In view of the declared purpose of the State Housing Authorities Law, which we have already held in Ferch v. The Housing Authority of Cass County and the City of Southwest Fargo, supra, to be a proper public purpose, it is clear to us that the favored classification of "persons of low income" is neither artificial, capricious, arbitrary, nor unreasonable and is not violative of Section 20 of the North Dakota Constitution. The housing authority acts of other states have faced similar challenges which were rejected in these cases: Thomas v. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, 234 Minn. 221, 48 N.W.2d 175; McLaughlin v. Housing Authority of City of Las Vegas, 68 Nev. 84, 227 P.2d 206; Housing Authority of Los Angeles v. Dockweiler, 14 C2d 437, 94 P.2d 794; Humphrey v. City of Phoenix, 55 Ariz. 374, 102 P.2d 82; Spahn v. Stewart, 268 Ky. 97, 103 S.W.2d 651; Housing Authority of City of Dallas v. Higginbotham, 135 Tex 158, 143 S.W.2d 79, 130 ALR 1053; Denard v. Housing Authority of Fort Smith, 203 Ark. 1050, 159 S.W.2d 764; Franco v. City of New Haven, 133 Conn. 544, 52 A.2d 866; Williamson v. Housing Authority of Augusta, 186 Ga. 673, 199 S.E. 43; New York City Housing Authority v. Muller, 270 N.Y. 333, 1 N.E.2d 153, 105 ALR 905; Benjamin v. Housing Authority of Darlington County, 198 S.C. 79, 15 S.E.2d 737; Krause v. Peoria Housing Authority, 370 Ill. 356, 19 N.E.2d 193; In re Brewster Street Housing Site, 291 Mich. 313, 289 NW 493. The plaintiffs assert that the State Housing Authorities Law has no application and contains no authority for the establishment of housing projects in cities having a population of less than five thousand.

In the Hogue case, every constitutional point was presented that is urged in the case at bar save only one point subsequently to be mentioned; and in the Hogue case, this Court held the Housing Authority Act to be constitutional. In Denard v. Housing Authority, 203 Ark. 1050, 159 S.W.2d 764, the Hogue case was reaffirmed. See 19-3001 et seq. Ark. Stats.

Application and use of Housing Act in Mississippi. U.S. Housing Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C.A., Secs. 1401-1430; Sec. 7322 Code 1942; Sec. 3, Chap. 338 Laws 1938; City of Cleveland v. U.S., 323 U.S. 329, 333, 65 S.Ct. 280, 89 L.Ed. 274. II. Decisions in other states on identical legislation. U.S. Housing Act, 1937, 42 U.S.C.A., Secs. 1401-1430; In re Opinion of the Justices, 235 Ala. 485, 179 So. 535; Dennard v. Housing Authority of Ft. Smith, 203 Ark. 1050, 159 S.W.2d 764; Hogue v. Housing Authority of N. Little Rock, 201 Ark. 263, 144 S.W.2d 49; Kerr v. East Central Ark. Reg. Housing Authority, (Ark.), 187 S.W.2d 189; Humphrey v. City of Phoenix, (Ariz.), 102 P.2d 82; Housing Authority of County of Los Angeles v. Dockweiler, 14 Cal.2d 437, 94 P.2d 794; Housing Authority of City of Eureka v. Superior Court in and for Humboldt County, 219 P.2d 457; Marvin v. Housing Authority of Jacksonville, 133 Fla. 590, 183 So. 145; Hogg v. Housing Authority, City of Rome, (Ga.), 5 S.E.2d 431, 6 S.E.2d 48; Williamson v. Housing Authority, Augusta, 186 Ga. 673, 199 S.E. 43; Krause v. Peoria Housing Authority, 370 Ill. 356, 19 N.E.2d 193; Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of Muncie, (Ind.), 19 N.E.2d 741; Spahn v. Stewart, 268 Ky. 97, 103 S.W.2d 651; State ex rel. v. Housing Authority, New Orleans, 190 La. 710, 182 So. 725; Matthaei v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, Maryland, 9 A.2d 835; Allydonn Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Housing Authority, Massachusetts, 23 N.E

Courts of other jurisdictions have uniformly rejected arguments of the same nature based upon similar provisions of state constitutions. Housing Authority v. Dockweiler, 14 Cal.2d 437, 94 P.2d 794; Humphrey v. City of Phoenix, 55 Ariz. 374, 102 P.2d 82; Spahn v. Stewart, 268 Ky. 97, 103 S.W.2d 651; Housing Authority of City of Dallas v. Higginbotham, 135 Tex. 158, 143 S.W.2d 79, 130 A.L.R. 1053; Denard v. Housing Authority of Fort Smith, 203 Ark. 1050, 159 S.W.2d 764; Franco v. City of New Haven, 133 Conn. 544, 52 A.2d 866; Williamson v. Housing Authority of Augusta, 186 Ga. 673, 199 S.E. 43; Matter of New York City Housing Authority v. Muller, 270 N.Y. 333, 1 N.E.2d 153, 105 A.L.R. 905. See, also, Benjamin v. Housing Authority of Darlington County, 198 S.C. 79, 15 S.E.2d 737; Krause v. Peoria Housing Authority, 370 Ill. 356, 19 N.E.2d 193; In re Brewster Street Housing Site, 291 Mich. 313, 289 N.W. 493.

The appeal is from a decree sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. Objection No. 1. — Constitutionality of Act 298 of 1937 was the issue in Hogue v. The Housing Authority of North Little Rock, 201 Ark. 263, 144 S.W.2d 49. Most of the questions presented by the instant appeal were involved in the Hogue case. It was followed by Denard v. Housing Authority of Fort Smith, 203 Ark. 1050, 159 S.W.2d 764. In the Denard opinion there is the statement that the Hogue decision declared Act 298 to be without constitutional objection on any of the grounds upon which the controversy was predicated.