The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and Hunsaker & Britt, for Appellant.

The town of Wilmington, immediately upon the passage of the act of February 20, 1872, became duly incorporated. (Thomason v. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 73, 14 Pac. 615 ; 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 4th ed., secs. 44, 54 ; Smith’s Modern Law of Municipal Corporations, sec. 52, and cases cited ; Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 7th ed., sec. 165.) The special acts of March 12, 1887, purporting to repeal the statutes incorporating the town of Wilmington are unconstitutional. (Const., art. IV, sec. 25, art. XI, secs. 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18 ; Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 242 ; People v. Hoge, 55 Cal. 612 ; Ex parte Pfahler, 150 Cal. 71 ; Wood v. Board of Election Commrs., 58 Cal. 561 ; Staude v. Board of Election Commrs., 61 Cal. 313 ; In re Guerrero, 69 Cal. 88, 10 Pac. 261 ; Thomason v. Ashworth 73 Cal. 73, 14 Pac. 615 ; Ex parte Armstrong, 84 Cal. 655, 24 Pac. 598 ; People v. Common Council, 85 Cal. 369, 24 Pac. 727 ; Lisher v. Police Court, 86 Cal. 158, 24 Pac. 1000 ; Rauer v. Williams, 118 Cal. 401, 50 Pac. 691 ; Ex parte Helm, 143 Cal. 553, 77 Pac. 453.) As the territory attempted to be incorporated embraced the town of Wilmington, the proceedings are void. (1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, sec. 184 ; Ex parte Moore, 62 Ala. 471.) The due incorporation of the town of Wilmington was not conditional either upon the acceptance of the charter by its inhabitants, the holding of an election, or its organization thereunder. (People v. Levee District, 131 Cal. 30, 63 Pac. 676 ; People v. San Francisco, 36 Cal. 595, 601 ; People v. Hill, 7 Cal. 97, 103 ; San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 541, 557 ; Thomason v. Ashworth, 73 Cal. 73, 14 Pac. 615 ; Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Orton, 32 Fed. 473 ; City of Clinton v. Cedar Rapids etc. R. R. Co., 24 Iowa, 456 ; Berlin v. Gorham, 34 N. H. 266 ; Cheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. Mon. 330 ; State v. Haines, 35 Or. 379, 58 Pac. 39 ; Wood v. Quimby, 20 R. I. 482, 40 Atl. 161 ; Smith v. Crutcher, 92 Ky. 586, 18 S. W. 521 ; Gorham v. Springfield, 21 Me. 58 ; People v. Wren, 5 Ill. 269 ; State v. Young, 3 Kan. 445.) Any failure to exercise the franchises and powers granted by the act of February 20, 1872, could not operate as a repeal or abrogation of the statute. (Swamp Land District v. Silver, 98 Cal. 51, 32 Pac. 866 ; Elliott v. Pardee, 149 Cal. 516, 86 Pac. 1087.)

Gibson, Trask, Dunn & Crutcher, O. P. Widaman, and Edward E. Bacon, fon Respondents.