Approved in Kirkman v. McClaughry, 160 Fed. 438, 90 C. C. A. 86, following rule; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 179, 29 L. Ed. 605, 6 Sup. Ct. 576, holding that writ of prohibition does not lie from Supreme Court to courtmartial to review its decision of questions within its jurisdicton; Ex parte Henderson, 11 Fed. Cas. 1072, construing act of Congress providing for organization of courts-martial to try contractors guilty of fraud. Suspension of writ of habeas corpus. Note, 45 L. R. A. 833. Miscellaneous. Cited in In re Wilson, 18 Fed. 36, but application doubtful; Kelley v. State, 25 Ark. 398, to point that judicial must follow decision of political department as to political status of State; Bright v. Cemetery Assn., 33 La. Ann. 61, arguendo. 12 Wheat. 40-63, 6 L. Ed. 544, CLARK v. CITY OF WASHINGTON. Where municipal city is granted a power which by clear intendment is to be exercised by it exclusively, power cannot be delegated. Approved in United States v. Ross, 5 App. D. C. 253, holding commissioners of district could not delegate to plumbing examiners power to pass finally on application for plumbing licenses; East Hartford v. Bridge Co., 10 How. 535, 13 L. Ed. 528, holding that where city has been empowered to construct bridge, it cannot assign right to private corporation so as to defeat right of legislature to revoke such power; Commonwealth v. Smith, 141 Mass. 140, 6 N. E. 91, denying right of inspector of milk to appoint agent, with right, in absence of inspector, to take by force and against will of owner, samples of milk for analysis; Maxwell v. Bridge Co., 41 Mich. 465, 2 N. W. 644, holding that where county supervisors are authorized to select site for bridge, authority cannot be delegated to other persons; Pierce v. Emery, 32 N. H. 508, holding that railroad corporation cannot mortgage its franchise to the impairment of its duty to the public, unless specially authorized by charter; State v. Hayes, 61 N. H. 324, denying power of legislature to submit to people question as to whether certain law shall be adopted, legislature having no right to delegate legislative power; Lufkin v. Galveston, 56 Tex. 533, denying power of city council to delegate to inferior officer its duty in regulating public works; Kyle v. Malin, 8 Ind. 37, arguendo. Distinguished in Decorah v. Dunstan, 38 Iowa, 99, holding that where city was empowered to regulate and license auction sales an ordinance delegating such power to mayor was valid. What municipal corporations are answerable for injuries due to defects in streets and other public places. Note, 108 Am. St. Rep. 165. Delegation of powers by municipal corporation. Note, 29 Am. Rep. Delegation of municipal power as to license, franchise and buildings. Municipalities may legislate within prescribed limits, and are liable for all acts of agents within scope of authority. Approved in Mayor etc. v. Town of Harrison, 71 N. J. L. 71, 58 Atl. 101, holding city bound by water contract made by authorized agent; Oklahoma City v. Hill Bros., 6 Okl. 139, 50 Pac. 250, determining damages for which city liable for trespass by its officers; Commercial Electric L. & P. Co. v. Tacoma, 20 Wash. 291, 72 Am. St. Rep. 105, 55 Pac. 220, holding where during the carriage of stock the carrier's employees strike, an agent of the carrier may enter into another contract with shipper; Boone County v. Railroad Co., 139 U. S. 693, 35 L. Ed. 323, 11 Sup. Ct. 690, holding that statute of limitations will run against county whose officers have been negligent in enforcing rights of county; Memphis v. Brown, 1 Flipp. 198, Fed. Cas. 9415, holding persons acting for city with knowledge of officials may recover for services; Coburn v. San Mateo County, 75 Fed. 540, holding that ratification by board of supervisors of act of trespass committed by one of its members renders county liable in tort; Gas Co. v. San Francisco, 9 Cal. 472, holding city liable on contract to furnish gas executed by its officers; Thorn v. Park Commissioners, 130 Ill. 607, 22 N. E. 523, holding that where commissioners seek confirmation of assessment made, burden of proof is on them to show authority to make assessment; McGraw v. Marion, 98 Ky. 683, 34 S. W. 21, holding city liable to action for false imprisonment arising from enforcement, by its police judge, of an unconstitutional ordinance; County Commrs. v. Duckett, 20 Md. 481, 83 Am. Dec. 563, where county held liable to action for negligence of commissioners in allowing county road to remain out of repair; Thayer v. Boston, 19 Pick. 516, 31 Am. Dec. 161, holding city liable for acts of officers in obstructing highway; Sheldon v. Kalamazoo, 24 Mich. 387, where city held liable for trespass committed by officers in condemning land for street; Leggett v. New Jersey etc. Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 553, 23 Am. Dec. 734, holding private corporation bound by act of officers in executing mortgage; Bailey v. New York, 3 Hill, 540, 38 Am. Dec. 672, where city held liable for injuries resulting from negligence of employees in constructing dam (affirmed on appeal, 2 Denio, 447, 448); De Voss v. Richmond, 18 Gratt. 