Case Name: James J. Treanor et al., Pl'ffs, v. Charles F. Eichom, Def't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-12-01
Citations: 56 N.Y. St. Rep. 225
Docket Number: 
Parties: James J. Treanor et al., Pl’ffs, v. Charles F. Eichom, Def't.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 56
Pages: 225–225

Head Matter:
James J. Treanor et al., Pl’ffs, v. Charles F. Eichom, Def't.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 1, 1893.)
1. Statutes—Local.
Ghap. 493 of 1893 is not a local or private act.
3. Same.
An act embracing all things of a certain class is a general and not a local act, though, hy reason of a limitation, based on population, a single locality only , can receive its benefits.
Case submitted under § 1279 of the Code.
Joseph F. Daly, for pl'ffs; William A. Jaycox, for deft.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
Chapter 493, Laws of 1892, is not a local or private act. It is, by its terms, made applicable to the entire state where the conditions exist. The procedure to lay roads partly in one town and partly in another was an inconvenient and uncertain method. The commissioners of highways of each town laid out the part in the town to meet a road actually laid out through the adjoining town or proposed to he laid out therein. There were separate appeals from each order with a possible conflict in the result of the separate appeals. The limitation of the act to continue where there is an adjoining city of 1,000,000 of inhabitants or over, does not make the act otherwise general, a local act. It still applies to the whole state where any county in it adjoins so large a city. People ex rel., v. Squire, 107 N. Y., 593 ; 6 St. Rep., 281.
An act embracing all things of a certain class is a general and not a local act, although by reason of a limitation based on population only a single locality can receive its benefits. Ferguson v. Ross, 126 N. Y., 459 ; 37 St. Rep., 836; Matter of N. Y. Elevated R. R. Co., 70 N. Y., 328.
Under these cases the act in question does not conflict with § 18 of article 8 of the constitution of the state which prohibits the passage of a local act laying out roads.
Judgment should, therefore, be given for the plaintiff upon the submitted case.