Superior Court of Cincinnati.

Church, 8 Ohio 298, 299; Williams v. Society, 1 Ohio St. 488; Cincinnati v. Evans, 5 Ohio St. 594; Oxford Tp. v. Columbia, 38 Ohio St. 87; Lane v. Kennedy, 13 Ohio St. 42; Heddleston v. Hendricks, 52 Ohio St. 460 [40 N. E. Rep. 408]; Van Horne v. Railway Co. 48 N. J. Eq. 332 [21 Atl. Rep. 1034]; 2 Wood, Nuisances Secs. 727, 281; 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 426; 22 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 1187, 1190, 1191; Booth, Street Railways Sec. 206; Galway v. Railway Co. 128 N. Y. 132, 138, 142; Railway Co. v. Hambleton, 40 Ohio St. 496; Wood, Nuisances Sec. 716; L. R. 1 E. & J. Appeals 254; 18 Q. B. 287; 3 H. L. Cas. 812; 1 Man. & Gr. 392; Jones, Easements Secs. 71, 80, 83; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law 875; Texas W. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 83 Tex. 153 [18 S. W. Rep. 325]; 68 Ala. 48; Elster v. Springfield, 49 Ohio St. 82, 98 [30 N. E. Rep. 274].

The Rogers law (92 O. L. 277), being a special act conferring corporate power, is invalid. State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St. 18; State v. Cincinnati, 23 Ohio St. 445; State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592; State v. Pugh, 43 Ohio St. 98, 112 [1 N. E. Rep. 439]; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 53 Ohio St. 386 [41 N. E. Rep. 690]; State v. Smith, 48 Ohio St. 211 [26 N. E. Rep. 1069]; Bronson v. Oberlin, 41 Ohio St. 476; Kenton v. State, 52 Ohio St. 59 [38 N. E. Rep. 885]; Merrill v. Toledo, 3 Circ. Dec. 524 (6 R. 430) (affirmed by Supreme Court, 29 Bull. 220); State v. Baker, 55 Chio St. 1, 10 [44 N. E. Rep. 516]; Costello v. Wyoming, 49 Ohio St. 202 [30 N. E. Rep. 613]; Carr v. West Carrollton, 4 Circ. Dec. 303 (8 R. 1); State v. Ellet, 47 Ohio St. 90 [23 N. E. Rep. 931]; Commissioners v. Rosche, 50 Ohio St. 103 [33 N. E. Rep. 408; 19 L. R. A. 584]; Coal Co. v. Rosser, 53 Ohio St. 12 [41 N, E. Rep. 263]; Cincinnati v. Steinkamp, 54 Ohio St. 284 [43 N. E. Rep. 490]; State v. Gardner, 58 Ohio St. 599 [51 N. E. Rep. 136; 41 L. R. A. 689]; State v. Bargus, 53 Ohio St. 94 [41 N. E. Rep. 245]; State v. Davis, 55 Ohio St. 15 [44 N. E. Rep. 511]; Gaylord v. Hubbard, 56 Ohio St. 25 [46 N. E. Rep. 66]; Emery v. Coles, 7 Dec. 414 (5 N. P. 199); Hall v. Kleeman, 6 Dec. 323 (4 N. P. 201); Hubbard v. Fitzsimmons, 57 Ohio St. 436 [49 N. E. Rep. 477]; Silberman v. Hay, 59 Ohio St. 582 [53 N. E. Rep. 258]; State v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St. 273 [54 N. E. Rep. 272]; Diemer v. Hudson, 9 Circ. Dec. 858 (18 R. 890); Hixon v. Burson, 54 Ohio St. 470 [43 N. E. Rep. 1000]; State v. Bader, 5 Circ. Dec. 48 (12 R. 189); Sullivan v. Williams, 5 Dec. 577 (7 N. P. 562); Mott v. Hubbard, 59 Ohio St. 199 [53 N. E. Rep. 47].

J. W. Warrington and E. W. Kittredge, for defendant:

No corporate power conferred on street railroad companies by Sec. 2505d Rev. Stat. Vought v. Railway Co. 58 Ohio St. 123 [50 N. E. Rep. 442]; San Francisco v. Waterworks Co. 48 Cal. 493; Southern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Orton, 32 Fed. Rep. 457, 476.

No street railroad company in fact excluded; no invalid classification.

Horstman v. Cincinnati St. Ry. Co.

State v. Railway Co. 53 N. J. Law 108, 111 [20 Atl. Rep. 762]; Owen v. Sioux City, 91 Iowa 190, 196 [59 N. W. Rep. 3]; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 304 [16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1086]; State v. Cincinnati, 52 Ohio St. 419, 449 [40 N. E. Rep. 508; 27 L. R. A. 737]; Hayes v. Cleveland, 55 Ohio St. 117, 124 [44 N. E. Rep. 518]; Brady v. State, 59 Ohio St. 546, 552 [53 N. E. Rep. 63]; State v. Wall, 47 Ohio St. 499, 500 [24 N. E. Rep. 897].

Classification. Snell v. Railway Co. 60 Ohio St. 256, 267 [54 N. E. Rep. 270]; Adler v. Whitbeck, 44 Ohio St. 539, 574 [9 N. E. Rep. 672]; State v. Nelson, 52 Ohio St. 88, 99 [39 N. E. Rep. 22; 26 L. R. A. 317].

Isolation the rule in classification of cities. Cincinnati v. Taft, 63 Ohio St. 141 [58 N. E. Rep. 63]; State v. Jones, 66 Ohio St. 453, 485 [64 N. E. Rep. 424].

Rule applicable to private as well as municipal corporations. Horstman v. Railway Co. 12 Dec. 756, 763; State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St. 18; Platt v. Craig, 66 Ohio St. 75, 79 [63 N. E. Rep. 594]; State v. Jones, supra.

Legislative classification, and decisions approving same in Ohio. State v. McMaken, 58 Ohio St. 731 [51 N. E. Rep. 1101]; Hamilton v. Clawson, 55 Ohio St. 678 [48 N. E. Rep. 1111]; Hayes v. Cleveland, 55 Ohio St. 117, 124 [44 N. E. Rep. 518]; Brady v. State, 59 Ohio St. 546, 552 [53 N. E. Rep. 63]; State v. Wall, 47 Ohio St. 499, 500 [24 N. E. Rep. 897]; State v. Toledo, 48 Ohio St. 112 [26 N. E. Rep. 1061; 11 L. R. A. 729]; Kenton v. State, 52 Ohio St. 59, 61 [38 N. E. Rep. 885]; State v. Baker, 55 Ohio St. 1, 10 [44 N. E. Rep. 516]; Merrill v. Toledo, 3 Circ. Dec. 524, 527 (6 R. 430); Horstman v. Railway Co. 12 Dec. 756, 769, 770; Cincinnati v. Ferguson, 12 Dec. 439, affirmed Cincinnati v. Ferguson, 66 Ohio St. 658 [65 N. E. Rep. 1126]; see 12 Dec. 516; State v. Pugh, 43 Ohio St. 98 [1 N. E. Rep. 439]; State v. Smith, 48 Ohio St. 211 [26 N. E. Rep. 1069]; State v. Anderson, 44 Ohio St. 247 [6 N. E. Rep. 571]; Dietz v. Cleveland, 55 Ohio St. 645 [48 N. E. Rep. 1111]; State v. Davis, 55 Ohio St. 15 [44 N. E. Rep. 511]; Seifert v. Weidner, 55 Ohio St. 646 [48 N. E. Rep. 1117]; Hixson v. Burson, 54 Ohio St. 470 [43 N. E. Rep. 1000]; State v. Judges, 21 Ohio St. 1; State v. Brewster, 39 Ohio St. 653; State v. Hawkins, 44 Ohio St. 98, 108 [5 N. E. Rep. 228]; State v. Hudson, 44 Ohio St. 137 [5 N. E. Rep. 225]; Marmet v. State, 45 Ohio St. 63 [12 N. E. Rep. 463]; McGill v. State, 34 Ohio St. 228; State v. Toledo, 48 Ohio St. 112 [26 N. E. Rep. 1061; 11 L. R. A. 729]; State v. Cincinnati, 52 Ohio St. 419 [40 N. E. Rep. 508; 27 L. R. A. 737]; Bronson v. Oberlin, 41 Ohio St. 476; Adler v. Whitbeck, 41 Ohio St. 539 [9 N. E. Rep. 672]; Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 661 [11 N. E. Rep. 321]; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; State v. Turnpike