346, 98 Am. Dec. 651, holding that where city has authorized issue of bonds and prescribed form, it will be liable to bona fide holder of such bonds, although city officers failed to execute them properly; Bacon v. Robertson, 18 How. 485, 15 L. Ed. 502, Ohio etc. Trust Co. v. Merchants' etc. Trust Co., 11. Humph. 30, 53 Am. Dec. 765, dissenting opinions in United States v. Robertson, 5 Pet. 665, 8 L. Ed. 266, People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 623, Lucas v. Commissioners, 44 Ind. 572, arguendo. Distinguished in Anthony v. Adams, 1 Met. 285, holding city not to be liable in tort for unauthorized act of officers in building embankment and flooding adjacent land; Eastman v. Meredith, 36 N. H. 293, 72 Am. Dec. 307, denying liability of city where injury in question resulted from mere failure of city to provide safe place for public meeting; Maxmilian v. New II-24 York, 62 N. Y. 164, 20 Am. Rep. 469, denying liability of city for acts done by officer whom it was required by statute to appoint and in whose duties it had no interest. Clause in charter, empowering city to "authorize the drawing of lotteries," makes city liable to pay prize drawn. Distinguished in Shankland v. Washington, 5 Pet. 391, 8 L. Ed. 166 (affirming 3 Cr. C. C. 328, Fed. Cas. 12,703), case involving the same lottery, holding, however, that where owner of ticket sold half interest before drawing without notice to city, city was not liable for prize, it having authorized no half tickets. 12 Wheat. 64-116, 6 L. Ed. 552, UNITED STATES BANK v. DANDRIDGE. Corporations created by statute depend, both for their powers and the mode of their exercise, upon the acts creating them. Approved in dissenting opinion in Marshall etc. Co. v. City of Nashville, 109 Tenn. 515, 71 S. W. 820, majority holding where city charter required goods furnished to be supplied by lowest bidder, an ordinance was invalid which required city printing to bear union label; Bank v. Earle, 13 Pet. 587, 10 L. Ed. 307, holding that bank authorized to deal in exchange, may purchase bills through agent in another State; Perrine v. Canal Co., 9 How. 184, 13 L. Ed. 97, denying power of canal company to exact tolls from passengers in absence of express authorization in charter; Market Bank v. Smith, 16 Fed. Cas. 758, decreeing repayment of interest collected above amount limited in bank charter; Jemison v. Bank, 17 Ala. 760, denying right of bank to sue after forfeiture of charter in absence of express authorization; City of Selma v. Mullen, 46 Ala. 414, holding valid a parol contract made by municipal officers within the scope of their powers, parol contracts not having been prohibited by charter; dissenting opinion in Southern Life Ins. etc. Co. v. Lanier, 5 Fla. 171, majority holding that provision in bank charter authorizing bank to sell surrendered stock for cash and invest proceeds in mortgages was merely directory and bank could receive bond and mortgage of an individual for stock issued to him directly; Breaux v. Iberville, 23 La. Ann. 236, denying power of city officers to issue bonds not provided for by charter, and holding city not liable to suit on bonds so issued; Weckler v. Bank, 42 Md. 590, 20 Am. Rep. 100, denying power of bank to engage in business of selling railroad bonds on commission, in absence of express authorization; Sanborn v. Insurance Co., 16 Gray, 454, 77 Am. Dec. 421, holding that grant of power to make contracts of insurance implies power to make parol contracts; Matthews v. Skinker, 62 Mo. 332, 21 Am. Rep. 427, denying power of national bank to take deed of trust to land as security for contemporaneous loan; Mt. V. Bk. v. Porter, 52 Mo. App. 250, holding that power granted bank in charter to negotiate and discount negotiable and non-negotiable paper, implied power to negotiate bonds; Moss v. Averell, 10 N. Y. 454, holding that corporation having power to purchase property could give promissory notes on such purchase; McDonald v. New York, 68 N. Y. 27, 28, 23 Am. Rep. 147, 148, where city held not to be bound by act of officers in contracting for materials, where such act prohibited by charter; Crocker v. Whitney, 71 N. Y. 166, and Fowler v. Scully, 72 Pa. St. 461, 13 Am. Rep. 701, denying power of bank to take mortgage as security for future indebtedness, charter having only empowered it to so secure past debts; State v. Wilmington R. R. Co., Busb. 236, holding that indictment charging railroad company as owner of public ferry for not keeping it in repair, must show such duty to be imposed by charter; Madison etc. Co. v. Watertown etc. Co., 7 Wis. 80, holding that grant of power to construct plank road does not include power to loan money; Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 322, 337, 12 L. Ed. 456, 462, Hartford etc. R. R. Co. v. Kennedy, 12 Conn. 508, Safford v. Wyckoff, 4 Hill, 448, arguendo. Distinguished in Barnes v. Ontario Bank, 19 N. Y. 163, holding that where bank is vested with general power its abuse cannot prejudice innocent third persons. Common-law rule that corporations aggregate can do nothing but by deed under seal, is inapplicable to acts at corporate meetings. Approved in Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 44, 44 L. Ed. 664, 20 Sup. Ct. 524, holding forfeiture of permission of foreign corporation to do business in Texas for violation of act of 1899 does not violate obligation of contract; International Seal Co. v. Beyer, 33 App. D. C. 177, holding seal need not be attached to answer under oath of officers of corporation; Savings Bank v. Davis, 8 Conn. 202, and Board of Education v. Greenebaum, 39 Ill. 612, holding that appointment of agent may be evidenced by record of proceedings alone; Garrison v. Combs, 7 J. J. Marsh. 