BELL COUNTY v. HALL

A.L. Curtis, for plaintiff in error. — The Legislature may pass an act exempting certain counties from the operation of the general law, without violating the Constitution, without the legal notice required by section 56 of article 3 of the Constitution for the passage of local and special laws. Such an Act is not a local or a special law, but an exception to the general law. Beyman v. Black, 47 Tex. 556; Robertson v. State, 42 Texas Crim., 599; Clark v. Finley, 93 Tex. 179; Smith v. Grayson County, 44 S.W. 921. W.S. Banks, for defendant in error. — The Act of the Twenty-ninth Legislature known as the "County Auditors Law," being Chapter 161, page 381, of the printed Acts of said Legislature, was a general law, and as amended by the Act of the Thirtieth Legislature, being Chapter 168, page 315, of the printed Acts of said Legislature, continued to be a general law. Acts of 29th and 30th Legislatures above referred to; Clark v. Finley, 93 Tex. 171; Green v. State, 49 Texas Crim., 380; Brown v. State, 54 Texas Crim., 121; Smith v. State, 54 Texas Crim., 298; Commonwealth v. Patton, 88 Pa. 258; State v. Wood, 49 N.J.L. 85; In Re. Church, 92 N.Y. 1. Said Act of the Thirty-first Legislature, being a local or special law, it is invalid because the same is one "regulating the affairs of counties" and is prohibited by section 56, article 3 of the Constitution of the State of Texas. The Act (Thirty-first Legislature, page 238) is a local and special law. Maxwell v. Tillamook Co., 20 Ore., 495; Miller v. Kister, 68 Calif., 142; Edmunds v. Herbrandson (N.D.), 14 L.R.A., 725; State v. Wood, 49 N.J.L. 85; State v. Inhabitants of Bloomfield, 47 N.J.L. 442; Commonwealth v. Patton, 88 Pa. St., 258; State v. Hill (Mo.), 47 S.W. 798; State v. Somers' Point, 52 N.J.L. 32; Davis v. Clark, 106 P. 377; State v. Winsor, 48 N.J.L. 95; Clark v. City of Cape May, 50 N.J.L. 558; State v. Boyd, 19 Nev. 43; Mathis v. Jones, 84 Ga. 804; State v. Mayor, etc., Newark, 53 N.J.L. 886; Ex Parte Jentzsch, 112 Calif., 468; Commissioners v. Rosche, 50 Ohio St. 103; State v. Bradshaw, 56 N.J.L. 1; Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Calif., 238; Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. St., 322; In Re. Henneberger, 155 N.Y. 430; Manning v. Klepperl, 9 Ore., 367; Roberson v. Perry, 17 Kans., 248; Pope v. Phifer, 50 Tenn. 682; Darling v. Rogers, 7 Kans., 592; Omnibus Ry. Co. v. Baldwin, 57 Calif., 160. It regulates the affairs of Bell County: Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa., 332; State v. Winsor, supra; State v. Hammer, 42 N.J.L. 435; State v. Mayor of Newark, supra; Lodi v. State, 51 N.J.L. 402; State v. McInery (Ky.), 87 S.W. 1085; State v. Windsor, supra; State v. Powers, 30 Ohio St. 54; Bingham v. City of Camden, 40 N.J.L. 156; Pell v. City of Newark, 40 N.J.L. 550. Statutes in Pari Materia: State v. Mayor of Newark, supra; Darling v. Rogers, supra. As to Classification of Counties: Clark v. Finley, 93 Tex. 171 [ 93 Tex. 171]; State v. Hammer, 42 N.J.L. 435; State v. Inhabitants of Bloomfield, supra; Costello v. Village of Wyoming, 49 Ohio St. 202; Lodi v. State, supra; State v. Somers Point, supra; Davis v. Clark, supra; Miller v. Kister, supra; Edmunds v. Herbrandson, supra; State v. Winsor, supra; Clark v. City of Cape May, supra; State v. Wood, supra; Commonwealth v. Patton, supra; State v. Bradshaw, supra; Pasadena v. Stimson, supra; State v. McInery, supra. Classified for one purpose is not for all purposes. Pasadena v. Stimson, supra; Marsh v. Hanly, 111 Calif., 368. No local or special law where general is applicable. State v. Hill (Mo.), 47 S.W. 798; Ex Parte Jentzsch, supra; Pasadena v. Stimson, supra; State v. McInery, supra; State v. Lewis, 109 Calif., 493; State v. Granneman, 132 Mo., 326; Gray v. Crockett, 1 P. 50. Validity a judicial question. Sutherland Stat. Const., sec. 118, p. 146; Clark v. Finley, 93 Tex. 171; Costello v. Village of Wyoming, supra; Edmunds v. Herbrandson, supra; Lloyd v. Smith (Pa.), 35 P. 199; Appeal of Ayars (Pa.), 2 L.R.A., 577-583. General Law, if suspended, must be in whole. Cooley Const. Lim., 482; Miller v. Kister, supra. Uniformity. State v. Supervisors, 25 Wis. 339-347; State v. Dausman, 28 Wis. 541; Rathborn v. Board of Commissioners, 73 Fed. (C.C.A.), 395-400.