The legislature has no power to enact legisla thm which will have the effect of impairing the obligation of a contract between the city and a private party. Thus it cannot so limit the tax ing power of a municipality a, to render it impossible for the city to Meet its ordinary eN pellSe, aml pay interest on its outstanding bonds. In the other hand. the legislature has no power to authorize a municipality to levy taxes for other than public purposes. Thus it cannot authorize the granting of aid by a municipality of it involves taxation) to a private enterprise to enable it to begin business, since that would amount to taking private property without corn Among the public gun'gosys for which a municipality may levy taxes may 1w nwiltioned the construction of sewers, the laying out of parks, the establishment of water-wto-ks. etc. Aloreover. the legislature (quoint levy a special tax upon the inhabitants of a municipality for other than strictly 111111lieipal purposes. Thus it cannot require them to defray the expenses of improving a navigable stream or to take stock in a railway company. although they may be re quired to build a canal or pity may be compelled by mandamus to fulfill its obligations to private parties. as where it refuses to levy a tax for the purpose of paying interest on it, outstanding bonds or for the satisfaction of judgments against it. The city may be en joined from doing an injurious act to an indi vidual or from committing trespass upon his premises. Furthermore, it may be enjoined at the instance of a taxpayer from violating the law or doing other prejudicial to the general welfare, as where the city proposes to enter into a contract which will create an indebtedness in of t he I 'Mit M officers may also be proceeded against under a writ of quo inn-rani() for usurping powers not legally conferred upon them. In the l'nit,41 !states the ]practice of frequent interference in the affairs of the eities by the legislature has led to so many Moises that in most of the recent eonstitutions provision, have been inserted pro hibiting the legislatures from passing special acts.
l, whir apply to a particular city when a general law emi :1141410,k. •rh,,,, provisions, however. have frequently 'Well evaded by arrang ing the cities into classes in such manner that a particular city will constitute a class by itself and by making the act applicable to as single class. The practical difficulties of dispensing entirely with special legislation has led the courts in smile instances to sustain eonstitu. tionality of methods of classification which -veal unreasonable if not Indicron,. Where a part of a municipality is detached from the main body of the city the old corporation retains all the lia bilities and private property of the city if no provision to the contrary is made by legislation. Property of a public character falling within the limits of the new corporation passes into its control. the theory hieing that there has been 110 transfer of title, hut simply a change of trustee.
new municipal corporation. embracing sub stantially the same boundaries as the old, is re garded in law as the successor of the old, en titled to all its property rights and subject to its liabilities. Upon the repeal of the charter of a municipal corporation a court of equity will lay hold of its private property and administer it for the benefit of the creditors of the corporation. It is a general rule of construction that if the exist ence of a municipal corporation is not questioned by the State it cannot be putt in issue by a pri vate individual in a collateral proceeding.
In discussing the liability of municipal eor porations for torts it is necessary to distinguish between the two classes of powers which they exercise, viz. public governmental functions on the one hand and private coriloratc functions on the other. When acting in the former capacity municipal corporations are acting as the agent of , the State and are governed by the rules of public law, one of which is the irresponsibility of the government for the tortious acts of its agents.
When acting in a private local capacity, pri- I madly for the advantage and benefit of the locality, the municipal corporation is subject to the rules of the private law, according to which it is held liable for the torts of its officers. The rule of liability for torts does not apply to quasi corporations, such as counties. townships. school districts. etc.. because they are agencies of the State created for the purpose of State admin istration. and usually without solicitation or concurrence of action of the inhabitants. The principal torts which are imputable to municipal corporations when acting in the latter capacity are negligence. non-compliance with the statutes, nuisance. and trespass. The courts have general ly held that municipal corporations arc not liable for failure to exercise discretionary legislative lamer which may be conferred by the legislature or for the 11181111(.1* in which they may (xereise it if dime in good faith. it is not liable for its neglect to abate a nuisance, as where an indi vidual was injured by an explosion of fireworks wIlieh the municipality was authorized to pro hibit. nut where the duty is ministerial and absolute the eorporation becomes liable for the injury arising because of failure to perform it, and where it positively licenses something which constitutes a nuisance it. will be held liable for any injuries that may result therefrom. In the exercise of a discretionary power, as in the eon fairtion of a sewer, the city will not le held liable for injuries resulting from defective ser vice unless it re-:lilts in the positive invasion of an individual's property and unless it Can be shown affirmatively that •the municipality has been guilty of negligence. It is a general rule that a munieipal corporation is not liable for injuries arising from neglect or failure to enforce strictly ordinanees for the good government of the city. 11111 an act of the Legislature making the city liable for property destroyed by mobs has been held to he constitutional. In the exer eise of it., police powers the city is not generally liable for the acts of omission of its agents, as where a policeman shoots a bystander while at tempting to kill a dog running at large. The same is true of negligence cm the part of the tire department and of the health department. In all these eases the municipality is acting in its public governmental capacity as an agency of the State. In the management, however, of institu tions not directly connected with the function of government. such as wharves, gas and water works, markets, and wash-houses, municipal cor porations are held liable for injuries that may result therefrom, the theory being that in this capacity the corporation is engaged in private business. from which often a revenue is derived. It is also a general rule that municipal corpora tions are responsible for the management of streets. The rule, however, does not apply to quasi corporations in the management of public highways. This is due to the fact that, unlike pure municipal corporations, they are engaged chiefly in the performance of public govern mental duties from which they do not generally derive any revenue or particular private advan tage. The peculiar rule exists in New England that the property of any citizen of a muni cipality against which a judgment has been re covered may he seized in execution thereof. Else where the remedy is execution upon the private property of the municipality. Consult: Dillon, The Lou' of Municipal Corporations (Boston, 1890) ; Jones. The Negligence of Municipal Cor porations (New York. 1892) ; Coodnow, Com parative Administratire Law (New York. 1893) ; id., Municipal Home Rule (New York, 1897).