85, 22 Am. Dec. 121, holding seal unnecessary to pass corporation's interest in promissory note; Lee v. Trustees, 7 Dana, 29, holding town trustees bound by act of agent in offering reward, although authority of agent not recognized by instrument under seal; Maine Stage Co. v. Longley, 14 Me. 449, holding parol evidence admissible to show authority of baggage agent, in action against company for baggage lost; Turnpike Co. v. McCarson, 1 Dev. & B. 312, affirming appointment of manager, evidenced only by corporation records; Butts v. Cuthbertson, 6 Ga. 171, arguendo. It is not necessary to the validity of corporate acts that they be reduced to writing, unless so provided by statute. Approved in Flakne v. Minnesota etc. Ins. Co., 105 Minn. 481, 117 N. W. 786, following rule; Denver etc. R. Co. v. Arizona etc. R. Co., 233 U. S. 603, 58 L. Ed. 1115, 34 Sup. Ct. 691, holding where no record of action of corporate directors was made secondary evidence thereof was admissible; Riverside Tp. v. Stewart, 211 Fed. 876, 128 C. C. A. 251, holding rights of third person dealing with municipality not affected by failure to record corporate action; Board of Commrs. v. Tollman, 145 Fed. 771, in action on county bonds, parol evidence is admissible to establish facts concerning their execution; Rondot v. Rogers Tp., 99 Fed. 210, holding failure of clerk of municipal corporation to make record of proceedings relating to bond issue cannot defeat bond issue; City of Denver v. Spencer, 34 Colo. 274, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 147, 82 Pac. 591, where city charter silent as to manner in which park commissioners should act, parol evidence admissible to show board authorized erection of stand, where secretary failed to make record; Alton Mfg. Co. v. Garrett Biblical Institute, 243 Ill. 308, 90 N. E. 708, holding authority conferred on agent to borrow money not void because not entered on minutes; State v. Farrier, 114 La. 586, 38 South. 462, witness present at meeting held for election of officers of association may testify as to who were elected; Beach v. Stouffer, 84 Mo. App. 398, holding action of board of directors fixing salary of officer may be proved by parol when there was no writing; Rhode Island Hospital Trust Co. v. Thorndike, 24 R. I. 120, 52 Atl. 878, holding marriage may be proved without producing registry of marriages; Arizona etc. R. Co. v. Denver etc. R. Co., 16 N. M. 293, 117 Pac. 733, arguendo; United States v. Fillebrown, 7 Pet. 47, 8 L. Ed. 603, holding that where commissioner of navy hospital was not required to record proceedings, parol evidence was admissible to show employment of secretary; Bridgford v. Tuscumbia, 4 Woods, 613, 16 Fed. 913, holding that rights of creditors of city cannot be impaired because of neglect of city council to record proceedings; Allis v. Jones, 45 Fed. 149, where parol evidence held admissible to show action of directors in authorizing execution of mortgage; Carey v. Philadelphia etc. Co., 33 Cal. 696, holding parol employment of agent by corporation valid in absence of express requirement that such act shall be done by deed or resolution; Gordon v. San Diego, 108 Cal. 269, 41 Pac. 302, holding parol evidence of proceedings of council ordering sale of pueblo lands, admissible to prove facts omitted from record; Richardson v. St. Joseph etc. Co., 5 Blackf. 148, 33 Am. Dec. 462, holding parol evidence admissible to show appointment of agent by corporation; Tubbs v. Ogden, 46 Iowa, 137, where it was held that adjudication of "fence-viewers" as to sufficiency of partition fence need not be in writing in absence of statute to that effect; Zalesky v. Insurance Co., 102 Iowa, 515, 70 N. W. 188, holding parol evidence admissible to show action taken by insurance company in regard to loss, and of its decision to rebuild; Troy v. Railroad Co., 11 Kan. 530, ruling similarly where records of city council failed to show a resolution calling bond election; Holland v. Duluth etc. Co., 65 Minn. 334, 60 Am. St. Rep. 486, 68 N. W. 53, holding parol evidence admissible to show persons to be stockholders in corporation, records having been destroyed by fire; Gilbert v. Boyd, 25 Mo. 29, ruling similarly as to act of corporation appointing trustees; Kane v. School District, 48 Mo. App. 414, and State ex rel. v. Lockett, 54 Mo. App. 208, holding that proceedings of school directors can be shown only by record where statute directs that record shall be kept; Taylor v. Griswold, 14 N. J. L. 241, 27 Am. Dec. 49, refusing to declare by-laws inoperative because not in writing; Bohan v. Avoca, 154 Pa. St. 410, 26 Atl. 606, holding parol evidence admissible to prove order of city council providing for street improvements; Pickett v. Abney, 84 Tex. 647, 19 S. W. 859, holding parol evidence admissible to prove election of person as officer |