Superior Court of Cincinnati.

Co. 37 Ohio St. 481; Terre Haute & I. Ry. Co. v. Cox, 102 Fed. Rep. 825 [42 C. C. A. 654]; Point Breeze Ferry Co. v. Railway Co. 53 N. J. Law 108 [20 Atl. Rep. 762]; Shields v. State, 26 Ohio St. 86, affirmed Shields v. State, 4 O. F. D. 471 [95 U. S. 319]; State v. McDaniels, 22 Ohio St. 354; Dutoit v. Doyle, 16 Ohio St. 400, 407; State v. Sherman, 22 Ohio St. 411, 412; New York Elevated Ry. Co. In re, 70 N. Y. 327, 351; State v. Nelson, 52 Ohio St. 88, 100 [39 N. E. Rep. 22]; State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St. 18; State v. Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 592, 607; Pittsburgh, Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 53 Ohio St. 386 [41 N. E. Rep. 690]; Costello v. Wyoming, 49 Ohio St. 202, 212 [30 N. E. Rep. 613]; State v. Hoffman, 35 Ohio St. 435, 443; Platt v. Craig, 66 Ohio St. 75, 78 [63 N. E. Rep. 594]; Fields v. Highland Co. (Comrs.) 36 Ohio St. 476; State v. Bargus, 53 Ohio St. 94 [41 N. E. Rep. 245]; Lewis v. Symmes, 61 Ohio St. 471 [56 N. E. Rep. 194]; Findlay (City) v. Pendleton, 62 Ohio St. 80, 89 [56 N. E. Rep. 649].

Do provisions limiting duration of law to fifty years, and reserving right of readjustment at end of twenty years and every fifteen years thereafter, from date of passage of act, render the law special? Southern Gum Co. v. Laylin, 66 Ohio St. 578 [64 N. E. Rep. 564]; Baker v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio St. 534, 542; State v. Covington, 29 Ohio St. 102, 113; State v. Smith, 44 Ohio St. 348, 372 [7 N. E. Rep. 447; 12 N. E. Rep. 829]; Sutherland, Stat. Const. Sec. 107; People v. Salomon, 51 Ill. 37; Blanding v. Burr, 13 Cal. 343, 358; Plummer v. Jones, 84 Me. 58, 64 [24 Atl. Rep. 585]; Workman v. Worcester, 118 Mass. 168; Stone v. Charlestown, 114 Mass. 214; Hobart v. Butte Co. (Supervisors) 17 Cal. 23, 24; Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 184, 200; 1 Kent's Commentaries (7 ed.) 454; 1 Kent's Commentaries (14 ed.) 455, 458; Smets v. Thomas, R. M. Charlton (Ga.) 537; Matthews v. Zane, 20 U. S. (7 Wheat.) 164; The Sally, 21 Fed. Cas. 242 [1 Gall. 58]; People v. Clark, 1 Cal. 406, 408; Welman, In re, 20 Vt. 653, 661; People v. Wright, 70 Ill. 388; Welker v. Potter, 18 Chio St. 85; Potter's Dwarris on Statutes, 52 et seq.; Owen v. Sioux City, 91 Iowa 190 [59 N. W. Rep. 3]; 23 Enc. Law (1 ed.) 155, temporary statutes; Hazlett v. Butler University, 84 Ind. 230; Kittinger v. Traction Co. 160 N. Y. 377 [54 N. E. Rep. 1081]; Bohmer v. Haffer, 161 N. Y. 390, 407, 409 [55 N. E. Rep. 1047]; Berks Co. v. Railway Co. 167 Pa. St. 102 [31 Atl. Rep. 474, 663]; 1 Verdon's Dig. 1700 to 1904, pp. 32 and 33; Cincinnati v. Anderson, 52 Ohio St. 600 [43 N. E. Rep. 1040]; Bode v. Cincinnati, 6 Circ. Dec. 56 (9 R. 382); State v. Nelson, 52 Chio St. 88, 97, 98 [39 N. E. Rep. 22]; People v. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436 [18 Pac. Rep. 413]; Falk, Ex parte, 42 Ohio St. 638, 641; State v. Turnpike Co. supra; State v. Hoffman, 35 Ohio St. 435; Platt v. Craig, 66 Ohio St. 75 [63 N. E. Rep. 594]; Senior v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 661, 678 [11 N. E. Rep. 321]; State v. Hogan, 63

