402 OCTOBER TERM, 1907. Opinion of the Court. 209 U. 8. strictly pr/vate property of the corporation, but not against any property owned or used by the corporation for public purposes, such as public buildings, hospitals and cemeteries; fire engines and apparatus, waterworks, and the like; and that judgments should not be deemed liens upon real property except wh en it may be taken in execution." Accepting the decision of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, rendered in 15 Oklahoma, supra, construing the statute so as to permit the issuance of execution against the municipality, with the right to levy upe? the private property of the corpo- ration if it has any, could the city take advantage of the fail- ure to 'msue execution under the circumstances shown in this case? This subject was briefly disposed of in the opinion in that court, and of it the learned court said (15 Oklahoma, 436): "It is alleged that this agreement and resolution of the city council prevented the ron41n� the statutes. This resolution was passed at a time when the plaintiff's judgments were in full force and effect. The city council did not attempt to re- new its liability on these judgments. Without expressing our views a? to whether such judgments should be paid pro rata, or in order of priority as to date, we are of the opinion that the council could not change the law, and if the resolution purported to change it, it would be void; and if it was in con- formity with the law it would not change the relation of the parties." That the principles of right and justice, upon which the doctrine of estoppel in pa/s rest, are applicable to municipal corporations, is recognized by textwriters and in well-con- sidered cases. In 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations (4th ed.), in a note to �7, that learned author says: "Any positive acts (indra rites) by municipal officers which may have induced the action of the adverse party, and where it would be inequitable to permit the corporation to stultify itself, by retracting what its officers had' done, will work an estoppel." And this case does not rest on the ground of equitable e?
�
