
    Langerwisch’s Estate.
    
      Constitutional law — Title of act — One subject — Actual or constructive intestacy — Local or special act — Change of law of descent or succession — Acts of June 7,1917, P. L. b%9, and July 11, 1917, P. L. 755 — Amending act.
    
    1. The Act of July 11,191Y, P. L. Y55, entitled “An act to amend section two, clause (a) of the Intestate Act of one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, approved June Y, 191Y, by inserting in the proviso to said clause the words “as to said five thousand dollars in value,” making it apply only “to cases of actual intestacy...... and not to cases where the surviving spouse shall elect to take against the will,” contains in its title hut one subject which is “clearly expressed,” and the act does not violate section 3, of article HI, of the Constitution.
    2. The act is a general law, not a local or special one “changing the law of descent or succession,” and does not violate section Y, clause 16, of article III, of the Constitution.
    
      Argued March 8, 1920.
    Appeal, Nos. 6 and 241, Jan. T., 1920, by Sarah Langerwisch, from decrees of O. C. Monroe Co., setting aside report of appraisers and vacating their appointment and dismissing exceptions to adjudication in estate of Diedrich Langerwisch, deceased.
    Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Petition of Sarah Langerwisch, widow of Diedrich Langerwisch, to appoint two appraisers to appraise, and set apart for her, property of the decedent to the value of $5,000, to which she claimed to be entitled. Shull, P. J.
    The record showed decedent died testate leaving no issue. The widow elected to. take against the will.
    The case turned on the constitutionality of t'he Act of July 11, 1917, P. L. 755.
    The court below held that the act applied only to cases of actual intestacy and set aside the report of the appraisers, vacated their appointment, and dismissed exceptions to the adjudication: 28 Pa. Dist. R. 470. The widow appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were the decrees of the court.
    
      Wilton A. Erdman, for appellant.
    The proviso is invalid because: It contains two subjects, one of which is not expressed in the title, or, if but one subject' (on the theory that the term intestates includes constructive intestates), that one subject is not’ clearly expressed in the title, as required by article III, section 3, of the Constitution.
    In discriminating between estates of actual intestates and estates of constructive intestates, there is an unlawful classification of estates resulting in special legislation regulating succession, forbidden by article III, section 7, of the Constitution.
    
      
      Harvey Huffman and W. B. Eilenberger, for appellee, were not heard.
    April 19, 1920:
   Per Curiam,

Diedrich Langerwisch died testate February 3, 1919, leaving a widow, but no issue. She elected to take against bis will and claimed such interest in bis real and personal estate as would have passed to ber if be bad died intestate. Her claim, disallowed by tbe court below, was for $5,000 out of ber husband’s real or personal estate, in addition to tbe exemption allowed ber by law. It was disallowed, because section 2, clause (a), of tbe Act of June 7,1917, P. L. 429, as amended by tbe Act of July 11, 1917, P. L. 755, provides tbe “clause as to said five thousand dollars in value shall apply only to cases of actual intestacy of husband or wife.” On this appeal tbe sole contention of tbe appellant' is that tbe amending act is unconstitutional, in that it violates section 3 and section 7, clause 16, of article III, of tbe Constitution. It is entitled, “An act to amend section two, clause (a), of tbe Intestate Act of one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, approved June seventh, one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, by inserting in tbe proviso to said clause tbe words As to said five thousand dollars in value.’” This title contains but one subject, which is “clearly expressed,” and tbe act is a general law, not a local or special one, “changing tbe law of descent or succession.” This is too plain for discussion.

Appeals dismissed at appellant’s costs.  