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|
Peremptory writ denied.
(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.
[125 Mo. 365] Mandamus.
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 readingFREE SIGN UP