83 manufacturers, bottlers and dealers in ale, porter, lager beer, soda, mineral water and other beverages from the loss of their casks, barrels, kegs, bottles and boxes, and which gave to such manufacturers and dealers special and peculiar privileges for the protection and recovery of their barrels, bottles, etc., was held to be special legislation and void. The following were held to be void as being special or class legislation: An act to provide for free employment agencies, which denied the benefit of the agencies to employers whose men were out on a strike or lockout; an act relating to obstructions in streams and applying only to specified counties; an act forbidding the peddling of certain merchandise without a license, but permitting any resident of a town having a place of business therein and paying taxes to the amount of $25 on his stock in trade, to peddle such goods in his own town without a license. But it is held proper to make a distinction between those peddling goods of their own production and those peddling goods produced by others.8 84 85 The following were held not to be special or class legislation: An act giving a preference to depositors who are not stockholders, in case of insolvency of bank; 7 an act to regulate commission merchants who receive farm products for served in the army and navy thirtyfive years ago, and those who did not. True, as suggested, the veterans came from no particular class; but the trouble with this statute is that it attempts to make of them a class in legislation, in the operation of which there can be no substantial distinction between them and others. In present conditions and circumstances there are no differences between them in their relation to society and the administration of the law, and other citizens of the state." p. 500. 87 82 Lippman v. People, 175 Ill. 101, 51 N. E. 872; Horwich v. WalkerGordon Lab. Co., 205 Ill. 497, 68 N. E. 938. 83 Mathews v. People, 202 Ill. 389, 67 N. E. 28. 84 State v. Hammond, 66 S. C. 219, 44 S. E. 797; State v. Hammond, 66 S. C. 300, 44 S. E. 933. 85 State v. Mitchell, 97 Me. 66, 53 Atl. 887. 86 Rosenbloom v. State, 64 Neb. 342, 89 N. W. 1053. 87 Murphy v. Pacific Bank, 130 Cal. 542, 62 Pac. 1059. 88 sale on commission and which excepts those dealing in grain, live stock and dressed meat; 8 an act giving a lien for supplies furnished to transportation, mining and manufacturing companies; 89 an act making it a penal offense to take a note for a patent right unless the note states on its face that it was given for such consideration; 90 an act forbidding bets on horse races unless made in an inclosed track where the race is run; 91 an act in reference to "blind pigs," and applying only to prohibition districts; an act imposing a tax on bicycles in certain counties; 93 an act to regulate the practice of barbering, which in effect made three classes of barbers: (1) those in cities of the first, second and third classes, (2) those in other cities and in incorporated towns, and (3) all other barbers, and which made different regulations for each class.4 92 The question of special or class legislation is sometimes raised in connection with anti-trust laws, union label acts, inheritance tax laws and medical practice acts, and cases on these different laws are referred to in the margin; 88 Lasher v. People, 183 Ill. 226, 55 N. E. 663, 75 Am. St. Rep. 103, 47 L. R. A. 802. 