the character of the public corporation as a governmental agency without the authority in this capacity to expend its public moneys for other purposes than those which strictly pertain to the science and the business of government. The pay of a mere employe whether one belonging to the learned professions, skilled trades or an unskilled laborer, is dependent upon the terms of the particular contract of employment.632 The right of compensation when it becomes a contract one cannot be impaired by legislation, unlike the pay attached to a public office which, as will be remembered, is subject at all times to legislative action in the absence of constitutional restrictions. 633 The relation which exists between the employe and the public corporation is a contract one; that which exists between the public official and the corporation is one dependent upon constitutional or statutory provisions. County Com'rs, 10 Kan. 29. Since there is no statutory authority for the payment of compensation to members of a posse comitatus for their services and expenses incurred by them, a county is not liable therefor. Smith v. City of Albany, 61 N. Y. 444. For a common council of a city to authorize the employment of one of its members in the rendition of services for the city is against public policy and no action can be maintained for the recovery of compensation for services so rendered. Graham v. City of New York, 167 N. Y. 85, 60 N. E. 331. A clerk under civil service protection is entitled to compensation until legal re moval or discharge. Shearer V. Hutchinson County, 10 S. D. 9, 70 N. W. 1051; Williams v. Dodge County, 95 Wis. 604, 70 N. W. 821. An attorney appointed to assist in a criminal case cannot recover compensation for his services unless an order of court has been entereed as provided by Revised Statutes, § 4731, certifying the amount to which he is entitled. Kollock v. Dodge, 105 Wis. 187, 80 N. W. 608. Construing city charter of Madison with reference to the power of the common council to prescribe the duties of municipal officials and provide for their compensation. Burns' Rev. St. 1901, § 7853, prohibiting the making by a county of a percentage contract does not apply to an agreement by county commissioners for the drawing of court house plans by an architect upon a percentage of the cost of the building. 633 See § 685 et seq. 1680 PUBLIC OFFICE AND OFFICERS. The contract which fixes the compensation of an employe may The relation is a contract one be made in the same manner and under the same conditions as other contracts of employment.634 and the relative obligations and rights of the parties are determined by the principles governing or applying to the law of contracts.635 An express contract when established determines the right of pay when this question is provided for.636 In the case of an implied contract or an express one not fixing the rate of compensation, the person performing the services may recover compensation based upon a reasonable value.63 V. 634 Hall v. Los Angeles County Jackson (Cal.) 13 Pac. 854; Id., 74 Cal. 502, 16 Pac. 313; Fouke County, 84 Iowa, 616, 51 N. W. 71; People v. Kings County Sup'rs, 105 N. Y. 180; Burkett v. City of Athens (Tenn. Ch. App.) 59 S. W. 667. Where the law provides that a member of a board of aldermen shall not be interested in any contract work for the city of which he is an official, a firm of attorneys of which such an alderman is a member cannot recover for legal services rendered the city where a vote of the alderman, a member of the firm, was necessary to constitute a majority in favor of the employment of the firm. 635 Bartholomew County Com'rs v. State, 116 Ind. 329, 19 N. E. 173. 636 Nelson v. Merced County, 122 Cal. 644, 55 Pac. 421; Ponting v. Isaman, 7 Idaho, 581, 65 Pac. 434; Morgan County Com'rs v. Holman, 34 Ind. 256. 637 City of Selma v. Mullen, 46 Ala. 411; Buck v. City of Eureka, 124 Cal. 61, 56 Pac. 612. An implied contract is created with a city attorney where, after the expiration of his term of office, he continues to perform special services for the city with the knowledge of the city council. Village of Harvey v. Wil 637 son, 78 Ill. App. 544; City of Chi- People v. Jefferson County Sup'rs, § 714. Compensation of public employes as affected by legislation. Attempts have been made by legislative bodies to regulate the compensation paid public employes and especially those performing menial labor or clerical duties by limiting the hours of labor which is necessary to constitute a legal day's work 638 and also by providing, referring particularly now to laws passed in New York state, that the wages to be paid laborers in the employ of municipal corporations shall be the prevailing rate of wages in their respective callings.640 These provisions have been held con of Castleton, 30 Vt. 285; Brauns v. City of Green Bay, 78 Wis. 81, 46 N. W. 889. 638 Garlinger v. United States, 30 Ct. Cl. 473. A government employe rendering two distinct statutory days' services in one calendar day of twenty-four hours is entitled to compensation for two days. Beard v. Sedgwick County Com'rs, 63 Kan. 348, 65 Pac. 638. One who receives a monthly salary and who works overtime without any claim therefor cannot claim extra compensation for his overtime under Laws 1891, c. 114, which provides that eight hours shall constitute a day's work for states, counties and other political and municipal divisions. O'Boyle v. City of Detroit, 131 Mich. 15, 90 N. W. 669. A resolution of the park board may also have the same effect with reference to the right to recover reasonable compensation for overtime. McGraw v. City of Gloversville, 32 App. Div. 176, 52 N. Y. Supp. 916. A janitor cannot recover for overtime which he may have willingly worked and without any agreement for extra compensation. McAvoy v. City of New York, 166 N. Y. 588, 59 N. E. 1125, affirming 52 App. Div. 485, construing Laws 1897, c. 415, as amended by Laws 1899, c. 567, fixing eight hours as a legal day's work except in certain cases. McNulty v. City of New York, 60 App. Div. 250, 70 N. Y. Supp. 133. Where employes work overtime they are entitled to recover compensation for such under Laws 1870, c. 385, § 1,. establishing eight hours as a legal day's work. 639 New York Laws 1894, c. 622; Laws 1897, c. 415, as amended by Laws 1899, c. 567. 