic City, 49 N. J. L. 558; 9 Atl. 759.

8 Davenport v. Kleinschmidt, 6 Mont. 502; 13 Pac. 249.

9 Erie's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 398.

10 Baltimore, etc.. Ry. v. People, 200 111. 541; 66 N. E. 148; Spilman v. Parkersburg, 35 W. Va. 605; 14 S. E. 279: (the electric-light plant to be sold to the city for one dollar when the rentals were paid) ; Earles v. Wells, 94 Wis. 285; 59 Am. St. Rep. 886; 68 N. W. 964; (the waterworks to become the property of the city when the rentals are paid) ; (distinguishing Crowder v. Sullivan, 128 Ind. 486; 13 L. R. A. 647; 28 N. E. 94; Smith v. Dedham, 144 Mass. 177; as true installment contracts ).

11 Valparaiso v. Gardner, 97 Ind. 1; 49 Am. Rep. 416.

12 Lincoln Land Co. v. Grant, 57 Neb. 70; 77 X. W. 349.

13 Denver v. Hubbard, 17 Colo. App. 346; 68 Pac. 993.

14 Indianapolis v. Wann, 144 Ind. 175; 31 L. R. A. 743; 42 N. E. 901.