Horstman v. Cincinnati St. Ry. Co.

Ohio St. 202 [58 N. E. Rep. 572]; Atkinson v. Railway Co. 15 Ohio St. 21; State v. Cincinnati, 20 Ohio St. 18; State v. Cincinnati, 52 Ohio St. 419 [4 N. E. Rep. 508; 27 L. R. A. 737].

Additional grounds suggested by plaintiff and recited in opinion without decision. Indianapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Blackman, 63 Ill. 117; Burt v. Rattle, 31 Ohio St. 116; Pike v. Kennedy, 15 Ore. 420, 426 [15 Pac. Rep. 637]; Zumstein v. Mullen, 67 Ohio St. 382 [66 N. E. Rep. 140].

Direct legislative grant. Zanesville v. Telegraph & Telephone Co. 64 Ohio St. 67, 77 [59 N. E. Rep. 781]; Hamilton, G. & C. Traction Co. v. Parish, 67 Ohio St. 1 [65 N. E. Rep. 1011]; Cincinnati & S. G. Ave. St. Ry. Co. v. Cumminsville, 14 Ohio St. 523, 544; Kumler v. Silsbee, 38 Ohio St. 445, 447; State v. Gas L. & C. Co. 18 Ohio St. 262, 291; Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, 10 O. F. D. 112 [76 Fed. Rep. 296, 314; 22 C. C. A. 334; 47 N. S. App. 36]; People v. Kerr, 27 N. Y. 188, 213, 214; People v. Law, 34 Barb. 494, 495, 515; Potter v. Collis, 46 N. Y. Supp. 471, 474 [19 App. Div. 392]; Kittinger v. Traction Co. 160 N. Y. 377, last 384, 393 [54 N. E. Rep. 1081]; Millbridge & C. Elec. Ry. Co. 96 Me. 110, 115 [51 Atl. Rep. 818]; Millvale Bor. v. Railway Co. 131 Pa. St. 1, 22, 23 [18 Atl. Rep. 993; 7 L. R. A. 369]; Savannah & T. Ry. v. Savannah (Mayor), 45 Ga. 602; Atlanta v. Gas Light Co. 71 Ga. 106, 107, 123, 125; Patterson & H. Ry. Co. v. Patterson (Mayor), 24 N. J. Eq. 158, 159, 164; C. N. & S. R. Co. v. Mayor, 36 Ia. 297, at 303-?; Milwaukee v. Railway Co. 7 Wis. 85, 99; Berks Co. v. Railway Co. 167 Pa. St. 102, 114 [31 Atl. Rep. 474, 663]; Miller v. Dunn, 72 Cal. 462, 464 [14 Pac. Rep. 27].

