BLAIB V. WEST POINT PEECINCT. 267 �river for the purpose of propelling grist-mills and other Works of internai improvement in the said West Point pre- cinct." �In the view we have taken of the case it is only necessary to consider the first of the above questions. West Point precinct is not a corporation, and possesses none of the functions of a body corporate, except sueh as are conferred upon it by the provisions of the act under which the bonds sued on were issued. It is simply a subdivision of the county for election purposes. It bas no officers and no organization. It would be impossible to make legal service of process upon it. A judgment against it could not be enforced by execution or by mandamus, unless by the latter proceeding it might be reached through the oJ9&cers of the county. The principle of law upon which the plaintiff in this case relies is undoubtedly aound, but it is not applicable. This principle is thus stated in 1 Dillon on Municipal Cor- porations, § 22: "If powers and privileges are conferred upon a body of men, or upon the residents or inhabitante of a town or district, and if these cannot be exercised and enjoyed, and if the purposes intended cannot be carried into effect without their acting in a corporate capacity, a corpora- tion is to this extent created by implication. " �And in discussing a case quite analogous to the case at bar, +.hat of Jordan v. Cass County, 3 Dillon, 185, the same judge said: "Undoubtedly the legislature designed that there should be a remedy upon these bonds, and if it were consistent with the legislative intent the court would be justified in holding, if necessary to aliord an effectuai rem- edy, that the township was created by implication, as to this particular matter, a body corporate, and as such liable to be sued" This doctrine is supported by the following authori- ties: Russell v. Devon, 2 Term Eep. 672; Levy Court v. Coroner, 2 Wall. 501; InhaUtants v. Wood, 13 Mass. 192; Bradley Y. Case, 3 Scam. 608; North Hempstead v. Ilemp- stead, 2 Wend. 109; Bessey v. Unity Plantation, 65 Me. 34Y; Freeholders of Sussex v. Strader, 3 Harr. (N. J.) 117; Cumher- land V. Armstrong, 3 Deverux, 284 ; Dean y. Davis, 51 Cal. ����
