App.] McCord v. Cent. Tr. & S. D. Co. Cauley, Recr., v. German Natl. Bank, 17 N. P., N. S., 305, and cases therein cited. Plaintiff's mother by reason of her disability was unable to bring suit, but if any right ever accrued. to plaintiff it arose at her death, which was more than six years prior to the 30th day of January, 1919. The court of common pleas was correct in deciding that the petition showed on its face that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. But there is a further consideration. The petition shows that the money belonged not to the plaintiff, but to his mother. In the absence of special circumstances, the next of kin cannot maintain actions in their own name to recover unadministered personal estate of the decedent or collect debts or other choses of action due him. Such actions can be maintained only by the personal representative of the deceased. McBride, Admr., v. Vance, 73 Ohio St., 258, and Davis v. Corwine, 25 Ohio St., 668. See note to Buchanan v. Buchanan, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 454. It is unnecessary to advert to the fact that if the property of Mrs. McCord were to be administered it would be subject to the payment of her debts and to the rights of her widower under the statute. The judgment will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ., concur. Knowlton & Breinig v. Board of Education. [13 Ohio KNOWLTON & BREINIG V. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VILLAGE OF JOHNSTOWN. Public contracts Statutory requirements strictly construed, when - Certificate of clerk that funds available — Sections 5660 and 5661, General Code - Separate certificate for each contract necessary, when. 1. Under the provisions of Section 5660, General Code, when money for a public building is to be derived from the sale of lawfully authorized bonds, a contract for such improvement, or any part thereof, is void unless the auditor or clerk of the board first certifies that the money required for the payment of such obligation or appropriation is in the treasury to the credit of the fund from which it is to be drawn. 2. Where there is only one bond issue authorized, but several separate contracts are entered into with separate contractors, the auditor or clerk must file a separate certificate for each of such contracts. 3. The restrictive statutes of the state are enacted for the general good, and for the protection not only of the contractor but also of the taxpayer, and their provisions will be strictly adhered to, and it devolves upon those who deal with public officials to see for themselves that the statutes have been complied with. (Decided November 21, 1919.) ERROR: Court of Appeals for Licking county. Messrs. Jones & Jones, for plaintiff in error. Mr. Chas. L. Flory, prosecuting attorney, for defendant in error. PATTERSON, J. The parties in this case stand in the same order in which they stood in the court below. The plaintiff in its petition alleges that it is a partnership doing business in the state of Ohio, that the defendant in the year 1913, by resolution duly passed, declared it necessary to construct an App.] Knowlton & Breinig v. Board of Education. addition to its then existing school building in the village of Johnstown, and to provide a new heating and ventilating system for its then existing building, as well as for the new addition; that notice was given for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in said school district; that plaintiff thereupon submitted to defendant its proposal to furnish the material and perform the labor necessary to make such improvements, except the heating and ventilating system; that on the 11th day of July, 1913, its proposal was submitted to said board and was declared to be the lowest and best bid for furnishing material and labor for the said work, and was accepted by the board, and notice of such acceptance immediately served by defendant upon plaintiff, who accepted service of said notice and thereupon proceeded to enter upon the work of making said improvements covered by its proposal; that it entered into a bond. in the sum of $8000, conditioned according to law, which was approved by the defendant; and that the defendant prepared and presented to plaintiff a written memorandum, which plaintiff signed, providing for the construction of said addition to said school building according to plans and specifications. Plaintiff says that it has completed that part of the improvement covered by its proposal, according to the terms thereof, and according to the plans and specifications, and that the architect has approved such work, or improvement, as constructed by plaintiff, and on the 22d day of April, 1914, so notified defendant and issued a final estimate to defendant to pay plaintiff the balance due it for Knowlton & Breinig v. Board of Education. [13 Ohio making its part of said improvement; that the cost of said improvement was the sum of $11,549, under the terms of the contract, and that extras in the sum of $20.20 were furnished by plaintiff, which defendant agreed to pay, making the total amount due plaintiff from from defendant the sum of $11,569.20; that plaintiff has received from the defendant, as part pay for the said improvement, the sum of $9479.70, and that there is still due and owing the plaintiff from the defendant a balance of $2089.50, with interest from January 15, 1914, for which sum the plaintiff asks judgment. A demurrer was filed to this petition, which was sustained by the court below. An amendment to the petition was filed, by leave of court, amending plaintiff's petition by inserting between lines 11 and 12 on page 3 of said petition the following: "Plaintiff further says that at the time said board of education accepted plaintiff's bid on July 11th, 1913, and at the time plaintiff and defendant signed said written memorandum, said defendant had sold for $16,267.20 the lawfully authorized bonds of said village school district of the par value of $16,000. Said bonds were sold for the purpose of erecting an addition to the then existing public school building of said village, and to place in said school building, when so enlarged, a heating and ventilating system and to repair the then existing school building and the school grounds. Plaintiff further says that at said last named times, said bonds were in process of delivery; and that there was then an unappropriated balance of said sum of $16,267.20, sufficient to pay plaintiff the amount due it under its said contract with defendants." App.] Knowlton & Breinig v. Board of Education. A general demurrer was filed to the amended petition, which was sustained by the court, and the plaintiff not desiring to plead further final judgment was rendered against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant, and to reverse this judgment a petition in error is filed in this court. The question presented for determination is whether in order that the contract may be valid and the plaintiff may collect the contract price it is necessary under the circumstances of this case that the clerk of the defendant board of education shall certify that the money required for the payment of the defendant's obligation, under this contract with plaintiff, is in the treasury and unappropriated for any other purpose. The statutes relating to public contracts must be strictly adhered to and strictly construed, and it is now well settled that there can be no recovery upon a quantum meruit, and that to state a good cause of action against this school board it is necessary that the petition shall declare upon a contract, agreement, obligation or appropriation made and entered into according to the statutes. In support of this we would call attention to the case of City of Wellston v. Morgan, 65 Ohio St., 219, page 228: "There has been no common law implied municipal liability in this state since the passage of the act of April 8, 1876, amending section 97 of the Municipal Code, 73 O. L., 125, and carried into the Revised Statutes as section 1693, because that section conflicts with the common law as to such liability, and whenever a statute is in conflict with a rule |