act permitting summons to be served in counties adjoining that in which it was issued in actions of trespass and for injuries to land, conversion of crops, and claims for labor performed by individuals and firms, was held to give special privileges to certain suitors and to be void as class legislation. The following were held void as being special or class legislation: An act as to witness fees in criminal cases, and limited to counties of one class; 23 that courts shall take judicial notice of the ordinances of cities of the fifth class; 24 prohibiting appeals from the circuit court where the recovery is $75 or less, and which does not apply to county courts having concurrent jurisdiction; 25 creating a justice court for a particular town; 26 providing a special mode of moving for a new trial in proceedings under the irrigation law; that the judge of the criminal court in a particular county may be called in by the circuit judge of any county to hold the circuit court in such county, and in such case that he shall have the powers of a circuit judge; 28 conferring upon district courts power to remove police magistrates in metropolitan cities; 29 an act creating a juvenile court.30

27

§ 221. Same-Insurance and insurance companies.Different regulations may be applied to the old line life insurance companies than to those doing business on the assessment plan. An act providing that insurance companies

31

Kling v. Packet Co., 101 Tenn. 99, 113 Cal. 503, 39 Pac. 769, 45 Pac. 46 S. W. 24. 822, 1047.

22 O'Connell v. Menominee Bay Shore Lumber Co., 113 Mich. 124, 71 N. W. 449.

28 State v. Hill, 147 Mo. 63, 47 S. W. 798.

29 Gordon v. Moores, 61 Neb. 345,

23 Turner v. County of Siskiyou, 85 N. W. 298. 109 Cal. 332, 42 Pac. 434.

30 Mansfield's Case, 22 Pa. Supr.

24 Tulare v. Herren, 126 Cal. 226, Ct. 224. 58 Pac. 530.

31 Haynie v. Knights Templars,

25 McClain v. Williams, 11 S. D. etc. Co., 139 Mo. 416, 41 S. W. 461;

60, 75 N. W. 391.

26 Miner v. Justice's Court, 121

Cal. 264, 53 Pac. 795.

Northwestern Masonic Aid Ass'n

v. Waddell, 138 Mo. 628, 40 S. W. 648; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v.

27 Cullen v. Glendora Water Co., Freeman, 109 Fed. 847, 48 C. C. A.

692.

should pay the full amount of the loss not exceeding the amount of the policy, and that all stipulations in the policy to the contrary should be void, and excepting from its provisions insurance on cotton in bales, was held not to be class legislation. An act exempting insurance companies from suit for ninety days after notice was held not to be void as class legislation. Foreign insurance companies may be treated as a class for legislative purposes."

32

33

$222. Same- Building and loan associations." The operation of building and loan associations proper, where they adhere to the basic principles of their organization, differ so radically from ordinary loan transactions as to afford a proper basis for classification, and to justify the leg islature in making a separate class of them; hence a statutory exemption of them from the operation of the usury laws is constitutional." " Such an exemption is neither special nor class legislation."

35

§ 223. Same-Wages-Labor-Employees.-Laws to secure payment of the wages of laborers employed in certain industries, and affecting all employers alike, are held not to be class legislation.38 But when the benefit is confined to laborers employed by corporations, such laws are void as class legislation.39 Laws regulating the payment of wages by certain classes of corporations, such as mining and manufacturing companies, are held to be class legisla

32 Dugger v. Insurance Co., 95 Tenn. 245, 32 S. W. 5, 28 L. R. A. 796.

33 Christie v. Life Indemnity & Invest. Co., 82 Iowa, 360, 48 N. W. 94. 34 Kennedy v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 165 Pa. St. 179, 30 Atl. 724.

35 People v. Butler St. Foundry & Iron Co., 201 Ill. 236, 66 N. W. 349. 36 Zenith B. & L. Ass'n v. Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97, 79 N. W. 609.

37 lowa Savings & L. Ass'n v. Heidt, 107 Iowa, 297, 77 N. W. 1050, 43 L. R. A. 689; People's B. & L. Ass'n v. Billing, 104 Mich. 186, 62

N. W. 373; Livingston L. & B Ass'n v. Drummond, 49 Neb. 200, 68 N. W. 375; Vermont Loan & Trust Co. v. Whithed, 2 N. D. 82, 49 N. W. 318.

38 Fitch v. Applegate, 24 Wash. 25, 64 Pac. 147; Hoffa v. Person, 1 Pa. Supr. Ct. 357; Ripley v. Evans, 87 Mich. 217, 49 N. W. 504.

39 Johnson v. Goodyear Min. Co.. 127 Cal. 4,59 Pac. 304,78 Am. St. Rep. 17, 47 L. R. A. 338; Slocum v. Bear Valley Irr. Co., 122 Cal. 555, 55 Pac. 403, 68 Am. St. Rep. 68.

tion.40 Acts regulating the liability of railroad companies to their employees for the negligence of fellow-servants are not class legislation," but otherwise if they apply to all corporations, as in such case individuals and corporations carrying on the same business would be subjected to different rules.42 Such an act applying to railroad companies is held not to include street railroads, nor a company organized under the general railroad law but engaged in operating a street railway."

