Many statutes require a popular vote as a pre-requisite to incurring certain kinds of debts,1 as to exceed the limit of

15 Defiance v. Defiance, 23 Ohio C. C. 96.

16 Danville v. Water Co., 180 111. 235; 54 N. E. 224; s. c, 178 111. 299; 53 N. E. 118.

1 Hedges v. Dixon Co., 150 U. S. 182; Massachusetts, etc., Co. v. Cane Creek Tp., 45 Fed. 336; Crogster v. Bayfield Co., 99 Wis. 1; 74 N. W. 635; 77 N. W. 167.

2 Columbus v. Woonsocket Institution. 114 Fed. 162; 52 C. C. A. 118; Everett v. Independent School District, 109 Fed. 697; Rathbone v. Board, etc., of Kiowa Co., 83 Fed. 125; 27 C. C. A. 477; Culbertson v. Fulton, 127 111. 30; 18 N. E. 781; Winamac School Town v. Hess, 151

Ind. 229; 50 N. E. 81; Turner v. Woodson Co., 27 Kan. 314.

3 Columbus v. Woonsocket Institution. 114 Fed. 162; 52 C. C. A. 118; Francis v. Howard Co.. 50 Fed. 44, Nolan Co. v. State, 83 Tex. 182; 17 S. W. 823.

4 Citizens' Bank v. Terrell, 78 fex. 450; 14 S. W. 1003.

5 Chicago v. McDonald 176 111. 404: 52 N. E. 982; Webb City, etc.. Co. v. Carterville, 153 Mo. 128; 54 S. W. 557.

6 McGillivray v. School District, 112 Wis. 354; 88 Am. St. Rep. 969; 58 L. R. A. 100; 88 N. W. 310.

1 State v. Kansas City, 60 Kan. 518: 57 Pac. 118; Farr v. Grand indebtedness.2 An election is necessary only when required by statute.3 Thus, if an election is necessary for the validity of an issue of bonds amounting to one hundred thousand dollars or over, the council may issue a less amount for a proper purpose without an election, although the total bonded indebtedness exceeds such limit.4 Where the statute requires a vote on purchases over $500, such provision cannot be evaded by giving several warrants for the purchase each less than $500.5

Such provisions usually apply only to the creation of new debts and not to the refunding of old ones,6 but if the rate of interest is increased an election is necessary for refunding.7 A contract by which a viaduct is to be erected without any expense to the city, but the city assumes the damages to abutting property incurs debts within the meaning of a constitutional provision requiring an election.8 If an election on the question of issuing aid bonds is held before the adoption of a constitutional provision forbidding such issue and the bonds are issued afterwards they are invalid.9 The bonds must be restricted to the

Kapids, 112 Mich. 99; 70 N. W. 411; Appleton Waterworks Co. v. Appleton, 116 Wis. 363; 93 N. W. 262. Issuing bonds, Belknap v. Louisville, 99 Ky. 474; 59 Am. St. Rep. 478; 34 L. R. A. 256; 36 S. W. 1118; Roye v. Columbia, 192 Pa. St. 146; 43 Atl. 597. Constructing sewers, Kennedy v. Belmar, 61 N. J. L. 20; 38 Atl. 756. Constructing roads, Theis v. Board, etc., of Washita Co., 9 Okl. 643; 60 Pac. 505. Contract for school house. Grady v. Pruit, 111 Ky. 100; 63 S. W. 283. Contract for waterworks, Painter v. Norfolk, 62 Neb. 330; 87 N. W. 31; Defiance v. Defiance, 23 Ohio C. C. 96; Duncan v. Charleston, 60 S. C. 532; 39 S. E. 265. Contract for water supply. Har-rodsburg v. Water Co. (Ky.), 64 S. W. 658.

2 Christie v. Duluth, 82 Minn. 202; 84 N. W. 754; State v. Pullman, 23 Wash. 583; 83 Am. St. Rep. 836; 63 Pac. 265.

3 Board, etc., of Seward Co. v. Ins. Co., 90 Fed. 222; 32 C. C. A. 585; Klamath Falls v. Sachs, 35 Or. 325; 76 Am. St. Rep. 501; 57 Pac. 329.

4 Le Tourneau v. Duluth, 85 Minn. 219; 88 N. W. 529.

5 Fire Extinguisher Mfg. Co. v. Perry, 8 Okl. 429; 58 Pac. 635.

6 Geer v. Ouray Co., 97 Fed. 435; 38 C. C. A. 250; Lexington v. Bank, 75 Miss. 1; 22 So. 291; McCreight v. City of Camden, 49 S. C. 78; 26 S. E. 984.

7 Broadfoot v. Fayetteville, 128 N. C. 529; 39 S. E. 20.

8 Keller v. Scranton, 200 Pa. St. 130; 86 Am. St. Rep. 708; 49 Atl. 781.

9 Stebbins v. Perry Co., 167 111. 567; 47 N. E. 1048; reversing 66 111. App. 427. (The prior election purpose for which the special tax is voted.10 A vote to buy land and build market does not give power to build on land already owned.11 The statute may limit the time within which the validity of a bond election may be attacked.12