MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. A public corporation, created by government for polit ical purposes, and having subordinate and local powers of legislation : e. g. a county, town, city, etc. 2 Kent 275 ; Ang. & A. Corp. 19, 29 ; Bonaparte v. R. Co., Baldw. 222, Fed. Cas. No. 1,617. An incorporation of persons, inhabitants of a particular place, or connect ed with a particular district, enabling them to conduct its local civil government. Glov er, Mun. Corp. 1. Municipal corporations have until later days been created singly, each with its special or separate charter passed by the legislature of the state. These charters define the territorial boundaries ; provide for a governing body, usually styled the town or city council, with representa tives to be chosen, from different wards of the city or town ; fix the qualifications of voters ; specify the mode of holding elec tions; provide for the election of a mayor ; and contain a minute and detailed enumera tion of the' powers of the city council ; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 39.
A state is the proper party to impeach the validity of a municipal charter, and its cor porate existence cannot be collaterally at tacked; Shapleigh v. San Angelo, 167 U. S. 646, 17 Sup. Ct. 957, 42 L. Ed. 310. There must be both population and territory ; Galesburg v. Hawkinson, 75 Ill. 156; People v. Bennett, 29 Mich. 451, 18 Am. Rep. 107; and there cannot be two municipal corporations, at the same time, over the same territory ; State v. Winter Park, 25 Fla. 371, 5 South. 818.
There are territorial subdivisions, not in corporated, but which are, like municipal corporations, instrumentalities of local gov ernment for certain definite purposes. Such are in some states, the counties, or towns, or school districts where they are not incorpo rated. They are termed which title see. They are not included in the phrase "counties or municipal corporations" in a statute ; Eaton v. Sup'rs, 44 Wis. 489.
The term municipal corporation has been held to include the District of Columbia; Stoutenburgh v. Hennick, 129 U. S. 141, 9 Sup. Ct. 256, 32 L. Ed. 637; a village ; Wahoo v. Reeder, 27 Neb. 770, 43 N. W. 1145.
Where a municipal charter is repealed, and the same, or substantially the same, inhabit ants are erected into a new corporation, whether with extended or restricted terri torial limits, such new corporation is the suc-.
cessor of the old one and entitled to its prop erty and subject to its liabilities ; Shapleigh v. San Angelo, 167 U. S. 646,- 17 Sup. Ct. 957, 42 L. Ed. 310.
Public duties are required of such corpo rations as counties and districts as a part of the machinery of the state government, and in order, that they may properly perform these duties they are invested with certain corporate powers, but their functions are wholly of a public nature, and they are ati all times subject to the will of the legisla ture, unless restrained by the constitution ; Board v. Board, 30 W. Va. 424, 4 S. E. 640.
In England, the municipal corporation acts, 5 & 6 Will. IV. eh. 76, abolish all spe cial charters, with enumerated exceptions, and enact general provisions for the incorpo ration, regulation, and government of mu nicipal corporations. These acts have been I followed in many of the United States. The usual scheme is to grade corporations into classes, according to their size, as into cities of the first class, second class, etc., and towns or villages, and to bestow on each class such powers as the 'legislature deems expedient; but the powers and mode of organization of corporations of each class are uniform; 1 Dill. Mun. Corp. § 41, n..
The scope of legislative authority over mu nicipal corporations is limited only by the terms of the state and federal constitutions, and the necessary implications derived there from ; People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44, 9 Am. Rep. 108; Doon Tp. v. Cummins, 142 U. S. 366, 12 Sup. Ct. 222, 35 L. Ed. 1044. Those matters which are of concern to the state at large, although exercised 'within defined lim its, such as the administration of justice, the preservation of the public peace, and the like, are held to be under legislative control ; while the enforcement df municipal by-laws proper, the establishment of gas works, of water works, the construction of sewers, and the like, are matters which pertain to the municipality as distinguished from the state at large ; Chicago v. Wright, 69 Ill. 326; Brit ton v. Steber, 62 Mo. 370 ; People v. Lynch, 51 Cal. 15, 21 Am. Rep. 677 ; People v. De troit, 28 Mich. 228, 15 Am. Rep. 202 ; An drews v. Pipe Works, 61 Fed. 782, 10 C. C. A. 60.