Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/297

 APPEAL from district court, Traill county; Hon. William B, McConnell, Judge.

A. B. Levisee, Ball & Smith, and Taylor Crum, for appellants. F. W. Ames and J. F. Selby, for respondents. Joslin & Regan and Carmody & Leslie, for respondents on rehearing.

Action by Arthur Edmonds and others against Peter Herbrandson and others, officers of Traill county, to restrain them from removing the county records from Caledonia to Hillsboro. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, construing chapter 56, Laws of 1890, as unconstitutional.

A. B. Levisee, Ball & Smith, and Taylor Crum, for appellants:

The act in controversy offends against our constitutional provision that “all laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation.” The authorities in states having the same provision are all to the effect that unless the law clearly has a uniform operation it cannot be considered as a law of a general nature. Appeal of City of Scranton School District, 6 At. Rep. 158; Ohio ex rel. v. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 102; Kelley v. State, 6 Ohio St. 269; Nichols v. Walter, 33 N. W. Rep. 800; State v. Mayor, 18 At. Rep. 694; State v. Board of Freeholders, 11 At. Rep. 135; McCarthy v. Commonwealth, 2 At. Rep. 423. It has been held that the exception of one county from the operation of an act makes it local and special. Davis v. Clark, 106, Pa. St. 384.

F. W. Ames and J. F. Selby, for respondents:

The act is constitutional and should be sustained. Vermont Loan & Trust Co. v. Whithed, ante; State v. Oblinger, 34 N. W. Rep. 164; Board of Frecholders v. Board of Freeholders, 19 At. Rep. 972; People ex rel. v. Plank Road Co., 86 N. Y. 1.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Corliss, C. J. The plaintiffs, as taxpayers of Traill county, in this state, instituted this action against the members of the board of county commissioners and the other officers of that