AMENDMENT OF RULE 31. On October 10, 1906, the following order was entered by the court: It is ordered that rule 31 of the Rules of Practice of this court be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows: Rule 31. Where an opinion is filed and a petition for rehearing shall afterwards be presented to a justice of the court, if such justice shall certify that in his opinion the case should be further considered by the court on such petition all further proceedings in the cause shall be stayed until the next term of the court. If it is practicable to do so, such application shall be presented to the justice who wrote the opinion in the case. CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WHITE COUNTY V. THE PEOPLE ex rel. Commissioners of Highways. Opinion filed June 14, 1906. 1. ROADS AND BRIDGES-when county cannot be compelled to appropriate money for bridges. A county board cannot be compelled to appropriate money to meet one-half the expense of building bridges in a town, even though the highway commissioners have fully complied with the statute authorizing such appropriation, where there is no money in the county treasury which might lawfully be appropriated for that purpose and the county is already indebted beyond the constitutional limit. 2. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—when municipal corporation must carry on its business on cash system. A municipal corporation which is indebted up to the limit fixed by the constitution must carry on its business on the cash system, and not upon credit to any extent or for any purpose. 3. MANDAMUS-performance of acts in violation of constitution will not be enforced. Where acts enjoined upon a county board by statute cannot be performed without a violation of the constitution, the performance of such acts will not be enforced by mandamus. 4. SAME what is necessary to justify awarding mandamus to compel payment of money. To justify a court in awarding a writ of mandamus involving the expenditure of money, it must appear that the necessary funds are on hand or otherwise under the control of the defendant. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of White county; the Hon. P. A. PEARCE, Judge, presiding. PARKER & PEARCE, NOAH G. BAINUM, and S. L. GARRISON, for appellants. WILLIAM L. MARTIN, for appellees. Mr. JUSTICE CARTWRIGHT delivered the opinion of the court: The commissioners of highways of the town of Phillips, in White county, filed in the circuit court of said county a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the board of supervisors of said county to appropriate the sum of $1000 to meet one-half the expenses of building two bridges in said town. The facts set forth in the amended petition showed a full compliance by the commissioners with all the provisions of section 19 of the act in regard to roads and bridges in counties under township organization, as amended by the act approved June 17, 1891, in force July 1, 1891. (Laws of 1891, p. 188.) The answer of the defendants did not deny any of the facts so alleged, which were therefore admitted, but it alleged as a defense to the action the following facts: That there was no money in the treasury of said county out of which the appropriation asked for could be paid; that defendants had for more than two years last past caused to be levied and collected taxes for county purposes to the amount of seventy-five cents on each $100 valuation of property in the county; that the taxes so collected had been exhausted in the payment of the ordinary expenses of the county, and the county was unable to raise an additional amount of money |