BALTIMORE CITY. 1017

Validity of Ordinances. An ordinance is not invalid and void simply because in
its passage the rules of procedure of the City Council have been violated, and the
Court cannot inquire into such violation.

Zeller v. Hooper, Daily Record, September 23, 1896.

Violation of Municipal Ordinances. When restrained. The violation of a munici-
pal ordinance will not be restrained by injunction at the instance of a party who
does not show that such violation will work some special or irreparable injury to
him.

King v. Hamill, 97 Md. 103.

Void Ordinances. Where a municipal corporation is seeking to enforce a void!
ordinance, a court of equity has jurisdiction, at the suit of any person injuriously
affected thereby, to stay its execution by injunction.

Baltimore v. Radecke, 49 Md. 217. Baltimore v. Scharf, 54 Md. 526. Deems v.
Mayor & C. C. of Balto., 80 Md. 172.

POWERS OF MUNICIPALITY.

Definition and Discussion of the Various Municipal Powers. Control of the Legis-
lature over corporate powers.

M. & C. C. of Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 376. Glenn v. Mayor, 5 G. & J. 424.

A Municipal Corporation cannot abridge, diminish or enlarge its own powers by a
rule made by itself.

Heiskell v. M. & C. C. of Baltimore, 65 Md. 125.

Construction of Powers. The powers of a public corporation are to be strictly
construed.

Baltimore v. Gill, 31 Md. 375.

Delegated Powers.

Mayor, &c., v. Hughes, 1 G. & J. 480.

Exercise of Powers. Ordinances passed in exercise of particular powers. The
exercise of a power delegated to the municipality for the public good, is Imperative
and not discretionary. What constitutes a valid exercise of a power delegated to
the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.

Glenn v. Mayor, 5 G. & J. 424. Mayor, &c., v. Marriott, 9 Md. 160. Deems v.
M. & C. C. of Baltimore, 80 Md. 172.

Same. Power to Provide for Exercise of a Delegated Power. The possession of
a power by a corporation to do an act, is of itself the possession of the right to
provide for the doing of the act by agents. But the giving of a power to a corpo-
ration, and the authority to provide for the exercise of the power, are different.
The authority to provide for the exercise of a power not being the possession of
the power Itself, but a right only to confer it, or to authorize the exercise of it by
others.

Mayor, &c., Balto, v. Howard, 6 H. & J. 389.

Legislature. When the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore are presumed to
have all the power of the Legislature In a particular case.
Harrison v. Mayor, 1 Gill, 264.

Limitation on Exercise of Municipal Powers. The corporate authorities of the
city can exercise no power which is not, in express terms, or by fair and reason-
able implication, conferred upon the corporation.

St. Mary's Industrial School v. Brown, 45 Md. 310.

Police Power. The power of the municipality in relation to streets is classed as
belonging to the police power; it is the duty of the city to preserve them for legiti-
mate purposes.

Lake Rol. Elv. R. R. Co. v. Balto., 77 Md. 352. Deems v. M. & C. C. of Balto.,
80 Md. 172.