Utsey v. Hiott

Citations

• 30 S.C. 360
• 9 S.E. 338
• 1889 S.C. LEXIS 112

Syllabus

<p>1. The legislature has the right to pass laws which affect only certain localities and classes; but an act excepting certain persons from an exemption granted to others of the same class in the same territory, is unconstitutional and void.</p> <p>2. Under the general stock law of 1882, all persons in the State were required to keep their stock enclosed. Under the act of 1887 (19 Stat., 1002), a certain portion of Colleton County was designated as a territory that should be exempt from the operations of the general stock law “provided those owning real estate in Colleton County, who have conformed to the general stock law, shall not in any way be affected by this act.” Held, that this proviso was unconstitutional, because it excepts from the operations of the act certain persons of the same class and locality as others who are affected by it. Conformity or nonconformity to a prior law did not justify the distinction attempted.</p> <p>3. And as the proviso is so connected with the body of the act that the act itself would not have been enacted without the proviso, the whole act must be declared void on account of the unconstitutionality of the proviso.</p> <p>4. The plaintiff was entitled under the general stock law to recover damages to his unenclosed land, caused by defendant’s stock, in the territory attempted to be exempted by this void act, without regard to whether or not the plaintiff had previously conformed to the general law.</p>