Opinion
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial.
COUNSEL:
The act of March 12, 1885, is a general law, and is free from the objection that it is special legislation, whether it regulates practice in courts of justice, or not. (McAnnich v. M. R. R ., 20 Iowa 338; Connor v. Mayor , 5 N.Y. 285; People v. Stephens, 2 Abb. Pr. 348; Williams v. People , 24 N.Y. 405; Bishop v. Oakland , 58 Cal. 574.)
If the act is general in its operation, it is not within the prohibition contained in subdivision 3 of section 25 of article 4 of the constitution, against the passage of local or special laws regulating the practice of courts of justice.
Van Ness & Roche, Hall & Rodgers, John H. Boalt, and Robert Ash, for Appellants.
John J. Coffey, and W. H. Tompkins, for Respondent.
The act in question is unconstitutional as being special legislation. (Const., art. 4, sec. 25, subd. 3.)
JUDGES: In Bank.
OPINION
THE COURT [12 P. 870] We are of opinion that the undertaking in this case is valid. The statute is a general law, and not an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure in the sense of the provision of the constitution referred to. The statute is constitutional.
Motion to dismiss appeal denied.