Ayars v. Westfield

Citations

• 122 Pa. 266
• 16 A. 356
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 627

Syllabus

<p>1. The provisions of the act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 204, (dividing the cities of the state into seven classes, etc.,) which relate to the election and installation of select and common councilmen, are inoperative in a city of the fifth class having a single branch council, until the terms of all the councilmen in office at the date of the approval of the act shall have fully expired.</p> <p>2. Moreover, the said act of May 24,1887, P. L. 204 (and as well, it seems, the act of April 11, 1876, P. L. 20, amendatory of the act of May 23, 1874, P. L. 230), is unconstitutional and void as in violation of § 7, article ILL, of the constitution: Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. 338; Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Pa. 401, explained and distinguished; Commonwealth v. Patton, 88 Pa. 258; Morrison v. Bachert, 112 Pa. 322 ; Scranton Sch. D.’s App., 113 Pa. 176; Philadelphia v. Haddington Church, 115 Pa. 291; Weinman v. Railway Co., 118 Pa. 192, followed.</p> <p>3. Classification, with the view of legislating for either class separately, is essentially unconstitutional, unless there exists a necessity therefor, springing from manifest peculiarities clearly distinguishing those of one class from each of the other classes and imperatively demanding legislation for each class, separately, that would be useless and detrimental to the others.</p> <p>4. The people having prescribed by their constitution not only the form of enacting laws, but also, as to certain subjects, the method of legislation, by ordaining that no local or special law relating to those subjects shall be passed, whether, in any given case, the legislature has transcended its power and enacted a law in conflict with that limitation, is essentially a question of law necessarily to be decided by the courts.</p>