Except where the statute so provides, a municipality is not liable for property destroyed by mobs. In other words, there is no common law liability, but the legislature may constitutionally give a remedy, and regulate the manner of assessment of damages.

Statutes affording a remedy for property of individuals destroyed by mobs or riotous assemblages, have been in force in England, as well as in several of the states in this country, for many years and have uniformly been upheld by the courts.

5 Cooley on Torts, Marg. pages 619, 620; 15 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, page 1155 and cases cited.

The principle upon which these laws are held to be within the general scope of legislative power is stated in County of Allegheny vs. Gibson, 90 Pa. St., 397, as follows: Speaking of the course of the ancient English law on the subject it is said: "Formerly, as we have seen, a person robbed had his remedy against any inhabitant of the hundred, - That is to say, the inhabitants were jointly and severally liable. Then the law was so changed that damages recovered against an individual could be assessed against all the inhabitants, so as to compel contribution. Afterwards it was still further modified so as to give the right of action against the hundred. The principle upon which this legislation rested was, that every political subdivision of the State should be responsible for the public peace and the preservation of private property, and that this end could be best subserved by making each individual member of the community surety for the good behavior of his neighbor and for that of each stranger temporarily sojourning among them. The effect was to make each citizen a detective, and on the alert to prevent, as well as to detect and punish, crime. * * * It was evidently a police regulation, based upon grounds of public policy, and in force without regard to the hardships of particular cases."