Affholder v. State ex rel. McMullen

• Decision Date: 17 March 1897
• Citation: 70 N.W. 544,51 Neb. 91
• Parties: AFFHOLDER ET AL. v. STATE EX REL. MCMULLEN.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

51 Neb. 91

70 N.W. 544

AFFHOLDER ET AL.

v.STATE EX REL. MCMULLEN.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 17, 1897.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Section 11, art. 3, of the constitution should be so liberally construed as to admit of the insertion in a legislative act of all provisions which, though not specifically expressed in the title, are comprehended within the objects and purposes of the act as expressed in its title; and to admit all provisions which are germane, and not foreign, to the provisions of the act as expressed in its title.

2. Chapter 46, Sess. Laws 1891, contains no subject that is not germane to the object of the act as expressed in its title, and therefore does not violate the provisions of section 11, art. 3, of the constitution, that “no bill shall contain more than one subject, and the same shall be clearly expressed in its title.”

3. Said act is complete in itself, and does not violate the requirement of section 11, art. 3, of the constitution, that “no law shall be amended unless the new act contain the section or sections so amended and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed.”

Error to district court, Burt county; Ambrose, Judge.

Mandamus by the state, on the relation of Peter McMullen, against Ambrose Affholder and others. From a judgment for relator, respondents bring error. Affirmed.H. H. Bowes, for plaintiffs in error.

Chas. T. Dickinson, for defendant in error.

John H. Barry and H. Gilkeson, amici curiæ.

RAGAN, C.

In the district court of Burt county, Peter McMullen made application for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel Ambrose Affholder and others, constituting the school board of school district No. 58 of said county, to purchase and furnish to the children of school age of said district necessary text-books in accordance with the provisions of chapter 46 of the Laws of 1891, being subdivision 18 of chapter 79, Comp. St. An alternative writ was issued, and for a return thereto the school board interposed the defense that said act was unconstitutional. The writ was issued as prayed, and the school board has prosecuted here a petition in error.

1. The first argument is that the act under consideration violates section 11, art. 3, of the constitution, which provides that “no bill shall contain more than one subject, and the same shall be clearly expressed in its title.” The title of the act in question is, “An act to provide cheaper text books and for district ownership of the same.” Sess. Laws 1891, c. 46, p. 334. Section 10 of this act also providesthat “the provisions of this act shall include all school supplies.” The argument is that the object of the act, as expressed by its title, is to require school boards to provide text-books for their districts, and that the subject “supplies,” mentioned in the tenth section of the act, is not included in, nor germane to, the term “text-books,” the subject of the act under consideration. In other words, it is insisted that the act in question contains two subjects, viz. “text-books,” which is provided for in the title of the act, and “school supplies,” which is not mentioned in the title of the act. But this constitutional provision should be liberally construed, and so construed as to admit of the insertion in a legislative act of all provisions which, though not specifically expressed in the title, are comprehended within the objects and purposes of the act as expressed in its title; and to admit all provisions which are germane, and not foreign, to the purposes of the act as expressed in its title. Barnhill v. Teague, 96 Ala. 207, 11 South. 444;State v. Madson (Minn.) 45 N. W. 856. In Railroad Co. v. Frey, 30 Neb. 790, 47 N. W. 87, it was held that: “A bill which has but one general object, that is clearly...