Venanzio v. Weir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Venanzio v. Weir

72 N.Y.S. 234, 64 A.D. 483

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 72 N.Y.S. 234 (Venanzio v. Weir) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Venanzio v. Weir, 72 N.Y.S. 234, 64 A.D. 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

JENKS, J.

The sole ground of the motion was that section 3268 of the Code of Civil Procedure violates the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. This amendment merely requires that all persons subjected to legislation shall receive like treatment under like circumstances and conditions. Class legislation, discriminating against some, and favoring others, is prohibited ; but legislation which, carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 32, 5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed. 923; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 25 L. Ed. 989; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 7 Sup. Ct. 350, 30 L. Ed. 578; Conley v. Institution, 11 R. I. 147.

The order should be affirmed, without costs. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JENKS, J.

The sole ground of the motion was that section 3268 of the Code of Civil Procedure violates the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. This amendment merely requires that all persons subjected to legislation shall receive like treatment under like circumstances and conditions. Class legislation, discriminating against some, and favoring others, is prohibited ; but legislation which, carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 27, 32, 5 Sup. Ct. 357, 28 L. Ed. 923; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S. 22, 25 L. Ed. 989; Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U. S. 68, 7 Sup. Ct. 350, 30 L. Ed. 578; Conley v. Institution, 11 R. I. 147.

The order should be affirmed, without costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 N.Y.S. 234, 64 A.D. 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/venanzio-v-weir-nyappdiv-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack