Those contracting with a municipality are presumed to know the extent of its authority, and must bear the risk of a shortfall in the current year's revenues. ( San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel (1882) 62 Cal. 641, 642-643; Arthur v. City of Petaluma (1917) 175 Cal. 216, 219-220 [ 165 P. 698]; Compton Community College etc. Teachers v. Compton Community College Dist. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 82, 88-89 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 231].) There are a number of exceptions to the constitutional debt limitation.

[1] The plaintiff's claim in the sum of $1857.46 was legally incurred and is a valid obligation against the County of Lake for which sum it is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the fact that the funds from which it was payable were practically exhausted at the time the claim was presented for payment. ( Arthur v. City of Petaluma, 175 Cal. 216, 223 [ 165 P. 698]; Higgins v. San Diego Water Co., 118 Cal. 524 [45 P. 824, 50 P. 670]; Weaver v. San Francisco, 111 Cal. 319 [43 P. 972]; Montague v. English, 119 Cal. 225 [51 P. 327]; Briney v. Santa Ana High School District, 131 Cal.App. 357 [ 21 P.2d 610].) In the Arthur case, supra, it is said in that regard:

"It is conceded that if the liability in question is contractual the judgment must be affirmed. ( Arthur v. City of Petaluma, 175 Cal. 216 [ 165 P. 698].) On the other hand, it is conceded that if such liability is one created by statute the judgment must be reversed.

[44 P. 358, 53 Am.St.Rep. 191, 31 L.R.A. 794], tort liability; Cashin v. Dunn, 58 Cal. 581, Welch v. Strother, 74 Cal. 413 [16 P. 22], Lewis v. Widber, 99 Cal. 412 [33 P. 1128], Martin v. Fisher, 108 Cal.App. 34 [ 291 P. 276], Lotts v. Board of Park Commrs., 13 Cal.App.2d 625 [ 57 P.2d 215], and see Harrison v. Horton, 5 Cal.App. 415 [ 90 P. 716], liability for salary of city or county officer or employee fixed by Legislature; Oscar Heyman Brother v. Bath, 58 Cal.App. 499 [ 208 P. 981], refund of illegal tax; American Co. v. City of Lakeport, 220 Cal. 548 [ 32 P.2d 622], cf. Wulff-Hansen Co. v. Silvers, 21 Cal.2d 253 [ 131 P.2d 373], obligation of a city to purchase and pay into bond redemption fund land sold for delinquent special assessments where there are no other purchasers; Mills v. Houck, 124 Cal.App. 1 [ 12 P.2d 101], judgment against city for costs where it dismissed an eminent domain proceeding and such costs were allowed by section 1255a of the Code of Civil Procedure; see Arthur v. City of Petaluma, 175 Cal. 216 [ 165 P. 698]; City of Pasadena v. McAllaster, 204 Cal. 267 [ 267 P. 873].) It has been held, however, that a claim on a contract for the burial of indigent dead is within the limitation for the reason that, although the obligation of burial rested on the county, the liability was expressed in a contract made with the undertaker-claimant and was a general, rather than specific, duty ( Pacific Undertakers v. Widber, 113 Cal. 201 [45 P. 273]), and the same as to a claim on a contract to furnish supplies to prisoners in jails ( Goldsmith v. San Francisco, 115 Cal. 36 [46 P. 816], following the Pacific Undertakers case).

) Hence, "lack of available money of the revenue of the fiscal year against which the claim constitutes a charge, from whatever cause, and entirely regardless of the absolute validity of the claim, is a complete answer to any attempt to enforce payment from . . . `the ordinary revenues' [of the entity in question] for succeeding years." ( Arthur v. City of Petaluma (1917) 175 Cal. 216, 221 [ 165 P. 698].) However, this constitutional debt limitation does not apply to an obligation or liability imposed by law as distinguished from one voluntarily incurred.

etropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Deasy, 41 Cal.App. 667 . . ., and see McBean v. City of Fresno, 112 Cal. 159, 166 . . ., tort liability; Cashin v. Dunn, 58 Cal. 581, Welch v. Strother, 74 Cal. 413 . . ., Lewis v. Widber, 99 Cal. 412 . . ., Martin v. Fisher, 108 Cal.App. 34 . . ., Lotts v. Board of Park Commrs., 13 Cal.App.2d 625 . . ., and see Harrison v. Horton, 5 Cal.App. 415 . . ., liability for salary of city or county officer or employee fixed by Legislature; Oscar Heyman Brother v. Bath, 58 Cal.App. 499 . . ., refund of illegal tax; American Co. v. City of Lakeport, 220 Cal. 548 . . ., cf. Wulff-Hansen Co. v. Silvers, 21 Cal.2d 253 . . ., obligation of a city to purchase and pay into bond redemption fund land sold for delinquent special assessments where there are no other purchasers; Mills v. Houck, 124 Cal.App. 1 . . ., judgment against city for costs where it dismissed an eminent domain proceeding and such costs were allowed by section 1255a of the Code of Civil Procedure; see Arthur v. City of Petaluma, 175 Cal. 216 . . .; City of Pasadena v. McAllaster, 204 Cal. 267 . . . .)" (36 Cal.2d at p. 698. In addition to the cases cited, see Lagiss v. County of Contra Costa, supra, 223 Cal.App.2d 77, 85-91; City of La Habra v. Pellerin, supra, 216 Cal.App.2d 99, 102 [obligation of a city to provide police and fire protection]; and People ex rel. City of Downey v. Downey County Water Dist. (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 786, 805 [21 Cal. Rptr. 370] [obligation to pay principal and interest of outstanding county water district bonds when district merged into municipality by operation of law]; but cf. Chester v. Carmichael (1921) 187 Cal. 287, 291-294 [ 201 P. 925] [$50,000 obligation undertaken for grant of park land], with Estate of Hart (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 271, 278-282 [ 311 P.2d 605] [acceptance of grant on condition, without obligation]; and note Arthur v. City of Petaluma (1917) 175 Cal. 216, 218-225 [ 165 P. 696] [judgment for claim uncollectible when incurred cannot be paid out of future income]; and Peop

( SanFrancisco v. Collins, 216 Cal. 187, 190 [ 13 P.2d 912], and McBurney v. Industrial Acc. Com., 220 Cal. 124, 127 [ 30 P.2d 414].) There is nothing in conflict with this statement of the law in any of the following three cases relied upon by the respondents: Pacific Undertakers v. Widber, 113 Cal. 201 [45 P. 273], Goldsmith v. San Francisco, 115 Cal. 36 [46 P. 816], and Arthur v. City of Petaluma, 175 Cal. 216, 220 [ 165 P. 698]. It was held in these three cases that the claims of the plaintiffs, although founded upon certain statutory provisions, were not valid claims for the reason that the payments thereof would be in violation of section 18, article XI of the Constitution, which forbids the incurring of any indebtedness by a municipality exceeding the income and revenue provided for such year, except by a vote of the electors of such municipality.

(Art. XI, sec. 18; Mahoney v. San Francisco, 201 Cal. 248 [ 257 P. 49]; SanFrancisco v. Boyle, 195 Cal. 426 [ 233 P. 965]; Arthur v. City of Petaluma, 175 Cal. 216 [ 165 P. 698].) There is no feature of the contract which removes it from the operation of said provision.

"It is conceded that if the liability in question is contractual the judgment must be affirmed. ( Arthur v. City ofPetaluma, 175 Cal. 216 [ 165 P. 698].) On the other hand, it is conceded that if such liability is one created by statute the judgment must be reversed.

In all of these cases it was very properly held that the constitutional prohibition did not apply to the situations there presented. We are unable to distinguish in principle the case here presented from the long line of cases in which this court has enforced the restriction on municipal indebtedness or liability contained in section 18 of article XI of the constitution (see Mahoney v. City and County of San Francisco, 201 Cal. 248 [ 257 P. 49]; In re City and County of San Francisco, 195 Cal. 426 [ 233 P. 965]; Chester v. Carmichael, 187 Cal. 287 [ 201 P. 925]; Arthur v. City of Petaluma, 175 Cal. 216 [ 165 P. 698]; People v. Hanford High School Dist., 148 Cal. 705 [ 84 P. 193]; San Francisco Gas Co. v. Brickwedel, 62 Cal. 641; 18 Cal. Jur. 879). The petitioner has cited and strongly relies on the case of City of Perry v. Johnson, 106 Okla. 32 [ 233 P. 679], as supporting the contention that the levy of an assessment against municipally owned property does not result in the creation of an indebtedness as contemplated by section 18 of article XI of the constitution.