Acts making eight hours a legal day's work in certain kinds of employment are held void for the same reason; 45 but such a law applicable to laborers employed by the state or by counties or municipal corporations or by contractors for public works was held valid.46 An act which made it a

penal offense for any officer or agent of a corporation to discharge an employee on account of his connection with a labor organization, or to interfere to prevent such relation, was held special legislation and void because it did not apply to all employers." But where such a law applies to all employers it is valid.48

A statute provided that when a corporation discharged an employee for cause, the unpaid wages of such employee then earned at the contract rate, without abatement or deduction, should become due and payable on the day of such discharge. It was held to apply to all of a class and therefore not to be class legislation.49

§ 224. Same-Mines.- An act to regulate coal mines is not rendered local or special because it exempts from the operation of its provisions those employing but few men, such as ten or twenty." 50 Anthracite mines and bituminous mines may be legislated for as distinct classes." An act requiring mine operators to furnish safeguards for employees

47 Commonwealth v. Clark, 14 Pa. Supr. Ct. 435. The court says: "To be more explicit, it extends protection to the employees of corporations in their right to form or join labor organizations, whilst denying the same protection to the employees of individuals, firms and limited partnerships; it deprives corporations of the right to discharge employees for a certain cause, even though this right be expressly reserved in the contract of employment; whilst leaving individuals, firms and limited partnerships free to discharge their employees for the same cause or at will, provided no contract or law against conspiracy be violated. As has been well said, arbitrary selection can never be justified by calling it classification." A sim

ilar law was held invalid in Wisconsin as an interference with the liberty of contract. State V. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 90 N. W. 1098, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934.

48 State v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 88 N. W. 759, 89 Am. St. Rep. 550.

49 Leep v. Railway Co., 58 Ark. 407, 25 S. W. 75, 41 Am. St. Rep. 109, 23 L. R. A. 264. But see cases cited in the preceding notes of this section.

50 Woodson v. State, 69 Ark. 521, 65 S. W. 465; Durkin v. Kingston Coal Co., 171 Pa. St. 193, 33 Atl 237; Commonwealth v. Jones, 4 Pa. Supr. Ct. 362.

51 Durkin v. Kingston Coal Co., 171 Pa. St. 198, 33 Atl. 237; Commonwealth v. Jones, 4 Pa. Supr. Ct. 362; Read v. Clearfield Co., 12 Pa. Supr. Ct. 419.

was held not class legislation. But an act in regard to the weighing of coal at mines, which applied only to mines whose product was shipped by rail or water, was held special and void.53

§ 225. Same Sunday laws.-A law which prohibits the carrying on of business on Sunday, but excepts certain trades, such as hotels, drug stores, livery-stables, undertakers, etc., is held to be valid legislation in some states," but class legislation in others.55 So of a law which prohibits the business of barbering on Sunday. Some courts hold such a law special or class legislation, and others the reverse." A New York statute which prohibited barbering on Sunday, except in the cities of New York and Saratoga, was held not to be class legislation by reason of the exception.58

§ 226. Same-Allowing plaintiff an attorney's fee.A statute allowing the plaintiff to recover an attorney's fee in a suit for wages was held not to be special or class legislation in Illinois.59 Statutes allowing the plaintiff to recover an attorney's fee in suits upon insurance policies have been held valid in many cases.60 Statutes allowing the plaintiff

52 Davis Coal Co. v. Polland, 158 Ind. 607, 62 N. E. 492, 92 Am. St. Rep. 319.

53 Harding v. People, 160 Ill. 459, 43 N. E. 624, 52 Am. St. Rep. 344, 32 L. R. A. 445.

54 Searcy v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. App. 460, 50 S. W. 699, 51 S. W. 1119, 53 S. W. 344; State v. Nichols, 28 Wash. 628, 69 Pac. 372.

151, 57 N. W. 1094, 41 Am. St. Rep. 589, 22 L. R. A. 696; State v. Petit, 74 Minn. 376, 77 N. W. 225; Breyer v. State, 102 Tenn. 103, 50 S. W. 769. But in the latter state a law which forbade barbers to keep open their baths on Sunday was held class legislation. Ragio v. State, 86 Tenn. 272, 6 S. W 401.

58 People v. Harnor, 1 App. Div.

55 State v. Sopher, 25 Utah, 318, 459, 37 N. Y. S. 314. 71 Pac. 482.

56 Eden v. People, 161 Ill. 296, 43 N. E. 1108, 52 Am. St. Rep. 365, 32 L. R. A. 659; State v. Granneman, 132 Mo. 326, 33 S. W. 784; Tacoma v. Krech, 15 Wash. 296, 46 Pac. 255. 57 Ex parte Northrop, 41 Ore. 489, 69 Pac. 445; People v. Bellet, 99 Mich.

59 Vogel v. Pekoc, 157 Ill. 339, 42 N. E. 386, 30 L. R. A. 491.

60 British Am. Ass'n Co. v. Bradford, 60 Kan. 82, 55 Pac. 332; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Warbritton, 66 Kan. 93, 71 Pac. 278; Insurance Co. of North Am. v. Bachler, 44 Neb. 549, 62 N. W. 911; Lancashire Ins.