See also Watkins v. Navarrette, 227 So.2d 853, 855 (Miss. 1969); City of Jackson v. Freeman-Howie, Inc., 239 Miss. 84, 121 So.2d 120, 120-21 (1960); Alexander v. Edwards, 220 Miss. 699, 71 So.2d 785, 786 (1954); King v. City of Louisville, 207 Miss. 612, 42 So.2d 813, 815 (1949); Knight v. Johns, 161 Miss. 519, 137 So. 509, 510 (1931); Steitenroth v. City of Jackson, 99 Miss. 354, 54 So. 955, 955 (1911); City of Hazlehurst v. Mayes, 96 Miss. 656, 51 So. 890, 890-91 (1910); Crittenden v. Town of Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723, 724-25 (1908). In City of Jackson v. Lee, 252 So.2d 897 (Miss.
Municipalities have only such powers as are granted them by their charter and the statutes. Such powers are to be construed most strongly against an asserted right not clearly given, and they cannot be extended by mere implication.Crittenden v. Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723; Town of Clinton v. Turner, 95 Miss. 594, 52 So. 261; Wise v. Yazoo City, 96 Miss. 507, 51 So. 453, 26 L.R.A., N.S. 1130, Ann.Cas. 1912B 377; City of Hazlehurst v. Mayes, 96 Miss. 656, 51 So. 890; Steitenroth, et al. v. City of Jackson, 99 Miss. 354, 54 So. 955; Knight v. Johns, 161 Miss. 519, 137 So. 509; Seward v. City of Jackson, 165 Miss. 478, 144 So. 686; Martin v. First National Bank of Hattiesburg, 176 Miss. 338, 164 So. 896; City of Natchez v. Engle, et al., 211 Miss. 380, 49 So.2d 808; Alexander v. Edwards, 220 Miss. 699, 71 So.2d 785. (Emphasis added).
Appellants contend that the City of Hattiesburg can only exercise such powers as are delegated by the Legislature to municipalities and that such powers should be exercised in conformity to and consistent with the general laws of the state; that a municipality has no power except that delegated to it by the state; that powers of a municipality are to be construed most strongly against an asserted right not clearly given and cannot be extended by mere implication; that if there is conflict between a municipal ordinance and a state statute the latter must prevail, and cite in support thereof Watkins v. Navarrette, 227 So.2d 853 (Miss. 1969); Alexander v. Edwards, 220 Miss. 699, 71 So.2d 785 (1954); King v. City of Louisville, 207 Miss. 612, 42 So.2d 813 (1949); City of Jackson v. Freeman-Howie, Inc., 239 Miss. 84, 121 So.2d 120 (1960); Knight v. Johns, 161 Miss. 519, 137 So. 509 (1931); City of Hazlehurst v. Mayes, 96 Miss. 656, 51 So. 890 (1910); Crittenden v. Town of Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723 (1908) and Steitenroth v. City of Jackson, 99 Miss. 354, 54 So. 955 (1911). Appellants have correctly stated the law with reference to the power and authority of municipalities in Mississippi, but the question in this case is whether Section 3825-09, supra, prohibits the enactment of the subject ordinance, or whether the ordinance is an additional regulation not in conflict with the provisions thereof.
B. Where a municipal corporation is given a grant of power and the method of exercising it is not prescribed by statute, the governing authorities may choose the method of exercising authority. Alexander v. Edwards, 220 Miss. 699, 71 So.2d 785; American-LaFrance, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 183 Miss. 207, 184 So. 620; Hawkins v. City of West Point, 200 Miss. 616, 27 So.2d 549; 37 Am. Jur. 731. McGEHEE, C.J.
Such powers are to be construed most strongly against an asserted right not clearly given, and they cannot be extended by mere implication. Crittenden v. Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723; Town of Clinton v. Turner, 95 Miss. 594, 52 So. 261; Wise v. Yazoo City, 96 Miss. 507, 51 So. 453, 26 L.R.A., N.S. 1130, Ann. Cas. 1912B 377; City of Hazlehurst v. Mayes, 96 Miss. 656, 51 So. 890; Steintenroth, et al. v. City of Jackson, 99 Miss. 354, 54 So. 955; Knight v. Johns, 161 Miss. 519, 137 So. 509; Seward v. City of Jackson, 165 Miss. 478, 144 So. 686; Martin v. First National Bank of Hattiesburg, 176 Miss. 338, 164 So. 896; City of Natchez v. Engle, et al., 211 Miss. 380, 49 So.2d 808; Alexander v. Edwards, 220 Miss. 699, 71 So.2d 785. (Hn 3) A zoning ordinance, to be valid, must be pursuant to, and in substantial conformity with, the zoning statute authorizing it. 8 McQuillin, 3rd Ed., Municipal Corporations, Section 25.58, p. 124. It is invalid to the extent of its inconsistency with the statute.
VI. No power district may be created and maintained under the Act when the area, wherein the district is to be, is, as at that date, served with electricity. The Act authorizes the formation of a district as a corporate entity only when in that area the system may be "created" and "maintained" — public convenience and necessity so demanding. Alexander v. Edwards, 220 Miss. 699, 71 So.2d 785; Bell v. Mississippi Orphans Home, 192 Miss. 205, 5 So.2d 214; Board of Suprs. Tishomingo County v. Blissit, supra; Cantley Tanzola v. United States, supra; City of Pascagoula v. Krebs, 151 Miss. 676, 118 So. 286; Crittenden v. Booneville, 92 Miss. 277, 45 So. 723; Dixie Greyhound Lines v. American Buslines, supra; Federal Com. Commission v. RCA Com., Inc., 346 U.S. 86, 97 L.Ed. 1470; Ferguson v. Board of Suprs. Wilkinson County, supra; Garner v. Teamsters, C. H. Union, supra; H. L. Delivery Service, Inc. v. Mississippi Public Service Comm. (Miss.), 35 So.2d 713; Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Noble, 185 Miss. 360, 188 So. 289; Kennington v. Hemingway, 101 Miss. 259, 57 So. 809; Kentucky Utilities Co. v. Public Service Comm. (Ky.), 252 S.W.2d 885; King v. City of Louisville, 207 Miss. 612, 42 So.2d 813; Leech v. Wileman, supra; Lincoln County v. Butterfield, 111 Miss. 847, 72 So. 274; McCool v. Blaine, 194 Miss. 221, 11 So.2d 801; Mississippi Power Light Co. v. Town of Bates