pressed in its title, is to prevent matters which sustain no relation to each other, but are incongruous, from being united;" and the form in which the title of an act shall be expressed is a matter of legislative discretion, as such constitutional requirement is a matter merely of substance. So a title which fairly expresses the scope and purpose of the enactment is sufficient to make a law constitutional. The language of the title should also be liberally construed under the above constitutional provision; and the subject to be considered is that expressed in the title, but if it does not embrace the subject of the provision or is not properly connected therewith such provision will not be sustained, although every reasonable doubt should be resolved in favor of validity. A title to an enactment need not be and ought not to be a complete index to or an abstract of its contents; nor is it necessary that the Tennessee, having from the latter adopt one of another State, in such State only a license to construct a form as to establish the same relarailroad within its limits, between tions in the law, between the latter certain points, and to exert there corporation and the State of Tennessome of its corporate powers. see, as would exist in the case of one "Some stress is laid upon the title created by that State." Goodlett v. of that act," namely "an act to Louisville Rd., 122 U. S. 391, 408, incorporate the Louisville and Nash- 409, 30 L. ed. 1230, 7 Sup. Ct. 1254, ville Railroad Company," "as in- per Harlan, J. dicating a purpose to create a corporation, and not simply to recognize an existing one of another State, and invest it with authority to exert functions within the State of Tennes see. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Jefferson County (C. C.), 29 Fed. 305. Examine Knight, Ex parte (Fla. 1906), 41 So. 786. Union Pac. Co. v. Sprague, 69 Neb. 48, 95 N. W. 46. State, Wheeler, v. Stuht, 52 Neb. 209, 71 N. W. 941. 'State v. Coffin (Idaho, 1903), 74 Pac. 962. Knight, Ex parte (Fla., 1906), 41 So. 736. While the title of a statute should not be entirely ignored in determining the legislative intent, it cannot be used to extend or restrain any positive provisions contained in the body of the act,' and is of little weight even when the meaning of such provisions is doubtful. Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. (72 U. S.) 107, 110, 18 L. ed. 518. Looking, then, at the body of the Tennessee act * * * we find no language clearly evincing a purpose to create a new corporation, or to Bar (Pa.), 5 Lack. L. News, 229. • Commonwealth V. Broad St. Rapid Transit Co., 219 Pa. 11, 67 Atl. 958. See also Skinner v. Garnett Gold Mining Co., 96 Fed. 735. Rule applies to title of municipal ordinance. Commonwealth v. La 11 title set forth every purpose where the several objects of the enactment are connected with the chief object expressed, or are merely subdivisions of and referable to such expressed purpose.10 Again, the above constitutional provision is satisfied if the law has but one general object, and that is expressed in the title and the body of the act is germane to the title; and when the title of a statute of a State clearly and distinctly expresses the whole object of the legislature in the enactment, and there is nothing in the body of the act which is not germane to what is there expressed, the act sufficiently complies with a requirement in the constitution of the State that no law "shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title," although some details in the execution of the purpose of the legislature may not be expressed in the title.12 The generality of the title of a state statute does not invalidate it under a provision of the constitution of the State that private and local laws shall only embrace one subject, which shall be expressed in the title, so long as the title is comprehensive enough to reasonably include within the general subject or the subordinate branches thereof, the several objects which the statute seeks to effect, and does not cover legislation incongruous in itself and which by no fair intendment can be included as having any necessary and proper connection.13 If a statute contain two objects, only one of which is mentioned in the title, the entire act is not unconstitutional, but only that part not provided for in the title.14 Examine City of Topeka v. Raynor, sufficient. Dallas v. Redman, 10 61 Kan. 10, 58 Pac. 557. 19 Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. v. Jefferson County (C. C.), 29 Fed. 305; Excelsior Planting & Mfg. Co. v. Green, 39 La. Ann. 455, 1 So. 873. "Mahomet v. Quackenbush, 117 U. S. 508, 29 L. ed. 982, 6 Sup. Ct. 858. See also Skinner v. Garnett Gold Mining Co., 96 Fed. 735. If by reasonable construction the subject-matter of an act is fairly germane to the expressed title it is Colo. 297, 15 Pac. 397. 