Section 94. The authorities are not in accord upon the question of the liability of municipal corporations upon implied contracts, as the general rule is, that they are only liable upon express contracts duly authorized. The exceptions to this rule rest upon the liabilities of municipal corporations for the use of money or other property which does not belong to the municipality, and to liabilities arising from the neglect of duties imposed by the charter, where persons or property suffer injuries in consequence thereof.2

1 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (3d Ed.), Par. 443; lKyd.,69; 2 Kent Com., 224; Angell and Ames, Sees.

110, 271; Galena vs. Corwith, 48 III., 423.

The doctrine of implied municipal liability applies to cases where money or other property of a party is received under such circumstances that the general law, independent of express contract, imposes the obligation upon the city to do justice with respect to the same. If the city obtain money of another by mistake, or without authority of law, it is her duty to refund it - not from any contract entered into by her on the subject, but from the general obligation to do justice which binds all persons, whether natural or artificial. If the city obtain other property which does not belong to her, it is her duty to restore it; or if used by her, to render an equivalent to the true owner, from the like general obligation: the law, which always intends justice, implies a promise.

In reference to money or other property, it is not difficult to determine in any particular case whether a liability with respect to the same has attached to the city. The money must have gone into her treasury, or been appropriated by her; and when it is property other than money, it must have been used by her, or be under her control.

But with reference to services rendered the case is different. Their acceptance must be evidenced by ordinance, or express corporate action, to that effect. If not originally authorized, no liability can attach upon any ground of implied contract. The acceptance, upon which alone the obligation to pay would arise, would be wanting.

2 Argenteni vs. San Francisco, 16 Cal., 255.

"As a general rule, undoubtedly, a city corporation is only liable upon express contracts, authorized by ordinance, or other due corporate proceedings. The exceptions relate to liabilities from the use of money or other property which does not belong to her, or to liabilities springing from the neglect of duties imposed by the charter, from which injuries to parties are produced. There are limitations even to these exceptions in many instances, as where property or money is received in disregard of positive prohibition; as, for example, the city would not be liable for moneys received upon the issuance of bills of credit, as this would be, in effect, to support a proceeding in direct contravention of the inhibition of the charter." 3