Pearson v. City of Portland

• Decision Date: 21 March 1879
• Citation: 69 Me. 278
• Parties: Charles H. PEARSON & wife v. CITY OF PORTLAND.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

69 Me. 278

Charles H. PEARSON & wife v. CITY OF PORTLAND.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

March 21, 1879

ON REPORT.

ACTION to recover damage to female plaintiff for injuries from a defective way.

The plaintiffs, at the time of the injury and time of trial, were resident in Cardenas, Cuba, and had been residing there for several years. No residence in this state.

Defendants claim that the action could not be maintained under c. 34, of laws of 1872, unless a similar remedy existed by the laws of Cuba.

The parties agreed to report to the full court the questions upon which party lies the burden of proof as to the laws of Cuba and also whether said statute is constitutional, and if so whether it operates to bar the plaintiffs if it should appear that no similar remedy exists in Cuba,--the plaintiffs claiming that they are both natives of Maine, and both citizens of the United States, never having been naturalized in Cuba nor assumed any of the duties or liabilities of citizens of Cuba, but only residing there for temporary business purposes.

The parties thereupon agreed to try the cause to the jury without any ruling upon the foregoing questions, but saving them for the full court. The trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiffs for one thousand dollars. If the court shall determine said act of 1872 to be unconstitutional, then judgment is to be rendered for the plaintiffs upon the verdict. If otherwise, then the court is to decide upon whom is the burden of proof as to the laws of Cuba, and whether said statute can operate to bar the suit, if the plaintiffs are citizens of the United States, although residents of Cuba. And testimony as to the laws of Cuba, and as to the citizenship of plaintiffs, is to be taken by a judge at nisi prius, and the judgment to be entered for plaintiffs on the verdict, or plaintiffs nonsuit, as the facts shall appear upon these two questions, according to the law of the case that shall be announced by the court.

S. C. Strout & H. W. Gage, for the plaintiffs.

H. B. Cleaves, city solicitor, for the defendants, in an elaborate argument, among other things, contended.

That this law was not in conflict with the constitution of the United States.

The legislature can exercise all power not prohibited. People v. Flagg, 46 N.Y. 401.

Charters granted cities may directly or by implication exclude the general laws of the state, and peculiar and exceptional regulations may be made applicable to particular portions only and still be valid. Nathaniel Goddard, petitioner, 16 Pick. 504. Commonwealth v. Patch, 97 Mass. 222 ; 44 Mo. 547.

The constitution of the state in conferring the legislative power has established such prohibitions as the people see fit to impose. In ascertaining the powers of the legislature under the constitution, we look not to what the instrument authorizes to be done, but to what is prohibited. McMillan v. Lee, 6 Clark, (Iowa) 391.

It is only necessary that the law should be uniform, and its effect the same upon all persons standing in the same category. Waterville v. Commissioners, 59 Me. 80. Smith v. Judge, 17 Cal. 547.

Whether an enactment is reasonable or for the benefit of the people, it is for the legislature alone to decide. Moore v. Veazie, 32 Me. 343. This state law does not come within the class of those privileges and immunities guaranteed by amendment, Art. 14, U. S. Ocr Corfield v. Corgell, 4 Wash. C. C. 380. Albott v. Bailey, 6 Pick. 92. Connor v. Elliot, 18 How. 591. Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418. Lemmon v. People, 26 Barb. 270. 20 N.Y. 562. Crandall v. State, 10 Conn. 340. Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash, C. C. 101. State v. Medbury, 3 R. I. 138. People v. Imly, 20 Barb. 68. Ducat v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 172. Cincinnati Health Association v. Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 85. Haney v. Marshall, 9 Md. 134.

WALTON J.

In 1872 the legislature of this state enacted the following statute:

" No person shall recover of any city or town in this state, damage for injury to person or property, which damage is claimed to have been done in consequence of any defect, or want of repair, or sufficient railing, in any highway, townway, causeway or bridge, provided the said damage be done to or claimed by any person, who was at the time said damage was done a resident of any country where damage done under similar circumstances is not recoverable by the laws of said country." Act 1872, c. 34.

The only question we find it necessary to consider is whether this act is constitutional. We think it is not. It is in conflict with the 14th amendment of the United...