Nor  can  the  constitution  of  a  corporation,  as  settled  by  act  of  parliament,
be  varied  by  the  acceptance  of  any  charter  inconsistent  with  ii(d),

A  corporation  being  disabled  to  act,  accepting  a  new  charter,  is  not
dissolved,  but  dormant ;  and  afler  such  acceptance,  the  new  corporation
is  the  same  as  the  old  one  (e).  But  a  new  charter  granted  where  there  is
a  prior  subsisting  one,  is  void  ah  initio ;  because  two  corporations  for  the
same  purposes  of  government  cannot  legally  exist  within  the  same  place,
and  at  the  same  time  {/),  But  a  new  charter  of  incorporation,  granted
afler  a  judgment  of  seizure  guosque,  &c.  to  a  new  body  in  the  same  place,
is  good,  notwithstanding  a  charter  of  restitution  be  aflerwards  granted  to
the  old  corporation ;  and  such  charter  of  restitution  is  absolutely  void  (g).
The  powers  to  a  corporation  must  of  course  very  much  vary,  and  de-
pend on  the  purpose  of^its  creation,  and  the  rights  that  were  then  annexed
to  it.  But  it  frequently  happens  that  a  corporation  exercises  its  rights  by
prescription,  all  traces  of  tne  grant  for  its  foundation,  if  there  ever  were


(a)  Clarke  v.  Imperial  Gas  Com-
pany,  4  B.  &c  Add.  315 ;  1  Nev.  &c
M.  206.
(6)  Powell  V.  Rex  (in  error),  2
Bro.  P.  C.  298 ;  Rex  v.  Hughes,  1  M.
&R.625;7B.&C.708.  Butitseems
somewhat  doubtful  whether  a  majority
of  the  burgesses  need  coDcur  in  such
acceptance ;  id.
(c)  Rex  V.  Westaood,  2  Dow  &
Clark,  21  ;  4  BHgh,  N.  S.  213;  7
Bing.  1  ;  7  D.  &  R.  267 ;  4  B.  &  C.
781

(d)  Rex  V.  MilUr,  6  T.  U.  268.
(«)  Colehesur  v.  Seaber,  3  Burr.
1866;  1  W.  Black.  591.