Retrospective curative measure. State v. Jones, 66 Ohio St. 453 [64 N. E. Rep. 424]; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cuyahoga Co. (Comrs.) 12 O. F. D. 619 [106 Fed. Rep. 123; 45 C. C. A. 233]; Hubbard v. Fitzsimmons, 57 Ohio St. 436 [49 N. E. Rep. 477]; Hinch v. Cincinnati, and affirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, 31 W. L. B. 252. The decision. of the Supreme Court upholding this statute was again followed by the circuit court in the case of Bode v. Cincinnati, 6 Circ. Dec. 56 [9 R. 382]; and the validity of the statute was again upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Cincinnati v. Anderson, 52 Ohio St. 600 [43 N. E. Rep. 1040]. A strong illustration of the principle underlying these decisions. is found in State v. Richland Tp. 20 Ohio St. 362; Cole v. La Grange, 113 U. S. 1, 7 [5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 416]; Sturges v. Carter, 5 O. F. D. 428 [114 U. S. 511; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1014]; Kumler v. Silsbee, 38 Ohio St. 445; Jefferson City G. L. Co. v. Clarke, 95 U. S. 644, 655; Rev. Stat. 99, note; State v. Hoffman, 35 Ohio St. 435; New Orleans v. Clark, 95 U. S. 644; Read v. Plattsmouth, 107 U. S. 568, 574 [2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208]; Sutherland, Statutes & Statutory Construction Sec. 483; Cooley, Const.

Superior Court of Cincinnati.

Lim. (6 ed.) 466 et seq.; statute of limitations, including Sec. 137 of the new municipal code. Little Miami Ry. Co. v. Greene Co. (Comrs.) 31 Ohio St. 338, 344.

Further as to Sec. 137. Miller v. Graham, 17 Ohio St. 1; United States v. Schooner "Peggy," 5 U. S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110; Pennsylvania v. Bridge Co. 59 U. S. (18 How.) 421; Wetmore v. Law, 34 Barb. 515; Dinsmore v. Express Co. 183 U. S. 115, 120 [22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 45]; State v. Norwood, 12 Md. 195; Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420, 421, syl. 4; Hartung v. People, 22 N. Y. 95, 108, 109.

Sections 137 and 31 in pari materia. Ottaquechee Woolen Co. v. Newton, 57 Vt. 451, 467; Stedman v. Berlin, 97 Wis. 505, 509 [73 N. W. Rep. 57]; State v. Railway Co. 140 Mo. 539, 551 [41 S. W. Rep. 955]; Probasco v. Raine, 50 Ohio St. 378 [34 N. E. Rep. 536]; Richardson v. Melish, 2 Bing. 33; Atlanta v. Gas Light Co. [71 Ga. 106]. SMITH, J.

This case was before us on a previous occasion on a demurrer to the answer, which raised the question whether the law popularly known as the "Rogers law," under which the defendant asserts its right to act in the manner complained of by plaintiff, is a constitutional enactment. The decision of the court was that the law was unconstitutional, and the case remanded to special term for further proceedings. Horstman v. Street Railway Co. 12 Dec. 756.

Subsequently at special term, by leave of court, the defendant filed an amended answer setting up four defenses in addition to the defense made in the original answer, and the plaintiff having filed demurrers to these defenses, the demurrers were reserved to general term, and the questions raised by the same are now before us for decision.

Preliminary to the argument of the questions raised by the additional defenses set up in the amended answer, counsel for defendant have reargued at great length, both orally and by brief, the question of the constitutionality of the "Rogers law." Our decision upon that question was the result of careful study, and the reargument has not tended to disturb our confidence in the correctness of our former conclusions. We believe such conclusions to be unquestionably sound and the argument set forth to sustain them unanswerable.

We proceed, therefore, to the consideration of the new questions raised by the additional defenses set up in the amended answer, and we shall consider them, not in the order in which they appear in the amended answer, but rather in the order which a logical discussion of the questions raised by them would suggest as the most proper.

Subsequently to the decision in this case, declaring the "Rogers law" unconstitutional, the general assembly of the state met in special session, pursuant to a call of the governor, for the purpose of revising the munic