12 Carter County v. Sinton, 120 U. S. 517, 30 L. ed. 701, 7 Sup. Ct. 650. 13 Blair v. Chicago, 201 U. S. 400, 26 Sup. Ct. 427, 50 L. ed. 801, rev'g 132 Fed. 848, citing Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 27 L. ed. 431, 2 Sup. Ct. 311. 14 State, Saunders, v. Kohnke, 109 La. 838, 33 So. 793. See Hickman v. State (N. J., 1899), 44 Atl. 1099, aff'g 62 N. J. L. 499, 41 Atl. 942; It is held that courts cannot ignore a plain mandatory provision of the constitution as to the titles of acts, 15 and that such Golden Star Fraternity v. Martin, defective as violating constitution, As to sufficiency of title and constitutionality of statute thereunder, examine the following decisions: providing what the style of law of the State should be; such provision of the constitution is mandatory); Crowther v. Fidelity Ins. T. & S. D. Co. (C. C.), 85 Fed. 41, 29 C. C. A. 1, 42 U. S. App. 701, 3 Va. Law Reg. 867 (liens against mining and manufacturing companies not embraced in title and held unconstitutional); Brooks v. Roberts, 78 Fed. 411, 45 U. S. App. 395, 24 C. C. A. 158 (an act to authorize construction of dock and wharf embraces provisions granting right to individuals to erect and maintain a dock and collect wharfage with title to certain benefits); Tabor v. Commercial National Bank, 62 Fed. 383, 10 C. C. A. 429 (provisions as to liability of directors for debts on failure to file reports embraced in title of act for formation of corporations; act valid); State, Hunt, v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. (C. C.), 33 Fed. 721 (title "relating to a portion of " certain submerged lands and statute disposing of fee in part to city and in part to a railroad company with right to wharfs; title sufficiently expresses subject). United States: City of Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 46 L. ed. 392, 22 Sup. Ct. 410 (entitled: " An act to provide for the formation of street railways; embraces provisions of act, making it applicable to like corporations organized and in existence); United States V. Trans-Missouri Freight Assoc., 166 U. S. 290, 327, 41 L. ed. 1007, 17 Sup. Ct. 540 (resort to title in this case declared to create no doubt. A case of monopolies "pooling contracts," between corporations); Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 451, 36 L. ed. 226, 12 Sup. Ct. 511, 45 Alb. L. J. 372; San Antonio v. Mehaffey, 96 U. S. 312, 24 L. ed. 816, 18 Sup. Ct. 423 (an act entitled: "An act to incorporate the San Antonio Railway Company," which authorizes the city of San Antonio to subscribe for the stock of said company, and issue bonds to pay for the same is not repugnant to state constitutional provision requiring as cognate, provision permitting that "every law enacted by the legislature shall contain but one object and that shall be expressed in the title"); Montgomery Amusement Co. v. Montgomery Traction Co. (C. C.), 139 Fed. 353, aff'd Montgomery Traction Co. v. Montgomery Amusement Co., 140 Fed. 988, 72 C. C. A. 682 (title to act amending code not Alabama: Rayford v. Faulk (Ala., 1908), 45 So. 714 (act to regulate business of insurance, embraces person to insure own life for benefit of estate and exempting proceeds from creditors; and act is valid); Mobile Dry Docks Co. v. City of Mobile, 146 Ala. 198, 40 So. 205 (act unconstitutional as embracing more than the subject); Mobile, City of, v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 124 Ala. 132, 26 So. 902 (an act to amend certain 15 Wade v. Atlantic Lumber Co. (Fla., 1906), 41 So. 72. constitutional provisions as those which are considered under this section are mandatory.16 A statute which embraces more sections of an act to incorporate a 42 L. R. A. 518 (constitutional certain railroad and to "add addi- provision limiting statute to one tional sections thereto;" constitu- subject-matter expressed in title; not tional provision that act shall em- violated by statute approving an brace but one subject to be expressed adopting code). in title violated added section conferring rights and powers on a city or village to grant railroads certain rights); Birmingham N. R. Co. v. Elyton Land Co., 114 Ala. 70, 21 So. 314 (constitution providing that no law shall be revived, amended or provisions extended by reference to title only; right of railroad companies to acquire real estate by gift, purchase or conmendation); Montgomery v. National Bldg. & Loan Assoc., 108 Ala. 336, 18 So. 816 (an act to regulate the business of building and loan associations with subtitle as to state license fee; sufficiently expressed in title). California: Francais v. Somps, 92 Cal. 503, 28 Pac. 592 (requirement of itemized balance sheet from directors covered by title of act to protect stockholders in corporations for mining business; act valid). Colorado: Burton v. Snyder, 22 Colo. 173, 43 Pac. 1004 (an act relating to life and casualty insurance on the assessment plan; sufficiently expressed in title). Florida: Wade v. Atlantic Lumber Co. (Fla. 1906), 41 So. 72 (act containing land grant held not within title to incorporate a railroad company). Georgia: Central of Ga. R. Co. v. State, 104 G. 831, 31 S. E. 518, 16 Weaver v. Lapsley, 43 Ala. 224; State v. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; State v. McCann, 4 Lea (72 Tenn.), 1; State v. McCracken, 42 Tex. 383. But Illinois: People v. People's Gaslight & Coke Co., 205 Ill. 482, 68 N. E. 950 (title relating to gas companies; act not invalid which authorizes consolidation and merger, as such authority is germane to general subject); Hutchinson v. Self, 153 Ill. 542, 39 N. E. 27 (provisions as to municipal subscriptions to stock, the issue of bonds and modes of exercising such power embraced in title of act to incorporate railroad company; act valid). Indiana: State v. Commercial Ins. Co., 158 Ind. 680, 64 N. E. 466 (entitled an act to require insurance companies organized by special act to file annual reports; does not embrace matters not properly connected therewith as required by the constitution where the act requires the state auditor to examine into details, etc., of business); Maule Coal Co. of Princeton v. Partenheimer (Ind., 1899), 55 N. E. 751 (held not unconstitutional, as title embraced only one general subject sufficiently expressed; title related to mines and regulation thereof, protection of employees and right of action for death. Act March 2, 1891, acts 1891, p. 57, Burns, Rev. St. 1894, §§ 7461 et seg.); Pittsburg, C. C. & St. Louis R. Co. v. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1, 49 N. E. 582, 9 Am. & Eng. R. compare Boston Min. & Milling Co., In re, 51 Cal. 624; Weil v. State, 46 Ohio St. 450, 21 N. E. 643. than one subject which is enacted before a constitutional prohibition as to such acts is not within the prohibition.17 Cas. (N. S.) 792, 69 L. R. A. 875 1906), 108 N. W. 646, 13 Det. Leg. (title as to regulating liability of rail- N. 531 (title held sufficiently broad roads and other corporations to em- to embrace a provision imposing ployees for injury; embraces prohibi- tax on capital stock of corporations tion of contracts releasing corpora- organized under act authorizing tions from liability, also provisions formation of corporations for water creating new liability); Central Union power purposes); Blades v. Board Teleph. Co. v. Fehring, 146 Ind. 189, of Water Commrs. of City of De45 N. E. 64 (act regulating and troit, 122 Mich. 366, 81 N. W. prescribing duties of telegraph and 271 (act, including provision for telephone companies and providing changing system of supporting water for penalties; not unconstitutional). works, held violative of constituIowa: Youngerman v. Murphy, tional provision that law shall not 107 Iowa, 686, 76 N. W. 648 (constitutional requirement that tax and object be stated; not violated by act authorizing, tax to be imposed for anticipated purchase or construction of waterworks). Kansas: Manley v. Mayer, 68 Kan. 377, 75 Pac. 550 (relating to dissolution of corporations; act not unconstitutional as not within title). embrace more than one subject to be expressed in title); Burrows v. Delta Transp. Co., 106 Mich. 582, 29 L. R. A. 468, 2 Det. L. N. 503, 64 N. W. 501 (act to compel steam vessels to provide fire screens and to provide penalty for violation; subject sufficiently expressed in title); Ripley v. Evans, 87 Mich. 217, 49 N. W. 504, 10 Ry. & Corp. L. J. 250, 36 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 188 (act not unconstitutional as embracing more than one object in Kentucky: Conly v. Commonwealth, 98 Ky. 125, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 678, 32 S. W. 285 (title was cor- title where it provides for stockporations-Private-and art. en- holders' individual liability for corpo titled railroads; statute constitutional; title not embracing more than one subject). Louisiana: Standard Cotton Seed Oil Co. v. Matheson, 48 La. Ann. 1321, 20 So. 713 (authorizing certain companies to become surety on bonds required to be furnished by law; title sufficient). Maryland: State v. Schultz Gas Fixture & A. M. Co., 83 Md. 58, 34 Atl. 243 (title relating to taxes on newly incorporated corporation; law unconstitutional). rate debts for materials, and title is an act for organization of telephone companies); Fort St. Union Depot Co. v. Morton, 83 Mich. 265, 47 N. W. 228, 47 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 41 (title sufficient to justify authority granted to acquire land by condemnation). Minnesota: First National Bank v. How, 65 Minn. 187, 47 N. W. 994 (exemption from execution of life insurance money paid by co-operative or assessment companies). Missouri: State v. Murlin, 137 Michigan: Bird v. Arnott (Mich., Mo. 297, 38 S. W. 923 (regulating 17 Choctaw, O. & G. R. Co. v. Alexander, 7 Okla. 579, 52 Pac. 944, aff'd 7 Okla. 591, 54 Pac. 421. |