Reeves v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co.
136 A. 526
Pa.
1927
Check Treatment
Per Curiam,

Tbе application at bar, for a writ of error to removе the record to tbe Supreme Court of tbe ‍‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‍United States, rests оn tbe point covered by tbe third paragraph from the end оf the opinion [287 Pa. 376, 389-90] disposing of tbe appeal to this court. Plaintiffs, against whom tbe •point in question, among others, was decided, now ‍‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‍claims that we erred in not declaring unconstitutional tbe classification of corporations there discussed, whereby water *419 companies incorporated between April 1,1905, and April 13, 1905, stand on a different footing in certain respects from those incorporated prior to the first mentioned date, the latter when merged being able to enjoy the right of eminent domain, while the former may not. Plaintiffs contend that this classification is “disсriminatory and violates......the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stаtes” by denying “the equal protection of the laws of Pennsylvania to certain water companies.” There is nothing on this record to show that, as a matter of fact, any water companies were incorporated in the period betweеn April 1,1905, and April 13, 1905; hence, albeit the point made by appellants was, as an abstract proposition, well taken, still the rеcord ‍‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‍is bare of anything to indicate even a possibility that the alleged unconstitutional classification might affect any еxisting corporation. But, if there exists a discrimination here, it is, as appellants state, against certain water compаnies; no water company is complaining and plaintiffs do not belong to the class which they allege is discriminated against. The principle which controls this application is well statеd in 6 Ruling Case Law 90, 91, particularly in paragraph 89, from which we quotе: “A person who is seeking to raise the question as to the validity оf a discriminatory statute has no standing for the purpose unless hе belongs to the class which is prejudiced by the statute,” meaning, аs the text shows, the class discriminated against.

We refuse this apрlication because, among other reasons, so far аs petitioners are concerned, there is no constitutiоnal question involved. The rule is well established that an act of аssembly is always to be accounted constitutional, in all resрects and as to everyone, until challenged ‍‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‍by some onе who is directly affected by a part or feature of the statute claimed to be unconstitutional. In deciding constitutional аttacks upon acts of assembly, the courts do not heed аbstract propositions; they deal with actual conditions аlone, which must not only *420 affect the one complaining of the alleged unconstitutionality but also must affect him by reason of the particular defect that it is claimed makes the act unconstitutional. The only one who could be so affected here would be a company incorporated ‍‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​‍in the short рeriod before mentioned, and not persons in the position of the present appellants; both as to them and the water companies here involved, the legislation now before us is exempt from attack on the particular ground relied upon.

The prayer of the petition is refused.