« AnteriorContinuar »
alike to the unwritten law, which it supersedes in a case of conflict, and to a municipal by-law. Even
Colonial statute.—A colonial statute appears to have the same effect as any other.
VI. BY-LAWS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
$ 17a. In general.- By-laws of municipal corporations are subject to be controlled by statutes, and in the main by the unwritten law, giving way when in conflict with either. We shall now devote to them a separate chapter.
Field v. Des Moines, 39 Iowa, 575, Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. 349; (18 Am. R. 46,) and other cases cited Lisbon v. Clark, 18 N. H. 234; Canton to the next section.
v. Nist, 9 Ohio St. 439; Thompson v. Brice v. S., 2 Tenn. 254.
Mt. Vernon, 11 Ohio St. 688; S. v. Field v. Des Moines, 39 Iowa, 575, Crummey, 17 Minn. 72; S. v. Lindsay, [18 Am. R. 46); Vestry v. Mathews, 4 34 Ark. 372. Des 578; S. v. Curtis, 9 Nev. 325;
$ 18. By-law defined.- A by-law of a corporation is a regulation which itself has established for the government of its own internal affairs. Blackstone terms it a “private statute; it has the force of a statute within its narrow sphere.?
Municipal by-law — Ordinance.- A municipal by-law, therefore, is a by-law of a municipal corporation. Ordinance is a word practically synonymous. And the by-laws of cities are in most localities commonly called city ordinances; even they are popularly so where the more appropriate legal word is by-law.
How municipal corporation created.- Municipal corporations, such as cities and towns, are, in England, created either by act of parliament or by charter from the crown; usually by the latter,' regulated, in modern times, more or less by statute. With us they exist only by statute.
Legislative power over charter.— The legislature can amend or repeal an act of incorporation at pleasure, or can force such
1 He mentions, among the powers 15 Utah, 53; S. u Williams, 11 S. C. of a corporation: “To make by-laws 288.) or private statutes for the better gov. 3 Jones v. Sanford, 66 Me. 585, 588; ernment of the corporation; which S. v. Jersey City, 8 Vroom, 348. are binding upon themselves, unless 4 Willcock, Corp. 25. contrary to the law of the land, and 5 As, see 40 & 41 Vict., c. 69. then they are void. This is also in- 6 Sloan v. S., 8 Blackf. 361; S. v. cluded by law in the very act of Branin, 3 Zab. 484; Martin v. Dix, 52 incorporation; for, as natural reason Miss. 53, [24 Am. R. 661;) New Orleans is given to the natural body for the V. Cazelar, 27 La. An. 156; Stilz v. governing it, so by-laws or statutes Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515; Giboney v. are a sort of political reason to govern Cape Girardeau, 58 Mo. 141; Phila." the body politic." 1 Bl. Com. 476. delphia v. Fox, 64 Pa. St. 169; Layton
2 Hopkins v. Swansea, 4 M. & W. v. New Orleans, 12 La. An. 515; An621, 641; S. v. Williams, 11 S. C. 288; napolis v. S., 30 Md. 112; S. v. Union, (R. R. Co. v. Hines, 82 Ill. Ap. 488; 4 Vroom, 350. And see S. v. Person, R. R. Co. v. Village of Allamount, 84 3 Vroom, 134; Brackett t. P., 72 Ill. Ill. Ap. 274; Water-works Co. v. New 593; [Crook v. P., 106 Ill. 237; 5 Am. Orleans, 164 U. S. 471; City v. Wilson, & Eng. Corp. Cas 460; Coyle v. Mc
act on the corporators against their will, except as or unless restrained by the constitution. But not unfrequently an act incorporating a municipality is passed to be accepted or rejected by those to be affected thereby as they may choose, and such proceeding is always permissible, while still it is not necessary.'
Incidental power to make by-laws.- An incident of every such corporation, even where its charter or incorporating act is silent on the subject, is the power to make by-laws. Commonly the authority is conferred in express words, and it is competent for legislation to do this; & but the general power results equally from the very existence of the corporation."
$ 19. Extent of incidental power.- Neither a general statutory power to make by-laws, “nor,” in the words of an EngIntyre, 7 Hous. (Del) 44; Ward v. * Blessing v. Galveston, 42 Tex. 641. City, 121 N. C. 1; Galloway v. Tavares, • Blackstone, ut sup.; Willcock, 37 Fla. 58. In construing a munici- Corp. 99, 100; Rex v. Westwood, 2 pal ordinance the same rules govern Dow. & C. 21, 4 Bligh (N. S.), 213, 7 as apply to the general statutes. Bing. 1, 4 B. & C. 781; Com. v. StodPittsburg, etc. Ry. Co. v. Hays, 17 der, 2 Cush. 562, 569, [48 Am. D. 679;] Ind. Ap. 261, 45 N. E. R. 675. The rule Angell & Ames, Corp., SS 110, 325. generally adopted in this country 6.8. v. Noyes, 10 Fost. (N. H.) 279; providing that acts of the legislature S. v. Simonds, 3 Mo. 414; (Fred v. Ry. sball embrace but one subject, which Co., 65 Mo. Ap. 121; Water Co. v. shall be expressed in the title, has no Aurora, 129 Mo. 540, 31 S. W. R. 946; application to municipal corpora. City v. Wilson, 15 Utah, 53; St. Rantions. Ex parte Haskell, 112 Cal. 412.] sen v. Ireg, 42 Neb. 186, 60 N. W. R.
