This ease was submitted to the court, sitting without a jury, on the following agreed statement of facts:

“It is agreed that on the 23d day of February at a regular meeting of the board of revenue of Jefferson county at which all the members of said board were present, that a resolution was unanimously passed that three members of the board of revenue, together with the county engineer and. the superintendent of roads, visit the city of Indianapolis at the expense of the county and view at that place certain roads constructed of a new type of pavement and a new type of road material and also what is to this district a new method of construction of roads; that the purpose of this visit is to determine the advisability and practicability of putting the same type of road material and same kind of construction on roads in Jefferson county and of ascertaining whether or not said roads are suitable in Jefferson county. Said resolution further carried a provision ordering a warrant to be drawn, in favor of the C. J. Rogers as county highway engineer, on the treasurer of Jefferson county for the sum of $300.00 to be paid out of the road fund of Jefferson county to defray the expense of said trip.

“It is further agreed that said sum of $300.00 is the . true amount for the expense of said trip; and further that the treasurer has in his hands a sufficient amouñt in the road fund to pay said warrant; and further that said warrant was duly and regularly presented to the. treasurer and payment thereof refused.”

*377 The power to bind . tbe defendant, treasurer, to pay tbe warrant called for by tbe resolution of tbe board is dependent on section 1 of an act of tbe Legislature, known as tbe Goode Law, adopted Sept. 22, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 573). By said act tbe several county boards are invested with general superintendence of tbe public roads, bridges, and ferries witbin tbeir respective counties, and may establish and change and discontinue old roads, bridges, and ferries, so as to render travel oyer same as safe and convenient as possible. To this end such boards are given “legislative, judicial and executive powers,” except as is limited in tbe act, and, for the purposes named in tbe act have “unlimited jurisdiction and powers.”

■ With tbe express limitations named in the Act, we are not here concerned, ,as none of them apply to tbe issues 'of this case.

. If tbe act in express terms or by necessary inference authorizes or empowers tbe county board to pass tbe resolution, tbe, plaintiff should recover and tbe judgment of tbe lower court be affirmed. If^ on tbe other band, tbe board by its resolution exceeded tbe powers conferred by tbe act, tbe plaintiff must fail.

By tbe act tbe board is given power to construct, maintain, and improve roads, etc. That carries with it tbe necessary power to plan, to select material, to determine as to the best material to be used and tbe method of applying such material to tbe.best advantage. To do this they must have information, which ought to be bad from tbe best obtainable sources. If, to obtain this information, it is deemed advisable to visit a piece of road, completed with tbe materials contemplated, it is their duty to. do so, to the end that they may more intelligently execute tbe trust placed in them as commissioners. This is executive. Under tbeir legislative authority they may make appropriation for tbe necessary expenses in making such investigations. Where boards of revenue, and like bodies, exercise legislative jurisdiction, and such action is witbin tbe express or implied terms of tbe act granting the power to them, and there is an absence of “fraud, corruption or unfair dealing,” our courts are committed to tbe doctrine that in no case involving tbe exercise of discretionary power will tbeir action be controlled by any judicial tribunal. Ensley M. C. Co. v. O’Bear, Treas., 196 Ala. 481, 71 South. 704; Eutaw v. Coleman, 189 Ala. 164, 66 South. 464.

Tbe expense provided for in the resolution is for tbe benefit of tbe county in tbe construction, maintenance, and repair of tbe roads of tbe county, and, being such, tbe wisdom of the expenditure is with tbe board, and in tbe absence of fraud, etc., with an accountability only to tbe people.

There is no error in tbe record. Let tbe judgment he affirmed.

Affirmed.