Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

The plaintiff having availed itself of the privileges conferred on it by the ordinance of said city of Visalia, it became its legal duty, itself, to maintain and operate its gas and electric works, and to supply the inhabitants of that city with gas and electricity for illuminating purposes, and it was therefore against public policy, and in violation of such duty, to lease these works and privileges. (2 Morawetz on Corporations, secs. 656, 1114, 1116; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 83; York etc. R. R. Co. v. Winans, 17 How. 30; Black v. Delaware etc. Canal Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 180; State v. Hartford etc. R. R. Co., 29 Conn. 538, 547; New Orleans Gas Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 659; People v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 Ill. 268; 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 411; Green’s Brice’s Ultra Vires, 2d ed., 120,124,125, 398-400.) Even if the lessee had received any money under the contract which continued in his hands, or any benefit thereunder, an action could not be maintained upon the contract itself, as is attempted in this action, the contract being against public policy, ultra vires, and void, and a suit could only be sustained when brought to recover the money actually received, on an implied promise to pay for the benefit received. (Green’s Brice’s Ultra Vires, 729, 747, 748; San. Francisco Gas Co. v. San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453; Foulke v. San Diego S. P. R. R. Co., 51 Cal. 365; Davis v. Old Colony R. R. Co., 131 Mass. 275; 41 Am. Rep. 221; Railway Co. v. Keokuk etc. Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 389; Central Transp. Co. v. Pullman Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 54, 55.)

The defendants having received all the benefits under • the contract, and it being an executed contract as to them, they are estopped from relying on such a defense. (Bigelow on Estoppel, 5th ed., 465, 466; Morawetz on Private Corporations, sec. 689; Beach on Private Corporations, secs. 424, 425; Argenti v. City of San Francisco, 16 Cal. 264, 265, 273; Union Water Co. y. Murphy’s Flat Fluming Co., 22 Cal. 630; Main v. Casserly, 67 Cal. 127, 128; Grangers’ Business Assn. v. Clark, 67 Cal. 634; Magee v. Pacific Imp. Co., 98 Cal. 678; 35 Am. St. Rep. 199; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 70; 20 Am. Rep. 504; Woodruff v. Erie Ry. Co., 93 N. Y. 610; Rider Life Raft Go. v. Roach, 97 N. Y. 381; Wright v. Hughes, 119 Ind. 324; 12 Am. St. Rep. 412.)