i Paterson v. Society, 4 Zab. 385; 601.) San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 7 “ Though power to make laws is 541; S. v. Jennings, 27 Ark. 419; City given by special clause in all incorV. Shields, 52 Mo. 351. See P. v. Ben- porations, yet it is needless; for I nett, 29 Mich. 451, (18 Am. R. 107;] hold it to be included, by law, in the Manly r. Raleigh, 4 Jones Eq. 370; P. very act of incorporating, as is also r. Chicago, 51 III. 17, 58, (2 Am. R. 278;] the power to sue, to purchase, and Harward v. St. Clair, etc. Drainage the like. For, as reason is given to Co., 51 III. 130; Lovingston v. Wider, the natural body for the governing 53 IIL 302
of it, so the body corporate must 2S. v. McFadden, 23 Minn. 40; Mil- have laws, as a politic reason, to govner v. Pensacola, 2 Woods. 632; Bank ern it; but those laws must ever be of State v. Bank of Cape Fear, 13 Ire. subject to the general law of the 75; 8. v. Canaday, 73 N. C. 198, (21 realm, as subordinate to it. And, Am. R. 465;] Mosher v. Independent therefore, though there be no proSchool District, 44 Iowa, 122. viso for that purpose, the law sup
3 Post, $ 36; Lammert v. Lidwell, plies it.” Norris v. Staps, Hob. 2106, 62 Mo. 188, [21 Am. R. 411;] St. Louis 211a. 0. Russell, 9 Mo. 507; (St. Maggard v. Pond, 93 Mo. 606.]
lish author, "a general custom to make by-laws, will give an ordinance any greater claim to validity than if it had been made under the incidental power in every corporation.”? But it is difficult to say exactly how far this general power extends; because, in most instances, our incorporating acts define the powers, so that the decisions under them do not help us on this question. And, as further complicating the authorities, there are in England prescriptive corporations, having local customs," among which are rights founded on ancient and long usage to establish by-laws not within the general authority; but there are no corporations of this sort in the United States.' Still we have authorities enabling us to say that a by-law made under the general power must, to be good, not contravene the other laws of their policy, or exceed the proper local or other jurisdiction of the corporation, or be otherwise oppressive or unjust. To particularize:
$ 20. Express authority — Constitutional.- Any proper by-law made under express authority from the legislature is good, provided the authorizing act did not exceed the constitutional power. But such act may be unconstitutional, therefore void, and therefore the by-law be void. Or, if the by-law
I Willcock, Corp. 159.
8 Mobile v. Yuille, supra; Norris v. ? Kyle v. Malin, 8 Ind. 34. Gener. Staps, Hob. 210b; Cullinan v. New ally the express legislative power is Orleans, 28 Lan An. 102; Shreveport to be deemed simply an addition to v. Levy, 26 La. An. 671, [21 Am. R. the implied. S. v. Morristown, 4 553;] Bowling-Green v. Carson, 10 Vroom, 57. See Parker v. Baker, Bush, 64; Com. v. Wilkins, 121 Mass. Clark, 223; [Gas & Water Co. v. 356; Jones v. Sanford, 66 Me. 585; Elyria, 57 Ohio St. 374.]
Pieri v. Shieldsboro, 42 Miss. 493; 3 Com. v. Stodder, 2 Cush. 562, [48 Columbia 1. Beasly, 1 Humph. 232; Am. D. 679.]
Barling v. West, 29 Wis. 307, [9 Am. 4 Willcock, Corp. 74.
R. 576;] Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall. 5 Com. v. Stodder, 2 Cush. 562, 569. 497; St. Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn. 248;
Ante, S 17a; post, $ 22; Mobile v. Ward v. Greeneville, 8 Bax. 228; Yuille, 3 Ala. 137, 143, [36 Am. D. 441;) [Kirkham v. Russell, 76 Va. 956; BarCanton v. Nist, 9 Ohio St. 439; (City nett v. Denison, 145 U. S. 145.] v. Leckie, 78 Mo. Ap. 8; Steinmueller 9 Gunnarssohn v. Sterling, 92 Ill. v. Kansas City, 3 Kan. Ap. 45.] 569; Mowery v. Salisbury, 82 N. C.
