8 Mo.App. 424 (Mo.App. 1880)
AUGUST F. LUTHER, Appellant,
O. P. SAYLOR, ASSIGNEE, Respondent.
Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis.
March 2, 1880
1. The statute giving a preference to the wages of labor over other claims not covered by a specific lien is not unconstitutional.
2. The act applies to all business corporations, and is not special legislation within the meaning of the Constitution.
3. The act does not impair the obligation of contracts because it incidentally lessens the fund for the payment of general creditors.
4. That the rate of interest is fixed from a stated period, without demand, is not an objection.
5. A title not adapted to deceive, and which fairly expresses the subject of the act, is sufficient.
APPEAL from the St. Louis Circuit Court.
Reversed and remanded.
NOBLE & ORRICK, for the appellant: Laws are presumed to be constitutional unless they manifestly infringe some provision of the Constitution.-- The State v. Railroad Co., 48 Mo. 468. A law may be said to be general when it operates uniformly upon all persons who are brought within the relations and circumstances provided for by it.--20 Iowa 338. Courts will give effect, if possible, to every clause of the statute--all the parts to harmonize with each other.-- Brooks v. School, 31 Ala. 277; San Francisco v. Hazler, 5 Cal. 169; Cochran v. Taylor, 13 Ohio St. 382. Acts which afford more ample and surer remedies to laborers for securing the fruits of their labor are remedial, and should be liberally sustained.-- Peters v. Railroad Co., 23 Mo. 110; The State v. Shaffer, 38 Iowa 324; Raeder v. Bensberg, 6 Mo.App. 445. The act under consideration affects all business corporations.-- Gould v. Sub-district, 7 Minn. 203; Queen v. Edmonson, 2 El. & El. 75; The State v. Bentley, 60 Mo. 222; Smith v. Railroad Co., 61 Mo. 17; City v. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 564.
JACOB KLEIN, for the respondent: The legislative act under consideration is unconstitutional, because unequal in its provisions.-- Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; Cooley's Const. Lim. 393; Wally v. Kennedy, 2 Yerg. 554; Officer v. Young, 5 Yerg. 320. It is a special act within the meaning of the Constitution.--Smith on Stat. & Const. Law, sects. 795, 802; 1 Bla. Comm. 86; Sedgw. on Stat. & Const. Law, 24; Potter's Dwar. on Stats. 52; In re Railroad Co., 3 Abb. N. C. 422; Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 162; Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 366; Wheeling v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa.St. 348; The State v. Walbridge, 3 Mo.App. 561. The title of the act is deceptive, and does not clearly express the subject of the act.-- Walker v. Coldwell, 4 La. An. 297; Robinson v. Skipworth, 23 Ind. 311, 317; The People v. Commissioners of Highways, 53 Barb. 70; The People v. Common Council, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 121; The State v. Kinsella, 14 Minn. 524, 525; Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa.St. 193, 195; Alleghany County Home's Appeal, 77 Pa.St. 80; State Line, etc., R. Co.'s Appeal, 77 Pa.St. 429-431; Indiana Central R. Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681; The State v. Harrison, 11 La. An. 725; Fishkill v. Plank-road Co., 22 Barb. 634; Rader v. Union Township, 39 N.J.L...