640 McMahon V. City of New York, 22 App. Div. 113, 47 N. Y.. Supp. 1018. Laws 1870, c. 385, as. amended by Laws 1894, c. 622, § 2, gives to laborers the right of full pay at the prevailing rate of wages in the open market and the fact. that an employe accepts a smaller with an intention of waiving a statutory right will not prevent him from subsequently enforcing the claim. McCunney v. City of New York,. 40 App. Div. 482, 58 N. Y. Supp. 138. One in order to come within the protection of the law which provides that employes of municipal corporations shall receive not less than the prevailing local wages in their trades must be employed in such capacity. Rock v. City of New York, 63 N. Y. Supp. 825. Under Act 1899, c. 567, a municipal employe cannot recover the prevailing rate of 1682 PUBLIC OFFICE AND OFFICERS. 715 stitutional where reasonable in their terms, and have been held to special legislation, be accorded privileges with respect to the pay- § 715. Right of removal. As the relation between an employe of the public corporation wages as against the city employing him since this repealed all such rights arising from the act of 1897. The acts of 1894 and 1897 afford no protection to a person holding a position by appointment and receiving a fixed salary. City of New York, 31 Misc. 55, 64 N. Y. Supp. 777. The acts of 1894 Bock v. and 1897 relative to the prevailing rate of wages do not apply to a municipal employe under a yearly employment at a fixed salary and furnished with board and lodging by the month. McCann v. City of New York, 52 App. Div. 358, 65 N. Y. Supp. 308. Under statutory construction, Act 1892, c. 677, § 31, which provides that the repeal of a statute shall not impair any right acquired there- 641 McAvoy v. City of New York, 642 Bell v. Town of Sullivan, 158 Ind. 199, 63 N. E. 209. 643 Shaffer v. Union Min. Co., 55 Md. 74. 644 O'Hara v. City of New York, 33 Misc. 53, 66 N. Y. Supp. 909. and the corporation is a contract one, the right of removal is dependent upon the terms of the particular contract.645 In general it might be said that the right is one to be arbitrarily exercised 646upon the lack of necessity for such help,647 the completion of the particular work for which one was employed 648 or the termination of the authority for employment.649 The question of the class or grade of employment is often material as in classified service under civil service laws, one filling a particular position may be protected while others are not.650 The question of the power or authority of the official to remove is also an important one equally with the same proposition in connection with the authority to employ. The right of discharge or removal or suspension can only be exercised by those who are by law expressly authorized to take this action.651 It follows logically that a legal removal or discharge terminates the relation and destroys the right of compen 645 Quigg v. Evans, 121 Cal. 546, 53 Pac. 1093. 646 White v. City of Alameda, 124 Cal. 95, 56 Pac. 795; State v. Adams, 46 La. Ann. 830; State v. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383; Connor v. City of New York, 64 Hun, 635, 19 N. Y. Supp. 85; Sheehan v. City of New York, 21 Misc. 600, 48 N. Y. Supp. 662. 647 McNamara v. City of New York, 152 N. Y. 228, 46 N. E. 507; People v. Scannell, 163 N. Y. 599, 57 N. E. 1121, affirming 48 App. Div. 445, 62 N. Y. Supp. 930; In re Kelly, 42 App. Div. 283, 59 N. Y. Supp. 30. 648 Cape Breton County v. McKay, 18 Can. Sup. Ct. R. 639. 649 Connelly v. Almshouse Com'rs of Kingston, 32 Misc. 489, 66 N. Y. Supp. 194. A board of commissioners of a city almshouse have no authority to contract with a physician for a length of time beyond their own official term of office. Mack v. City of New York, 37 Misc. 371, 75 N. Y. Supp. 809. A village board of sewer commissioners has no authority to employ a supervising engineer for one year and "until the construction of the sewerage system is completed." 650 Thompson v. Troup, 74 Conn. 121, 49 Atl. 907; People v. Ransom, 59 Hun, 624, 13 N. Y. Supp. 370; People v. Andrews, 9 Misc. 569, 30' N. Y. Supp. 398; People v. Scannel, 22 Misc. 298, 49 N. Y. Supp. 1096; People v. Dalton, 34 App. Div. 627, 54 N. Y. Supp. 1112, affirmed 49 App. Div. 71, 63 N. Y. Supp. 258; Id., 158 N. Y. 204, 52 N. E. 1119, affirming 34 App. Div. 6, 53 N. Y. Supp. 1060; Hoggett v. City of Mt. Vernon, 36 App. Div. 374, 55 N. Y. Supp. 315. An inspector of highways under Laws 1892, c. 182, § 122, Mt. Vernon city charter, is not a public officer within the protection of the civil service rules of the city. People v. Scannell, 25 Misc. 619, 56 N. Y. Supp. 117; McCunney v. City of New York, 40 App. Div. 482, 58 N. Y. Supp. 138; People v. Hertle, 46 App. Div. 505, 60 N. Y. Supp. 23, 61 N. Y. Supp. 965; People v. Kane, 70 N. Y. Supp. 982. 651 Peters v. Bell, 51 La. Anm. 1621, 26 So. 442; American Lighting Co. v. McCuen, 92 Md. 703, 48 Atl. 352; Muldoon v. City of Lowell, 178 Mass. 134, 59 N. E. 637. Under Mass. St. 1896, c. 415, § 3, the chief |