89 Virginia Development Co. v. Crozer Iron Co., 90 Va. 126, 17 S. E. 806, 44 Am. St. Rep. 893. and 199; State v. Ætna Ins. Co., 150 Mo. 113, 51 S. W. 413; State v. Schlitz Brewing Co., 104 Tenn. 715, 59 S. W. 1033, 78 Am. St. Rep. 941; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 22 S. C. Rep. 431, 46 L 90 State v. Cook, 107 Tenn. 499, Ed. 679; Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. 64 S. W. 720. Connolly, 99 Fed. 354; State v. Con 91 Debardelaben v. State, 99 Tenn. tinental Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1. 649, 42 S. W. 684. Union label acts.-State V. 92 State v. Stoffels, 89 Minn. 205, Bishop, 128 Mo. 373, 31 S. W. 9, 49 94 N. W. 675. Am. St. Rep. 569, 29 L. R. A. 200; 93 Ellis v. Frazier, 38 Ore. 462, 63 Schmalz v. Wooley, 56 N. J. Eq. 649, 39 Atl. 539; Commonwealth v. Nor Pac. 642. 94 State v. Sharples, 31 Wash. 191, ton, 16 Pa, Supr. Ct. 423. 71 Pac. 737. Inheritance tax laws.- In re Wilmerding, 117 Cal. 281, 49 Pac. 181; Estate of Stanford, 126 Cal. 112, 54 Pac. 259, 58 Pac. 462; In re Inheritance Tax, 23 Colo. 492, 48 Pac. 555; Drew v. Tifft, 79 Minn. 175, 81 N. W. S39, 79 Am. St. Rep. 446, 47 L. R some miscellaneous cases are added without giving the particular points decided.9% $229. Amendatory and curative acts.-Existing general laws required to have a uniform operation cannot be A. 525; State v. Henderson, 160 Mo. 190, 60 S. W. 1093; State v. Ferris, 53 Ohio St. 314, 41 N. E. 579; State v. Allston, 94 Tenn. 674, 30 S. W. 750, 28 L. R. A. 178; State v. Clark, 30 Wash. 439, 71 Pac. 20; Magown v. Ill. Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 18 S. C. 594, 42 L. Ed. 1037. Medical practice acts.- Ex parte McNulty, 77 Cal. 164, 19 Pac. 237, 11 Am. St. Rep. 257; Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 64 N. E. 862; State v. Bair,112 Iowa,466, 84 N. W. 532, 51 L. R. A. 776; Iowa Electric Med. College Ass'n v. Board of Med. Examiners, 87 Iowa, 659, 55 N. W. 24, 20 L. R. A. 355; Craig v. Medical Exami. ners, 12 Mont. 203, 29 Pac. 532; State v. Hinman, 65 N. H. 103, 18 Atl. 194; State v. Pennoyer, 65 N. H. 113, 18 Atl. 878, 5 L. R. A. 709; State v. Call, 121 N. C. 643, 28 S. E. 517; State v. Randolph, 23 Ore. 74, 31 Pac. 201, 37 Am. St. Rep. 655; People v. Hasbrouck, 11 Utah, 291, 39 Pac. 918; State v. Carey, 4 Wash. 424, 30 Pac. 729; State v. Currens, 111 Wis. 431, 87 N. W. 551; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 9 S. C. Rep. 231, 32 L. Ed. 623; Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189, 18 S. C. Rep. 573, 42 L. Ed. 1002; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 23 S. C. Rep. 390. 96 Acts held to be special or class legislation.— Farrell v. Board of Trustees, 85 Cal. 408, 24 Pac. 868; Eaton v. Brown, 97 Cal. 371, 31 Pac. 250, 31 Am. St. Rep. 225, 17 L. R. A. 697; Harlingau v. Doyle, 134 Cal. 53, 66 Pac. 44; In re Consolidation of School Districts, 23 Colo. 499, 48 Pac. 647; Bailey v. People, 190 Ill. 28, 60 N. E. 98, 83 Am. St. Rep. 116; Allardt v. People, 197 Ill. 501, 64 N. E. 533; Gilson v. Commissioners, 128 Ind. 65, 27 N. E. 235, 11 L. R. A. 835; State v. Santee, 111 Iowa, 1, 82 N. W. 445, 82 Am. St. Rep. 489, 53 L. R. A. 763; Brown v. Milliken, 42 Kan. 769, 23 Pac. 167; Roberts v. Missouri, etc. Ry. Co., 43 Kan. 102, 22 Pac. 1006; Shawnee County Com'rs v. State, 49 Kan. 486, 31 Pac. 149; State v. Mitchell, 97 Me. 66. 53 Atl. 887; People v. Berrien Circ. Judge, 124 Mich. 664, 83 N. W. 594, 83 Am. St. Rep. 352; State v. Wagener, 69 Minn. 206, 72 N. W. 67, 65 Am. St. Rep. 565; State v. