discipline of the church, signed by three elders and a trustee, is regarded as the act of the congregation, and binds it to pay the minister's salary.12

1 See Bulwer v. Bulwer, 2 Barn. & Adol. 470; Marlborough v. St. John, 5 De Gex & S. 174; Ex parte Gamston, Law R. 1 Ch. Div. 477; Gritin e. Dighton, 5 Best & Smith, 930; Richings v. Cordingley, 19 L. T. N. S. 26; Harrison v. Forbes, 6 Jur. N. S. 1353; Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 192.

2 See People v. Fulton, 11 N. Y. 94; Wyatt v. Benson. 23 Barb. 327; 4 Abb. Pr. 182; Sohier v. Trinity Church, 109 Mass. 1; § 275, ante.

3 Youngs v. Ransom, 31 Barb, 49.

4 Lynd v. Menzies, 33 N. J. L. 162.

5 Youngs v. Ransom, 31 Barb. 49; Vestry etc. v. Mathews, 4 Desaus. Eq. 578.

6 See German Ref. etc. Church v. Busche, 5 Sand. 666; Gridley v. Clark, 2 Pick. 403; Bisbee v. Evans, 4 Me. 375; Johnson v. Trinity Church, 11 Allen, 123; Smith v. Nelson, 18 Vt. 511; Petty v. Tooker, 21 N. Y. 267.

7 First Cong. Church v. Stewart, 43 Ill. 81. But compare Lutheran Church v. Gristgau, 34 Wis. 328.

8 People v. Steele, 2 Barb. 397.

9 First Religious Soc. v. Stone, 7 Johns. 112. See also Sheldon v. Cong. Parish, 24 Pick. 281.

10 Ebaugh v. German Ref. Church, 3 Smith, E. D. 60; Landers v. Frank St. Church, 15 Hun, 340; Myers v. Baptist Society, 38 Vt. 614; Thompson v. Catholic Cong. Soc. 5 Pick. 46); Jones v. Mt. Zion Cong. 30 La. An. (part 1) 711. A levy made on the church communion ser vice, to satisfy a judgment obtained by a pastor against the trustees for his salary, was held to be invalid: Lord v. Hardie, 82 No. Car. 241; 33 Am. R. 683.

11 Miller v. Baptist Church, 1 Har. (Del.) 251. See Vanvlieden v. Welles, 6 Johns. 85.

12 Paddock v. Brown, 6 Hill, 530.

§ 283. Expulsion of members.-Formerly, in England, the excommunication of a church member was attended with serious temporal inconveniences and civil disabilities. But in this age, and especially in this country, excommunication is a measure of religious censure only, and is incapable of impairing or affecting a man's civil rights. And a member of a religious society owning property in common, who has been wrongfully expelled therefrom,3 may sue in a court of equity to compel an accounting and payment to him of his share of the assets. And the civil courts may inquire whether the expulsion of a member was the act of the church, or of persons who were not the church, and who, consequently,

had no authority to excommunicate by any proceedings.5

1 See 3 Blackst. Com. 101; Barnabas v. Traunter, 1 Vin. Abr. 396. 2 Stern v. Congregation etc. 2 Daly, 415; Fitzgerald v. Robinson, 112 Mass. 371; Bouldin v. Alexander, 15 Wall. 131.

3 See Lemix v. Harmony Soc. 3 Wall. Jr. 87.

4 Nachtrieb v. Harmony Settlement, 3 Wall. Jr. 66.

5 Bouldin . Alexander, 15 Wall. 131; and see Grosvenor v. United Soc. etc. 118 Mass. 78.

§ 234. Judicial control and review.-Civil courts will interfere with churches or religious societies when rights of property or civil rights are involved,1 and will give relief to the parties aggrieved.2 But in all other cases, the spiritual court is the exclusive judge of its own jurisdiction; and if its decisions are not found to contravene public policy or the general law of the state, they should be accorded the full force and effect which the constitution, rules, and course of discipline of the religious body involved ascribe to them. If a member is convicted of a moral delinquency, and is expelled by a decree of the legally constituted church judicatory,5 the courts have no control in the matter, and a mandamus will not lie to reinstate the expelled member. But if he has been wrongfully deprived of the right to exercise an office or franchise, or to hold or enjoy rights of property, he is entitled to his remedy against the persons guilty of the wrong.7

