132 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

Arundel County, called Poplar Bottom, of which the late William
Clagett died seised, and " also all the light, title and mteiest
which the said Elizabeth Clagett, Edmund Clagett, &c., have in

validity of the corporate acts sought to be impeached, and deal with it and
control it accordingly

In Kelly v Balto the Court said that they had not declared that every
abuse of a legal authority by a municipal corpoiation to the prejudice of
tax payers was a ground for equitable interference and in that case a bill
to restrain the M & C C from executing a certain contract on the ground
that it had been fraudulently obtained was dismissed

But tax payers may apply for an injunction against a municipal corpora-
tion and its officers, whenever the latter are shown to be acting ultra vires,
or are assuming a power over the property of the citizen or over corporate
funds, which the law does not confer, and where such unauthouzed acts
may affect injuriously the rights of complainants St Mary's School v
Brown, 45 Md 310 Cf State v R R Co 12 G & J 400 note (c) The M
& C C of Baltimore have no authority to make appropriations for the sup
port of institutions however benevolent or charitable in their character which
were not created by 01 for the city as instruments of municipal admmistta
tion but which are distinct corporations composed of private individuals
managed by officers of their own, and over which the city has no supervi
sion St Mary's School v Broun Municipalities can lei y ao taxes general
or special, unless the power be plainly and unmistakably conferred The
authority must be given, either in express words of by necessary implica
tion, and cannot be collected by doubtful inferences from other powers nor
deduced from any considerations of convenience Ibid

When a municipal corporation is seeking to enforce an Ordinance which
is void equity has jurisdiction, at the suit of any individual injuriously
affected thereby to stay its execution Bait v Radecke 49 Md 218 Where
an Ordinance requiring the removal of steam engines in certain cases did
not prescribe regulations for their location and use but committed to the
unrestiained will of a single officer a power over the use of steam within
the limits of the city practically absolute, so that he might prohibit its use
altogether, and where the exercise of such a power might proceed from
enmity or favoritism, from partisan zeal or other improper influences easy
of concealment and difficult of detection, it was held that such an Ordin-
nance was void and inoperative Bolt v Radecke 49 Md 217 Cf Boehm
v Bait 61 Md 259 Whenever the question of the existence or limit of the
power granted by the Legislature to a public corporation is raised, it becomes
the plain duty of the Courts to see that the corporate authorities do not
transcend then delegated power State v Mott 61 Md 297

A public corporation such as a Board of County School Com rs incorpo
rated for a great public purpose and charged with the duty of properly dis
bursing large amounts of public funds for the accomplishment of particu
lar objects, is required to act strictly within the authority delegated If
there be an attempt to apply the funds to objects not embraced within the
power granted or to objects within the power but in total disregard of essen
tial conditions prescribed by the statute to make it lawful to appropriate the
funds, equity will restrain such action But so long as such body act within
the limits of the power delegated, the Court will not interfere with the ex
ercise of their discretional y powers, or undertake to determine the ques
tion whether an act complained of be wise or unwise, good or bad Wiley
v Board, &c 51 Md 401 Whenever the visitonal power conferred upon