Section 64. Unless restricted by statute, or unless the land is held in trust for a specific purpose, a municipal corporation may alienate corporate property.5

A municipal corporation, in reference to its property, stands on the same footing as other corporations. Its corporate property is held in trust for the benefit of its constituents, and it is bound to administer such property faithfully, honestly and justly, and if guilty of a breach of trust by disposing of valuable property without any, or for a nominal, consideration, it will be regarded in the light of the representative of a private individual or private corporation. The fact that the forms of legislation are used in committing such a breach of trust, will not change the character of the act and will warrant judicial interference in the same manner as a breach of trust by an individual or private corporation, holding property in trust for others.6

It is held, however, that sales made by a municipal corporation in the exercise of discretionary power, cannot be annulled by the courts on the ground merely that the bargain was improvident.7

5 People vs. City of Albany, 4 Hun., 675; City of Brooklyn vs. Copeland, 22 Weekly Dig., 347; Kings County Fire Insurance Co. vs. Stevens, 101 N. Y., 411.

6 Sherlock vs. Winnetka, 59 III., 389. 7 Terre Haute vs. Terre Haute Water Works Co., 94. Ind., 305;

5 Am. and Eng. CorpCaa., 421.

In the case of Ellis vs. Commissioners of Funded Debt, 38 Cal., 629, the court said concerning a statutory provision imposing certain trust upon the commissioners of the funded debt of San Francisco: "The commissioners are the exclusive judges of the necessity for the sale or lease of the property of the city held by them in trust, until the trust is finally closed; and their action cannot be interfered with, nor their discretion be controlled by the city or its assignee, except upon the ground of fraud, or a gross abuse of discretion by the trustees."