1 Grimes v. Harmon, 35 Ind. 198; Chase v. Cheney, 58 Ill. 509; 11 Am. R. 95; Batterson v. Thompson, 8 Phila. 251.

2 Watson v. Avery, 2 Bush, 332; and see § 283, ante.

3 Shannon. Frost, 3 Mon. B. 258; German Ref. Church v. Seibert,

3 Pa. St. 291; Chase v. Cheney, 58 Ill. 509; 11 Am. R. 95.

4 Harrison v. Hoyle, 24 Ohio St.254; and see § 278, ante.

5 See § 283, ante.

6 State v. Hebrew Cong. 30 La. An. 205; 33 Am. R. 217; People v. German etc. Church, 3 Laus. 434; 53 N. Y. 103.

7 People v. German etc. Church, 53 N. Y. 103; and see § 283, ante.

§ 294.

Local improvements.

$ 295. Contracts for local improvements.

$296. Power to grant licenses, etc. $297. Abatement of nuisance.

§ 298. Regulation of markets.

§ 299. Powers as to taxation.

300. Liabilities of, in general.

§ 301. Liability for acts of officers or agents.
302. Construction and repair of sewers.
$303. Repair of streets.

§ 304. Injuries from defective sidewalks.
§305. Liability as affected by notice.
$306. Excavations and obstructions.
§ 307. Damages by fire.

§ 308. Injuries by mob.

$ 309. Officers-election or appointment of. $310. Powers and duties of officers.

§ 311. Liabilities of officers.

§ 312. Compensation of officers and agents. $313. Remedies by and against.

314. Nature of counties. $315. Property of counties.

§ 316. Powers of county board.

§ 317. Contracts of counties.

§ 318. County bonds.

319. Liability of county for wrongs.

§ 320. Allowance of county claims.

5321. Suits against county.

§ 322. Nature and power of school districts.

323. Powers of school board.

§ 324. Liability of school officer.

§ 285. Legislative control over.-Municipal corporations are created by the legislature, either by special charter or under general acts of incorporation:1 and it is a general rule, that the legislature has supreme power over them, unless constitutionally restrained.2 The laws which establish and regulate such corporations may be repealed or altered at the will of the legislature, except so far as the repeal or change may affect the rights of third persons acquired under them. The legislature has undoubted power to prescribe and to enlarge, from time to time, the territorial limits of municipal corporations; 5 so it has power to provide as to the mode and extent of taxation for their support, and how their debts shall be paid; and it may validate and confirm acts and contracts of the corporation which would otherwise be invalid; and may appropriate the moneys of the corporation in payment of claims, ascertained by it to be equitably due to individuals, though such claims cannot be judicially enforced.8 So the legislature may authorize a railway company to occupy the streets in a city, without the consent of the city; so it has power to create a police district or a board of police commissioners in or for a city; 10 so it may empower a city council to determine what property is benefited by a local improvement, and should therefore be assessed towards its cost; 11 so it may confer on the municipal authorities a power which they may exercise or not, to make engagements for or in aid of works of public use or benefit; 12 so it has full power to abolish the offices in a city which were not constitutionally created. 13 And in general, as it respects the powers and rights possessed by a municipal corporation, in its public character as the agent of the state, the control of the legislature is complete; 14 but it is otherwise in respect to powers and rights conferred upon the corporation in its private character as agent of the corporators. 15 Among the latter is the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, to sue and be sued, etc., 16 as to which the legislature has no right to

control the action of the corporation by compulsory legislation. And the legislature cannot authorize a municipal corporation to issue its obligations in aid of a work for private use or benefit.18

1 See Tierny v. Dodge, 9 Minn. 171; Virginia City v. Mining Co. 2 Nev. 86; City of St. Louis v. Shields, 62 Mo. 247; Thomas v. Ashland, 12 Ohio St. 124; McPherson v. Foster, 43 Iowa, 48; 22 Am. R. 215.

