CASES DISPOSED OF IN THE SUPREME COURT. The following mentioned cases, reported in this volume, have been disposed of in the Supreme Court in the manner indicated. AFFIRMED. Citizens Electric Railway, Light & Power Co. v. Bell. Edwards v. Rissler et al. Knox v. Carr et al. Linke v. Walcott et al. Matthews, City Solicitor, v. Southern Ohio Traction Co. Munday v. State. Rahe, Administrator, v. Board of Commissioners of Cuyahoga County. Robbins et al v. Smith, Administrator. Squires v. Martin, Administrator. Tenney et al v. Cincinnati. DISMISSED. Pape v. Standard Oil Co. Isley v. Wabash Railroad Co. OHIO CIRCUIT COURT REPORTS. NEW SERIES-VOLUME V. CAUSES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF OHIO. AGREEMENTS BY COUNCIL TO EXPEND MONEY WITHIN THE INHIBITION OF THE BURNS LAW. [Circuit Court of Warren County.] MALINDA PULLEN V. JOHN E. SMITH ET AL and WILLIAM EVANS ET AL V. JOHN E. SMITH ET AL. Decided, July, 1904. Municipal Corporations—Bilateral Agreements by—Within the Inhibition of the Burns Law-Although Not Enforceable-Section 1536 (205 M. C.). The action of a municipal council purporting to be an agreement involving the future expenditure of money, although admittedly not legally enforceable is nevertheless within the inhibition of the Burns Law, Revised Statutes 1536 (205 M. C.). JELKE, J., GIFFEN, J., and SWING, J. Per Curiam. We find that the proposed use of the lot involved herein as the site for a public library is within the public and municipal use intended by the original donors of said lot. A more serious question, however, is presented in the contention made by Mr. Evans, as a tax-payer, that the resolution passed by the Lebanon Council, on July 7, 1903, contravenes the Burns Law. R. S., 1536, 205. The issue thus arises: Mr. Carnegie made a proposition to the village of Lebanon in the following letter: "2 East 91st Street, New York. "W. CHESTER MAPLE, Esq., "Lebanon, Ohio. "Dear Sir: "20th February, 1903. "Responding to your communication in behalf of Lebanon. If the city agree, by resolution of council, to maintain a free public library at a cost of not less than one thousand dollars a year and provide a suitable site for the building, Mr. Carnegie will be pleased to furnish ten thousand dollars to erect a free public library building for Lebanon. "Respectfully yours, Which offer is met by action of the Lebanon council on July 7, 1903, by the following resolution: "Resolved, By the Council of the Village of Lebanon, State of Ohio, that the offer of Mr. Andrew Carnegie, made February 20, 1903, to furnish ten thousand dollars to erect a free public library building for Lebanon is hereby accepted; and "Resolved, Further, that the council agrees for and on behalf of said village to maintain said free public library at a cost of not less than one thousand dollars a year, and to provide a suitable site for the same; be it further "Resolved, That we express to Andrew Carnegie the sincere gratitude of the village for this beneficent gift, and that the clerk is directed to transmit to said donor a copy of these resolutions, wih a request for directions to this council for further mode of procedure.' R. S., 1536, 205, M. C., provides: "No contract, agreement, or other obligation involving the expenditure of money shall be entered into: nor shall any ordinance, resolution, or order for the expenditure of money be passed by the council, or by any board or officer of a municipal corporation, unless the auditor of the corporation, and if there is no auditor, the clerk thereof shall first certify to council that the money required for the contract, agreement or other obligation, or to pay the appropriation or expenditure, is in the treasury to the credit of the fund from which it is to be drawn, and not appropriated for any other purpose, which certificate shall be filed and immediately recorded.” It is contended on behalf of the library trustees, and it was decided by the court below, that the resolution did not contravene the inhibition of this section of the statutes for two reasons: First, That it did not create an enforcible legal obligation against the village of Lebanon; and, second, that it was not an expenditure of money. It is admitted that the resolution of July 7 has not the binding force and effect of a contract, and it is said that it merely expresses the municipal sense or policy and has no binding effect upon subsequent councils; that it is only binding upon the moral sense and civic conscience of the citizens of Lebanon. This view of the resolution is taken by both sides of the controversy, and that its provisions will be religiously kept, is asserted by both sides. We do not yield to counsel or to anybody, in high appreciation of the conscience and sense of moral responsibility of the good citizens of Lebanon, but we take a view a little different from that entertained by the trustees and their counsel as to the time for its exercise There is no doubt but that, were it not for Revised Statutes, 1536 (205 M. C.), the letter of Mr. Carnegie and the resolution. of council would constitute an enforcible bilateral legal agreement, and it is only because of this section of the statutes that it does not become such. The action of council purports to do that which the law says it can not do, and it is because the law says that it can not do this that council should not go through the form of doing, in good faith, a thing which is empty. and vain. It is because such action, on its face, is committing the village of Lebanon to an unlawful position that council should not do it. Would it not be fairer and juster if the village of Lebanon said to Mr. Carnegie: "We appreciate your |