Municipal corporations may be dissolved in England; (1) by act of parliament ; Co. Litt. 176, n.; (2) by the loss of an integral part ; University v. Williams, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 365, 31 Am. Dec. 72; (3) by a surren der of their franchises; 6 Term 277; (4) by forfeiture of their charter ; 6 Beay. 220.
In the United States these modes of dis solution are not applicable, and there can be no dissolution, except by an act of the legislature which created the corporation. See Dodge v. People, 113 Ill. 491, 1 N. E. 826; Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472, 26 L. Ed. 197; Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 289, 6 Sup. Ct. 398, 29 L. Ed. 620.
The change of name does not dissolve a municipal corporation ; Girard v. Philadel• phia, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 1, 19 L. Ed. 53; Brough ton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266, 23 L. Ed. 896; but the power of so changing exists only in the legislature.
Nor does the failure of the inhabitants of a municipality to elect officers operate as a dissolution of it State v. Dunson, 71 Tex. 65, 9 S. W. 103; nor is a municipal charter forfeited by mere non-user for any period of time ; Butler v. Walker, 98 Ala. 358, 13 South. 261, 39 Am. St. Rep. 61.
Upon the division of a municipal corpora tion into two separate towns, each is enti tled to hold in severalty the public property within its limits; North Hempstead v. Hemp stead, 2 Wend. 109. See Winona v. School Dist., 40 Minn. 13, 41 N. W. 539, 3 L. R. A. 46, 12 Am. St. Rep. 687.
A statute permitting the annexation of property belonging to women to municipali ties without giving them an opportunity to make defenses to the proceedings does not deprive them of the equal protection of the laws ; Carrithers v. Shelbyville, 126 Ky. 769, 104 S. W. 744, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 421. In Taggart v. Claypool, 145 Ind. 590, 44 N. E.
18, 32 L. R. A. 586, it was held that a pro vision in an annexation statute granting the right of appeal to resident freeholders only, to the exclusion of owners of property with in the territory who were not resident there in, was not in conflict either with the provi sion of the state constitution or with the XIVth Amendment. The right of a non resident owner of property within the terri tory affected was denied ; State v. Dimond, 44 Neb. 154, 62 N. W. 498.
While it is generally held that a munici pal corporation may delegate to the abutter a duty of clearing ice and snow from the sidewalk, it cannot discharge itself from lia bility for any injury resulting from a failure to perform a delegated duty ; 8 Yale Law J. 344.
One who places an obstruction in a public street by special authority from the proper municipal officers, cannot be held liable in trespass for an injury resulting to one using the street on the ground that such obstruc tion was a nuisance, but only on the ground of negligence ; Sanford v. White, 150 Fed. 724, 80 C. C. A. 390.
In actions generally, the original minutes or records of a corporation are competent evidence of its acts and proceedings ; Den ning v. Roome, 6 Wend. (N. Y.) 651. It is competent for the legislature to delegate to municipal corporations the power to make by-laws and ordinances which have, when authorized, the force, in favor of the munici pality and against the persons bound there by, of laws passed by the legislature of the state ; Des Moines G. Co. v. Des Moines, 44 Ia. 508, 24 Am. Rep. 756 ; but ordinances can not enlarge or change the charter by enlarg ing, diminishing, or varying its powers ; Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 349, 20 L. Ed. 453.
See DELT:DATION; POLICE POWER; ASSESS MENT.