Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • T.H. Campbell, of Yazoo City, for appellant. The statute under which recovery is sought, is unconstitutional for the reason that it has no title. Every bill introduced into the legislature shall have a title, and the title ought to indicate clearly the subject-matter or matters of the proposed legislation. Sec. 71, Miss. Constitution 1890; Sample v. Verona, 94 Miss. 264; Levee Comrs. v. Royal Ins. Co., 96 Miss. 832; Jackson v. State, 102 Miss. 663. The constitution requires that every bill shall have a title and this requirement can only be met by providing the bill with a title that is in conformity with the subject of legislation. 25 R.C.L., p. 864, sec. 108; 36 Cyc., p. 1017. While the supreme court has, in the cases of Jackson v. State, 102 Miss. 663, Miss. University v. Waugh, 105 Miss. 623, and State v. Phillips, 109 Miss. 22, and possibly other cases, held that the constitutional provision that the title ought to clearly indicate the subject-matter of the proposed legislation is merely admonitory or directory, it has never held that the title can be misleading and contradictory to the subject-matter of the act. This court is warranted in holding that chapter 227 of Laws of 1928, has no title at all when the title is absolutely contradictory of the subject-matter dealt with in the body of that act. Appellant does not attack the constitutionality of the act in question on account of any insufficiency of its title but because its so-called title is no title within the meaning of the constitutional requirement where it is not only misleading but is absolutely contradictory of the body of the act. Wise Bridgforth, of Yazoo City, for appellee. The 1928 Act has a title and that a sufficient one. Section 71 of the Constitution requires that every statute shall have a title, and reads as follows: Every bill introduced into the legislature shall have a title, and the title ought to indicate clearly the subject-matter or matters of the proposed legislation. Our court has always held the first clause mandatory and the second admonitory only — that the legislature must provide a title for each act, but that the sufficiency of the title is a matter of legislative discretion. Jackson v. State, 102 Miss. 663, 59 So. 873, Am. Cas. 1915A, 1213; University v. Waugh, 105 Miss. 623, 62 So. 827, L.R.A. 1915D, 588; State v. Phillips, 109 Miss. 22, 67 So. 651, L.R.A. 1915D, 530; Rosenstock v. Washington Co., 112 Miss. 124, 72 So. 876; Bryan v. Greenwood, 112 Miss. 718, 73 So. 728; Roseberry v. Norsworthy, 135 Miss. 845, 100 So. 514. The title to the 1928 Act clearly indicates what section it was amending and the general intent of the amendment, but, expressing the appellant's contention in its most reasonable light, made a clerical error in writing an "and" for an "or." It is clear that section 71 of the Constitution of Mississippi has not been violated by the 1928 Act — for manifestly it has a title. Argued orally by T.H. Campbell, for appellant, and by Allan Bridgforth, for appellee.
Judges
  • Griffith, J., delivered the opinion of the court.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • T.H. Campbell, of Yazoo City, for appellant. The statute under which recovery is sought, is unconstitutional for the reason that it has no title. Every bill introduced into the legislature shall have a title, and the title ought to indicate clearly the subject-matter or matters of the proposed legislation. Sec. 71, Miss. Constitution 1890; Sample v. Verona, 94 Miss. 264; Levee Comrs. v. Royal Ins. Co., 96 Miss. 832; Jackson v. State, 102 Miss. 663. The constitution requires that every bill shall have a title and this requirement can only be met by providing the bill with a title that is in conformity with the subject of legislation. 25 R.C.L., p. 864, sec. 108; 36 Cyc., p. 1017. While the supreme court has, in the cases of Jackson v. State, 102 Miss. 663, Miss. University v. Waugh, 105 Miss. 623, and State v. Phillips, 109 Miss. 22, and possibly other cases, held that the constitutional provision that the title ought to clearly indicate the subject-matter of the proposed legislation is merely admonitory or directory, it has never held that the title can be misleading and contradictory to the subject-matter of the act. This court is warranted in holding that chapter 227 of Laws of 1928, has no title at all when the title is absolutely contradictory of the subject-matter dealt with in the body of that act. Appellant does not attack the constitutionality of the act in question on account of any insufficiency of its title but because its so-called title is no title within the meaning of the constitutional requirement where it is not only misleading but is absolutely contradictory of the body of the act. Wise Bridgforth, of Yazoo City, for appellee. The 1928 Act has a title and that a sufficient one. Section 71 of the Constitution requires that every statute shall have a title, and reads as follows: Every bill introduced into the legislature shall have a title, and the title ought to indicate clearly the subject-matter or matters of the proposed legislation. Our court has always held the first clause mandatory and the second admonitory only — that the legislature must provide a title for each act, but that the sufficiency of the title is a matter of legislative discretion. Jackson v. State, 102 Miss. 663, 59 So. 873, Am. Cas. 1915A, 1213; University v. Waugh, 105 Miss. 623, 62 So. 827, L.R.A. 1915D, 588; State v. Phillips, 109 Miss. 22, 67 So. 651, L.R.A. 1915D, 530; Rosenstock v. Washington Co., 112 Miss. 124, 72 So. 876; Bryan v. Greenwood, 112 Miss. 718, 73 So. 728; Roseberry v. Norsworthy, 135 Miss. 845, 100 So. 514. The title to the 1928 Act clearly indicates what section it was amending and the general intent of the amendment, but, expressing the appellant's contention in its most reasonable light, made a clerical error in writing an "and" for an "or." It is clear that section 71 of the Constitution of Mississippi has not been violated by the 1928 Act — for manifestly it has a title. Argued orally by T.H. Campbell, for appellant, and by Allan Bridgforth, for appellee.
Judges
  • Griffith, J., delivered the opinion of the court.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

YAZOO COUNTY v. WARREN.

STATUTES.

Where title of act deals substantially with subject-matter of act, it is sufficient.

Griffith, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

Every act of the legislature must have a title, of course. But there is a long line of decisions of this court to the effect that when there is a title, the sufficiency thereof is a legislative and not a judicial question. The argument now presented is that the title to the act, upon which the judgment in this case rests, is contradictory of the body of the act, and is therefore, as contended, no title at all. To make our decisions on this subject consistent and to conform to the evident purposes of the constitution, we now definitely say, as being all that is necessary to say on this question, in whatever phase it may be presented, that if there be a title, and that title deal substantially with the subject-matter of the act, it is sufficient in so far as the judicial department is concerned.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

YAZOO CO. v. WARREN
(Nov 17, 1930)