28 S.W. 638 (Mo. 1894), The State ex rel. Manning v. Higgins

Citation:28 S.W. 638, 125 Mo. 364
Opinion Judge:Black, P. J. -
Party Name:The State ex rel. Manning v. Higgins
Attorney:T. J. Rowe and Nat. C. Dryden for relator. W. C. Marshall for respondent.
Judge Panel:Black, P. J. Barclay, J., will express his views in a separate opinion.
Case Date:December 10, 1894
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 638

28 S.W. 638 (Mo. 1894)

125 Mo. 364

The State ex rel. Manning

v.

Higgins

Supreme Court of Missouri, First Division

December 10, 1894

Peremptory writ denied.

T. J. Rowe and Nat. C. Dryden for relator.

(1) The law in question is special and unconstitutional. Murnane v. St. Louis, 123 Mo. 479; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 448; State ex rel. v. Hammer, 42 N. J. Law, 440; Board v. Buck, 49 N. J. Law, 228; State v. Sloane, 49 N. J. Law, 356; see, also, Coutieri v. Mayor (1882), 44 N. J. Law, 58; Hammer v. State (1882), 44 N. J. Law, 667; Pierson v. O'Connor (1891), 54 N. J. Law, 36; State ex rel. v. Orange (1892), 25 A. 268; State v. Trenton (1892), 25 A. 113; Wheeler v. Philadelphia (1874), 77 Pa. St. 338. (2) It is said there is no reasonable probability that any other city in this state will attain that population during the life of the law. There is no limit to the act in point of duration. A like argument was made against some other laws made applicable in cities of one hundred thousand or more inhabitants but a few years ago, but the prediction proved a false one in a very short space of time. State ex rel. v. Bell, 24 S. Rep. 765; State ex rel. v. Tolle, 71 Mo. 650; Rutherford v. Hedden, 82 Mo. 388; State ex rel. v. Mead, 71 Mo. 266; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 73.

W. C. Marshall for respondent.

Black, P. J. Barclay, J., will express his views in a separate opinion.

OPINION

[125 Mo. 365] Mandamus.

Black, P. J. -- John G. Manning, intending to become a candidate at the November, 1894, election for the office of justice of the peace in the ninth district of the city of St. Louis, as that district was established by the act of the twenty-seventh of April, 1877 (Acts of 1877, p. 283), obtained a certificate of nomination signed by the requisite number of electors and presented the same to the respondent in his capacity of recorder of voters. Respondent refused to receive or file the certificate, assigning as a reason therefor that the act of 1877 had been repealed by the act of the twenty-third of April, 1891 (Acts of 1891, p. 175), and that a new district had been created. Thereupon the relator commenced this mandamus proceeding.

The controversy turns upon the validity of the act of 1891, the relator insisting that it is a special act within the meaning of those clauses of the constitution which provide that "the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP