also should not be forgotten that public officials are agents with restricted powers. 848 The tendency and policy of the courts in all directions is to restrain and restrict the action of a public corporation though this is not carried to the extent of hampering or preventing the accomplishment of those purposes for which such organizations are created.849 Questions may also arise in connection with the grant of authority as to what constitutes a building. In the note will be cited cases upon this point. 850 54 N. Y. Supp. 946; Bennett v. Nor- fered with. Morse v. Norfolk Counton, 171 Pa. 221. 848 Cass County v. Gibson (C. C. A.) 107 Fed. 363. Where powers are granted to a board not involving judgment or discretion in their performance, they can be delegated to a subordinate committee of the board. Laver v. Ellert, 110 Cal. 221. Discretionary powers may be granted to commissioners to change the plans and specifications of buildings authorized. Sexton v. Cook County, 114 Ill. 174. An architect cannot bind a county ordering work not authorized by a resolution of the county board having authority in such matters. Nill v. Jenkinson, 15 Ind. 425; Rothrock v. Carr, 55 Ind. 334; Campbell v. Commissioners of State Soldiers' & Sailors' Monument, 115 Ind. 591. ty, 170 Mass. 555, 49 N. E. 925; Auditors of Wayne County v. Wayne Circ. Judge, 114 Mich. 44, 72 N. W. 19; State v. Seibert, 99 Mo. 122, 12 S. W. 348; Verdin v. City of St. Louis (Mo.) 27 S. W. 447; State v. Haynes, 72 Mo. 377; State v. Babcock, 24 Neb. 787. People v. Baker, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 81. Funds raised for the purpose of erecting a fire proof Surrogate's office may be appropriated for the erection of an addition to the county penitentiary. State v. Johnson, 42 Ohio St. 134; Mahon v. Luzerne County, 197 Pa. 1; State v. McGraw, 13 Wash. 311; Milwaukee County v. Paul, 59 Wis. 341; Koch v. City of Milwaukee, 89 Wis. 220. 849 Field v. Stroube, 19 Ky. L. R. 1751, 44 S. W. 363; List v. City of Wheeling, 7 W. Va. 501. All 850 Ertle v. Leary, 114 Cal. 238. The cells of a jail held in this case to be a part of the building. good v. Hill, 54 Miss. 666. The planting of trees around it may be ordered by county officials under the grant of authority to maintain a good and convenient court house. Brown v. Graham, 58 Tex. 254. The right to construct an addition to a building is included in a grant of the power to erect public build Miller v. Merriam, 94 Iowa, 126, 62 N. W. 689. Special authority to construct a court house is not necessary where there are funds on hand without the levy of special taxes for such purpose. Robling v. Pike County Com'rs, 141 Ind. 522, 40 N. E. 1079. A statute making it the duty of certain officials to construct public buildings vests them with discretion as to the propriety of the erection of such buildings which will not, ordinarily, be inter- ings. $421. The leasing, repair and furnishing of public buildings. The power to construct a public building or supply public officers with necessary court rooms or offices includes usually the right, and implies the duty, to furnish for such purposes suitable accommodations, 851 and the right generally exists in public officials, without the grant of specific authority, to make ordinary repairs.852 Extensive or extraordinary repairs may require a special grant of authority.853 The furnishing of public buildings also requires as a rule such special authority. 422. Local or internal improvements. 854 A highway or street is one of the most familiar and frequently found examples of a "local improvement," and it is, unquestionably, the duty of a sovereign under modern theories of civilized government to construct and maintain highways, not only for defensive purposes with respect to the state itself, but also as a means for facilitating communication between the different parts 851 Washington County v. Sallin- v. Inhabitants of Hamilton, 23 Mass. ger, 119 U. S. 176; Butler v. Neosho County Com'rs, 15 Kan. 178; Dean v. Saunders County, 55 Neb. 759, 76 N. W. 450. But see French v. City of Auburn, 62 Me. 452. Owen v. Nye County, 10 Nev. 338; Barker v. Town of Floyd, 32 Misc. 474, 66 N. Y. Supp. 216. The power to construct a town hall does not authorize a town to purchase a building for such purpose. Wade v. City of New Bern, 77 N. C. 460; Ex parte Black, 1 Ohio St. 30; Trustees of New London Tp. v. Miner, 26 Ohio St. 452; Wright v. City of San Antonio (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. 406; Despard v. Pleasants County, 23 W. Va. 318; Town of Beaver Dam v. Frings, 17 Wis. 398. 852 State v. Callehan, 1 Ind. 147; Cook v. Des Moines County, 70 Iowa, 171. The authority to repair a jail does not confer the right to erect movable iron cells. Woodbury buildings." (6 Pick.) 101; Willard v. Inhabitants of Newburyport, 29 Mass. (12 Pick.) 227. Power to repair a public clock. 853 Albany City Nat. Bank v. City of Albany, 92 N. Y. 363. 854 Gammon v. Lafayette County, 79 Mo. 223. The authority to order a desk for official use held included within the statutory provision "that the necessary expenses of said court shall be paid by the county." Kramrath v. City of Albany, 53 Hun, 206, 6 N. Y. Supp. 54. But see the case of Schenck v. City of New York, 67 N. Y. 44. State v. Kiesewetter, 45 Ohio St 524, 15 N. E. 208. The right to purchase a printing press for use in an orphans' home where the art of printing taught is conferred by statutory appropriation "for heating and furnishing new industrial of the country in order to advance, promote and encourage its internal improvement and industries.855 Without considering a technical definition of a highway as found in the various decisions of various state courts,856 it is sufficient for our purpose to say that a highway is a generic term for a way, improved or unimproved, open to public use as a means of travel. 57 Ordinarily, as found in statutes or decisions, the term "highway" is used to define a country or suburban way,8 858 and the term or word "street" is 855 City of Santa Ana v. Harlin, 99 Cal. 538; Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. City of New Orleans, 43 La. Ann. 464, 9 So. 484; Gurnsey v. Edwards, 26 N. H. (6 Fost.) 224; People v. East Fishkill Highway Com'rs, 42 Hun (N. Y.) 463; In re Penn Tp. Road, u6 Fa. 461. 856 Janvrin v. Poole, 181 Mass. 463, 63 N. E. 1066. The word "highway" as used in statutes of 1896, c. 417, includes an avenue in a town. Vantilburgh v. Shann, 24 N. J. Law (4 Zab.) 740; Witter v. Harvey, 1 McCord (S. C.) 67; Wolcott v. Whit comb, 40 Vt. 40. See, also, those sections, post, treating of streets and highways. 857 Morris V. Bowers, Wright (Ohio) 749; Washington Laws 188990, p. 733; Elliott, Roads & St. §§ 1, et seq. A highway includes township roads, streets, alleys, pikes, and plank roads, tramways, bridges, and ferries, public squares and boulevards, canals and navigable rivers. It also is fully established that every highway need not be a thoroughfare. It may be a cul-de-sac. Adams v. Harrington, 114 Ind. 66; Bartlett v. City of Bangor, 67 Me. 460; People v. Kingman, 24 N. Y. 559. "Highways and streets having no issue at one extremity are quite common and indeed indispensable in many parts of the country. Take the case of roads leading into the northern wilderness of this state. They extend as far as the country is settled, where they stop and remain in that condition until the progress of the settlements warrants their further extension. If it were held that they could not be laid out unless they should run quite across the mountains to the northern slope, it would be impossible that they should ever be established. The same remark is true of roads laid out in the newly settled portions of the state bordering upon original forests. * * For similar reasons in many of the cities and villages there are short streets leading to ravines and to cliffs, whence there can be no outlet and where they must necessarily stop. The same thing is true of streets running to unnavigable waters or to points on the sea shore where there cannot be a harbor or landing place." Saunders v. Townsend, 26 Hun (N. Y.) 308; Mahler v. Brumder, 92 Wis. 477, 31 L. R. A. 695. * 858 Clark v. Com., 77 Ky. (14 Bush) 166; Cleaves v. Jordan, 34 Me. 9; Yeomans v. Ridgewood Tp. Committee, 46 N. J. Law, 508; Town of Northumberland v. Atlantic & St. L. R. Co., 35 N. H. 574; State v. Davis, 68 N. C. 297; Ferris v. Bramble, 5 Ohio St. 109; State v. Harden, 11 S. C. 360. used to define all ways of communication within the limits of a city, town or village. 859 As with the construction of public buildings, the question of the absolute right to construct or maintain a highway or street is not raised. There is no doubt but that the use of public moneys for such purposes is legitimate and constitutional. 860 A doubt or question only arises in specific instances. of the extent of the authority conferred by a legislature or constitution to construct, maintain or improve the street or highway. The law then, affecting this particular use of public moneys, depends almost entirely upon the construction given by the courts to local statutes and as these vary in their language in the different states, no general rules can be given which will decide mooted questions. $ 423. Public highways. was dedicated to the public and accepted by the city in its behalf. A walk being laid there, was an invitation to every person passing along the street to use it at his pleasure. There were no distinguishing marks nor was there a dividing line between what is claimed to be the sidewalk proper and this portion that