Contracts of a de facto public corporation are as valid as those of a corporation de jure,1 though the corporation is dissolved by a decree of court as including more territory than it should.2 So where a municipal corporation, organized under special act, tried to reorganize under general law, and issued bonds, and the new officers were removed, the bonds were valid.3 This rule applies only to de facto corporations, however, and not to aggregations of individuals who may assume to act as a public corporation. Accordingly, bonds issued by an unincorporated body, claiming to act as a town or city, are invalid.4

255; affirmed on rehearing 59 Neb. 455; 81 N. W. 307; (though it has officers like a corporation).

6 Allen v. Long, 80 Tex. 261; 26 Am. St. Rep. 735; 16 S. W. 43.

7 Taylor v. Branham, 35 Fla. 297; 48 Am. St. Rep. 249; 39 L. E. A. 362; 17 So. 552; Hill v. Beach, 12 N. J. Eq. 31.

8 Simmons v. Ingram, 78 Mo. App. 603; Slocum v. Head, 105 Wis. 431; 50 L. E. A. 324; 81 N. W. 673.

1 Shapleigh v. San Angelo. 167 U. S. 646; Miller v. Irrigation District, 99 Fed. 143; Arapahoe v. Albee,

24 Neb. 242; 8 Am. St. Rep. 202; 38 N. W. 737; Coast v. Spring Lake, 56 N. J. Eq. 615; 51 L. E. A. 657; 36 Atl. 21; Coler v. School Township, 3 N. D. 249; 28 L. E. A, 649; 55 N. W. 587.

2 Uvalde v. Spier, 91 Fed. 594; 33 C. C. A. 501.

3 Lampasas v. Talcott, 94 Fed. 547; 36 C. C. A. 318.

4 Guthrie v. Lumber Co., 9 Okl. 464; 60 Pac. 247; Ruohs v. Athens, 91 Tenn. 20: 30 Am. St. Rep. 858; 18 S. W. 400.