2 Philadelphia v. Fox, 64 Pa. St. 169; Groff v. Mayor etc. 44 Md. 67; Martin r. Dix, 52 Miss. 53; Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U. S. 540; Pye v. Paterson, 45 Tex. 312; and see § 7, ante.

3 Police Jury v. Shreveport, 5 La. An. 661; New Orleans v. Hoyle, 23 id. 740.

4 Lansing. County Treasurer, 1 Dill. 522; Rader v. Road District, 36 N. J. L. 273; Commissioners v. Armstrong, 45 N. Y. 234; 6 Am. R. 70; Broughton v. Pensacola, 93 U. S. 266; Olney v. Harney, 50 Ill. 453.

5 McCallie v. Chattanooga, 3 Head, 317; Martin r. Dix, 52 Miss. 53; St. Louis e. Allen, 13 Mo. 400; Wade v. Richmond, 18 Gratt. 53; Gib oney v. Cape Girardeau County, 58 Mo. 141; Stilz v. Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515; Stoner v. Flournoy, 28 La. An. 850.

6 Vance v. Little Rock, 30 Ark. 435. See also Love v. Schenck, 12 Ired. 304; Gutzweller v. People, 14 Ill. 142; Richmond v. Richmond etc. R. R. Co. 21 Gratt. 604.

7 State v. Town of Guttenberg, 38 N. J. L. 419; Brown v. Mayor etc. 63 N. Y. 239; Bissell v. Jeffersonville, 24 How. 287; Achison v. Butcher, 3 Kan. 104; Bridgeport v. Railroad Co. 15 Conn. 475; Winn v. Macon, 21 Ga. 275.

8 Creighton v. San Francisco, 42 Cal. 446; Town of Guildford v. Supervisors etc. 13 N. Y. 143; New Orleans t. Clark, 95 U. S. 644.

9 Clinton v. Railroad Co. 24 Iowa, 455; Darlington v. Mayor etc. 31 N. Y. 164; Jersey City v. Jersey City etc. R. R. Co. 20 N. J. Eq. 360.

10 People v. Draper, 15 N. Y. 532: Baltimore v. Board of Police, 15 Md. 376; Police Comm'rs v. Louisville, 3 Bushi, 597; State v. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 102; Gulley v. Guichard, 27 La. An. 396.

11 Carpenter v. St. Paul, 23 Minn. 232. Compare Baltimore v. Horn, 26 Md. 194; Johnson v. Milwaukee, 40 Wis. 315.

12 Att.-Gen. v. Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400; Muscatine v. Railroad Co. 1 Dill. 536; State v. Linn County, 44 Mo. 504; Gilman v. Sheboygan, 2 Black, 510. Compare Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa, 28; People v. Mayor etc. 51 Ill. 17; Carter v Bridge Proprietors, 104 Mass. 236; Philadelphia v. Field, 53 Pa. t. 320.

13 State v. Hundhausen, 26 Wis. 432; Kendall v. Canton, 53 Miss. 526. 14 See Bailey v. Mayor etc. 3 Hill, 531; Park Commissioners v. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228; Richmond v. Long, 17 Gratt. 375; New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 26 La. An. 478.

15 Small v. Danville, 51 Me. 359; Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489; Gas Co. v. San Francisco, 9 Cal. 453; People v. Hurlburt, 24 Mich. 44; Jones v. New Haven, 34 Conn. 1; Commissioners v. Duckett, 20 Md. 468. But compare Darlington v. Mayor etc. 31 N. Y. 164.

16 New Orleans etc. R. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 26 La. An. 478; Tou chard v. Touchard, 5 Cal. 306.

17 Park Comm'rs v. Detroit, 28 Mich. 228.

18 People v. Batchellor, 53 N. Y. 128; Weismer v. Village of Douglas, 64 id. 91; Att.-Gen. v. Eau Claire, 37 Wis. 400.