7 Rex v. Breton, 4 Bur. 2260, 2267; 175; S. v. Canaday, 73 N. C. 198, [21 Com. v. Turner, 1 Cush. 493, 496; Will. Am. R. 465;] Fretwell v. Troy, 18 iams v. Davidson, 43 Tex. 1; S. v. Mo. Kan. 271; Schwuchow v. Chicago, 68 bile, 5 Port. 279, [30 Am. D. 564;] Ill. 444; Wheeler v. Cincinnati, 19 Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. 349; Ohio St. 19, [2 Am. R. 368;] Ex parte S. v. Hoboken, 4 Vroom, 280.
Hurl, 49 Cal. 557; Sullivan v. McCam.
does not follow, or if it exceeds, the power, it will be void.' A fortiori, therefore, it will be void if itself unconstitutional.? Among
By-laws commonly permissible,— yet more or less resting on statutory authority, are the following: forbidding the removal of house dirt and offal from the city, except by license;. regulating the speed of vehicles drawn through the streets; * ordain. ing rules for passenger transportation in the city, the carriages, prices, and the like;s providing for a city market, and prohibiting persons to occupy stands within the near streets, for the vending of such things as are sold in the market; 6 and, in a limited degree, regulating the times for opening and closing places of business. But, in general, a by-law in restraint of mon, 51 Ind. 264; Grover v. Huckins, S. W. R. 920; Vosburg v. McCrary, 77 26 Mich. 476; Wright v. Boston, 9 Tex. 568, 14 S. W. R. 195.) Cush. 233; Leach v. Elwood, 3 Bradw. 2 Clinton v. Phillips, 58 III. 102, [11 453; S. v. Williams, 11 S. C. 288. [Un. Am. R. 52;] Judson v Reardon, 16 less in conflict with the constitution, Minn. 431. a by-law authorized by express legis- 3 Vandine, Petitioner, 6 Pick. 187, lative authority will be upheld; while [17 Am. D. 351.] a by-law passed by virtue of its inci- 4 Com. v. Worcester, 3 Pick. 462; dental powers, or under a general Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Engle, 76 grant of authority, will be declared Ill. 317, [S., Trenton Ry. Co. v. Tren. void, unless it be reasonable and fair. ton, 53 N. J. L. 132, 11 L. R. A. 410, Ry. Co. v. Crown Point, 146 Ind. 421, 20 Atl. R. 1076; North Chicago Ry. 35 L R. A. 684, 45 N. E. R. 587; Re Co. v. Lake View, 105 IIL 207, 44 Am. North Terrace Park, 147 Mo. 259, 48 R. 788.] & W. R. 860.]
6 Johnson v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. 'Sullivan v. Oneida, 61 Ill. 242; St. 445; Logan v. Pyne, 43 Iowa, 524, Logan v. Pyne, 43 Iowa, 524, [22 Am. (22 Am. R. 261;} Com. v. Gage, 114 R 261;) Williams v. Davidson, 43 Mass. 328; Com. v. Matthews, 122 Tex. 1; Sumter v. Deschamps, 4 S.C. Mass. 60; St. Louis v. Grone, 46 Mo. 297. (Municipal corporations can ex- 574; S. v. Herod, 29 Iowa, 123; E. ercise only such powers as are con parte Slaren, 3 Tex. Ap. 662. ferred in express terms or exist by 6 Nightingale, Petitioner, 11 Pick. necessary implication. If any donbt 168; Com. v. Rice, 9 Met. 253; Bufarises it must be resolved against the falo v. Webster, 10 Wend. 100. And power. Electric Light Co. v. Jack. see Huntington v. Cheesbro, 57 Ind. sonville, 36 Fla. 229; Winchester v. 74; Com. v. Wilkins, 121 Mass. 356; Redmond, 93 Va. 711; Lynchburg Ry. Bowling-Green v. Carson, 10 Bush, Co. v. Dameron, 95 Va. 545; Croft v. 64; Com. v. Brooks, 109 Mass. 355; Danbury, 65 Conn. 294; Lesley v. Kite, St. Paul v. Traeger, 25 Minn. 248, 192 Pa. St. 269; Kennedy v. P., 9 Colo. [City v. Gugenheim, 61 Ill. Ap. 374.] Ap. 490; Van Antwerp v. Twp., 3 S. 7 Ward v. Greeneville, 8 Bax. 228, D. 305, 53 N. W. R. 82; Waterloo v. 229; Platteville 2. Bell, 43 Wis. 488; Mill Co., 72 Iowa, 437, 34 N. W. R. 197; S. v. Welch, 36 Conn. 215; Maxwell RR Co. v. R. R. Co., 105 Mo. 562, 16 v. Jonesboro, 11 Heisk. 257.