
    Eli B. Morgan, appellant, v. Wilson Ernst et al., respondents.
    On appeal from a decree of the chancellor, whose opinion is. reported in Ernst v. Morgan, 12 Stew. Eq. 391.
    
    
      Messrs. Garrison & French, for appellant.
    The chancellor held that the act in the bill mentioned was unconstitutional in that it was a local and special law within the-prohibition of the amended constitution. Article IV. § VII. 1 10.
    
    The causes in which this question has been considered by the-supreme court are: Van Riper v. Parsons (Beasley, C. J.), 11 Vr. 1, 123; Pell v. Newark (C. J. and Chancellor), 11 Vr. 71, 553; Rutgers v. New Brunswick (Depue, J.), 13 Vr. 51; Richards v. Hammer (Beasley, C. J.), 13 Vr. 435; Tiger v. Morris Pleas (Van Syckel, J.), 13 Vr. 631; Skinner v. Collector (Magie, J.), 13 Vr. 407; Woodruff v. Freeholders (Parker, J.), 13 Vr. 533; Worthley v. Steen (Van Syckel, J.), 14, Vr. 542; Coutieri v. New Brunswick (Beasley, C. J.), 15 Vr. 58; Zeigler v. Gaddis (Scudder, J.), 15 Vr. 363; Pavonia v. Jersey City (Dixon, J.), 16 Vr. 297; Freeholders v. Stevenson (Van Syckel, J.), 17 Vr. 171; Bingham v. Gibbs (Magie, J.), 17 Vr. 513.
    
    1. The classification upon which the legislation in question was based is that sanctioned by the rule thus laid down.
    
      (a) Note that the classification was not made for the purposes-of this act, but antedated the amended constitution by a couple-of years.
    
      (b) That other acts of unquestioned constitutionality rest on this identical classification.
    2. The legislation in question arises naturally out of the-characteristics upon which this classification is based — meeting a need required by this class alone.
    
      Mr. T. JB. Harned, for respondents.
   Pee Cueiam.

This decree unanimously affirmed, for the reasons given by the chancellor.  