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375, 55 S. W. 627, 77 Am. St. Rep. 776; State v. Bradshaw, 56 N. J. L. 1, 27 Atl. 939; Cox v. Truitt, 57 N. J. L. €35, 31 Atl. 168; State v. Cramer, 58 N. J. L. 278, 33 Atl. 201; Morris v. Ocean Tp., 61 N. J. L. 12, 38 Atl. 760: Grey v. Newark Plank Road Co., 65 N. J. L. 51, 46 Atl. 606; Gilhooley v. Elizabeth, 66 N. J. L. 484, 49 Atl. 1106; Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396, 39 N. E. 400; People v. Orange County Road Co., 175 N. Y. 84, 67 N. E. 129; State v. Bargus, 53 Ohio St. 94, 41 N. E. 245, 53 Am. St. Rep. 628; Guthrie Daily Leader v. Cameron, 3 Okl. 677, 41 Pac. 635; Clark's Estate, 195 Pa. St. 520, 46 Atl. 127, 48 L. R. A. 587; Strine v. Foltz, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 490; Dean v. Spartenburg. amended so as to interrupt their uniform operation." Though special acts may be repealed, parts of a special or local law may not be repealed where the effect is to in County, 59 S. C. 110, 37 S. E. 226; Stratton Claimants v. Morris Claimants, 89 Tenn. 497, 15 S. W. 446; Weaver v. Davidson County, 104 Tenn. 315, 59 S. W. 1105; Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 46 N. W. 128, 20 Am. St. Rep. 123, 8 L. R. A. 808; State v. Bell, 91 Wis. 271, 61 N. W. 845; State v. Benzenberg, 101 Wis. 172, 76 N. W. 345; Shaver v. Penn. Co., 71 Fed. 931; Holt v. Mayor, 111 Ala. 369, 19 So. 735; Conlin v. Supervisors, 114 Cal. 404, 46 Pac. 279, 33 L. R. A. 752; Metcalf v. State, 49 Ohio St. 586, 31 N. E. 1070; German Am. Invest. Co. v. Youngstown, 63 Fed. 452. Acts held not to be special or class legislation.-Ex parte Williams, 87 Cal. 78, 24 Pac. 602, 25 Pac. 248; McDonald v. Conniff, 99 Cal. 386, 34 Pac. 71; Kings County v. Johnson, 104 Cal. 198, 37 Pac. 870; Miles v. Woodward, 115 Cal. 308, 46 Pac. 1076; Tulare County v. May, 118 Cal. 303, 50 Pac. 427; Solano County v. McCudden, 120 Cal. 648, 53 Pac. 213; People v. Lodi High School Dist., 124 Cal. 694, 57 Pac. 660; Fragley v. Phelan, 126 Cal. 383; 58 Pac. 923; People v. King, 127 Cal. 570, 60 Pac. 35; Carpenter v. Furrey, 128 Cal. 665, 61 Pac. 369; Escondido High School Dist. v. Escondido Seminary, 130 Cal. 128, 62 Pac. 401; Estate of Yturburen, 134 Cal. 567, 66 Pac. 729: Jackson v. Baehr, 138 Cal. 266, 71 Pac. 167; Napa State 97 State ex rel. Peck v. Riordan, 24 Wis. 484; State ex rel. Keenan v. Supervisors, 25 id. 339; State ex Hospital v. Yuba County, 138 Cal 378, 71 Pac. 450; State v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 363, 27 So. 221; Columbus So. Ry. Co. v. Wright, 89 Ga. 574, 15 S. E. 293: Singer Mfg. Co. v. Wright, 97 Ga. 114, 25 S. E. 249, 35 L. R. A. 497; National Bank of Augusta v. Augusta Cotton & Compress Co., 104 Ga. 403, 30 S. E. 888; Union Sav. Bank & T. Co. v. Dottenheim, 107 Ga. 606, 34 S. E. 217; Wunderle v. Wunderle, 144 Ill. 40, 33 N. E. 195, 19 L. R. A. 84; Schultz v. Schultz, 144 Ill. 290, 33 N. E. 201, 19 L. R. A. 90; People v. Board of Sup'rs. 185 III. 288, 56 N. E. 1044; Arms v. Ayer, 192 IL 601, 61 N. E. 851, 85 Am. St. Rep. 357; Downey v. People, 205 Ill. 230, 68 N. E. 807; Taggert v. Claypool, 145 Ind. 590, 44 N. E. 18, 32 L. R. A. 586; State v. Gouss, 85 Iowa, 21, 51 N. W. 1147; Burk v. Putnam, 113 Iowa, 232, 84 N. W. 1053, 86 Am. St. Rep. 372; State v. Haun, 7 Kan. App. 509, 54 Pac. 130; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 101 Ky. 325, 41 S. W. 11; Louisville & J. Ferry Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 726, 47 S. W. 877; Hall v. Burlingame, 88 Mich. 438, 50 N. W. 289; People v. Smith, 108 Mich. 527, 66 N. W. 382, 62 Am. St. Rep. 715, §2 L. R. A. 853; People v. Japinga, 115 Mich. 222, 73 N. W. 111; State v. Sheriff, 48 Minn. 236, 71 N. W. 112, 31 Am. St. Rep. 650; State v. Corbett, 57 Minn. 345, 59 N. W. 317, 24 L. R. A. 498; State v. rel. Walsh v. Dousman, 28 id. 541; Zeigler v. Gaddis, 44 N. J. L. 363. tensify the special character of the act.99 Amendments cannot be made to particular charters where special acts of incorporation are prohibited." Nor can special curative acts McMahon, 62 Minn. 110, 64 N. W. 92; Lommen v. Minneapolis Gas Light Co., 65 Minn. 196, 68 N. W. 53, 60 Am. St. Rep. 450, 33 L. R. A. 437; Cameron v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 63 Minn. 384, 65 N. W. 652; State v. Wise, 70 Minn. 99, 72 N. W. 843; Anderson v. Seymour, 70 Minn. 358, 73 N. W. 171; State v. Wagener, 77 Minn. 483, 80 N. W. 633; State v. Sherod, 80 Minn. 446, 83 N. W. 417, 81 Am. St. Rep. 268, 50 L. R. A. 660; State v. Johnson, 86 Minn. 121, 90 N. W. 161, 1133; Vicksburg v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 67, 16 So. 267; Hoole v. Dorrah, 75 Miss. 257, 22 So. 829; State v. Hughes, 104 Mo. 459, 16 S. W. 489; State v. Orrick, 106 Mo. 111, 17 S. W. 176, 329; State v. Field, 119 Mo. 593, 24 S. W. 752; State v. Yancy, 123 Mo. 391, 27 S. W. 380; State v. Gritzner, 134 Mo. 512, 36 S. W. 39; Daggs v. Orient Ins. Co., 136 Mo. 382, 38 S. W. 85, 58 Am. St. Rep. 638, 35 L. R. A. 227; State v. Lee, 137 Mo. 143, 38 S. W. 583; State v. Durrah, 152 Mo. 522. 54 S. W. 226; Hamman v. Central Coal & C. Co., 156 Mo. 232, 56 S. W. 1091; State v. Thompson, 160 Mo. 333, 60 S. W. 1077, 83 Am. St. Rep. 468; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 1, 62 S. W. 828; State v. Harney, 168 Mo. 167, 98 Blankenburg v. Block, 200 Pa. St. 629, 50 Atl. 198. 99 Ex parte Pritz, 9 Iowa, 30; Davis v. Woolnough, 9 Iowa, 104; McGregor v. Baylies, 19 Iowa, 43; Von Phul v. Hammer, 29 Iowa, 222, But see Brown v. Denver, 7 Colo. 305; Hodges v. Baltimore Union 67 S. W. 620; State v. Gregory, 170 Mo. 598, 71 S. W. 170; Elting v. Hick. man, 172 Mo. 237, 72 S. W. 700; Seaboard National Bank v. Woeston, 176 Mo. 49, 75 S. W. 464; In re Dewar's Estate, 10 Mont. 426, 25 Pac. 1026; King v. Pony Gold Min. Co., 24 Mont. 470, 62 Pac. 783; State v. Woodman, 26 Mont. 348, 67 Pac. 1118; Lancaster County v. Trimble, 33 Neb. 121, 49 N. W. 938; State v. Robinson, 35 Neb. 401, 53 N. W. 213; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Fleming, 39 Neb. 679, 58 N. W. 226, 42 Am. St. Rep. 613; Bishop v. Middleton, 43 Neb. 10, 61 N. W. 129, 26 L. R. A. 445: State v. Farmers' & M. Ins. Co., 59 Neb. 1,80 N. W. 52; State v. Aitken, 62 Neb. 428, 87 N. W. 153; State v. Donovan, 20 Nev. 75, 15 Pac. 783: State v. Beck, 25 Nev. 68, 56 Pac. 1008; State v. Jersey City, 58 N. J. L. 262, 33 Atl. 740; State v. Cline, 62 N. J. L. 489, 41 Atl. 690; Miller v. Camden, 64 N. J. L. 201, 44 Atl. 882; Reilly v. Gray, 77 Hun, 402, 28 N. Y. S. 811; People v. Warden, 81 Hun, 434, 30 N. Y. S. 1095; State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 714, 10 S. E. 143, 17 Am. St. Rep. 696; Minneapolis & Northern Elevator Co. v. Traill County, 9 N. D. 213, 82 N. W. 727, 50 L. R. A. 266; Oregon City v. Moore, 30 Ore. Pass. R. R. Co., 58 Md. 603: Mayfield v. Elmore. 100 Ky. 417, 38 S. W. 849; Farnsworth v. Lime Rock R. R. Co., 83 Me. 440. 22 Atl. 373; Black River Imp. Co. v. Holway, 87 Wis. 584, 59 N. W. 126; De Hay v. Berkeley County Com'rs, 66 S. C. 227. |