extended to the building. The whole therefore, is to be treated as a part of the sidewalk and it was the duty of the city to keep it in a safe condition." Public moneys can be appropriated ordinarily only for the construction or the improvement of a public highway, and to con$59 State v. Moriarty, 74 Ind. 103; line of the lot so far as appears, Inhabitants of Waterford v. Oxford County Com'rs, 59 Me. 450; Foxworthy v. City of Hastings, 25 Neb. 133. "The sidewalk is shown to have been four feet and one inch in width, except immediately in front of the hotel, which stood back from the line of the lot six feet and nine inches: at this point the sidewalk extended to the hotel, being ten feet and ten inches in width. The testimony tends to show that the portion of the sidewalk between the hotel and the line of the lot had been constructed or paid for by the owner of the hotel but was under the direction or control of the city; that it was in fact, a part of the sidewalk and was used as such. The court instructed the jury: you find the injury complained of occurred outside and off the streets and sidewalks of the city, you will find for the defendant.' In this we think the court erred. The entire sidewalk was a part of the street. The six feet nine inches within the Brace v. New York Cent. R. Co.,. 27 N. Y. 269; In re Woolsey, 95 N. Y. 135; Taylor v. Town of Philippi, 35 W. Va. 555. Century Dictionary. "A street is a public way or road If whether paved or unpaved in a village, town or city ordinarily including a sidewalk or sidewalks and a road way and having houses or town lots on one or both sides." 860 Ryerson v. State, 24 N. J. Law (4 Zab.) 622. 861 stitute such, a road or way must be laid outs1 and recorded, dedicated to a public use or prescriptive rights acquired according to law.863 The authorities quite generally hold that to create a 861 United States V. King, 1 no matter whether it be establishCranch, C. C. 444, Fed. Cas. No. 15,- ed by prescription or by dedication 534; United States v. Schwarz, 4 or under the right of eminent doCranch, C. C. 160, Fed. Cas. No. 16,- main. It is a highway if there is 237; Chamberland v. Fortier, 23 a general right to use it for travel. Can. Sup. Ct. 371. The mere ex- The mode of its creation does not penditure of public moneys on a of itself invariably determine its private road does not change its character, for this in general is decharacter as such. Louk v. Woods, termined by the rights which the 15 Ill. 256; McCearley v. Lemen- public have in it." Citing, among nier, 40 La. Ann. 253, 3 So. 649; In- other cases, Washer v. Bullitt Counhabitants of Blackstone v. Worces- ty, 110 U. S. 558; McDade v. State, ter County Com'rs, 108 Mass. 68; 95 Ala. 28; Peck v. Smith, 1 Conn. Geer v. Fleming, 110 Mass. 39; Peo- 103; Stackpole v. Healy, 16 Mass. ple v. Jackson, 7 Mich. 432; Flint & 33; Village of Granville v. Jenison, P. M. R. Co. v. Willey, 47 Mich. 88; 84 Mich. 54; State v. Proctor, 90 State v. Auchard, 22 Mont. 14, 55 Mo. 333; People v. Loehfelm, 102 N. Pac. 361; State v. Marble, 26 N. C. Y. 1; Pittsburg & W. E. R. Co. v. (4 Ired.) 318; State v. Davis, 68 N. Point Bridge Co., 165 Pa. 37, 26 L. C. 297; Northern Cent. R. Co. v. R. A. 323. Com., 90 Pa. 300; Pittsburgh, McK. & Y. R. v. Com., 104 Pa. 583; Phillips v. St. Clair Incline Plane Co., 153 Pa. 230; State v. Mobley, 1 McMul. (S. C.) 44. Baker v. Hogaboom, 12 S. D. 405, .81 N. W. 730. To constitute a public highway it is not necessary that the road as laid out should be used by the public to its full width. State v. Paine Lumber Co., 84 Wis. 205, 54 N. W. 503; Hunter v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 99 Wis. 613. Elliott, Roads & St., § 3, "If a way is one over which the public have a general right of passage, it is, in legal contemplation, a highway whether it be one owned by a private corporation or one owned by the government or governmental corporation and whether it be sitzuated in a town or in the country; 862 McDade v. State, 95 Ala. 28, 11 So. 375; Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 66, 19 So. 901; State v. Taff, 37 Conn. 392; Craig v. People, 47 Ill. 487; Oliver v. City of Worcester, 102 Mass. 489; Butchers' S. & M. Ass'n v. City of Boston, 139 Mass. 290; Buskirk V. Strickland, 47 Mich. 389. To constitute a public way, it must be accepted by the public authorities as such. State v. Nudd, 23 N. H. 327; Morgan v. Palmer, 48 N. H. 336; Mercer v. Pittsburg, Ft. W. & C. R. Co., 36 Pa. 99. See, also, post sections on acquirement of public property by prescription and dedication. 803 Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 66, 19 So. 901. The use must be adverse to the owner of the soil and continue uninterrupted for the prescribed period. Debolt v. Carter, 31 Ind. 355; Smith v. Gorrell, 81 Iowa, |