Allegheny County Home's Case

• Decision Date: 16 November 1874
• Citation: 77 Pa. 77
• Parties: Allegheny County Home's Case.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

77 Pa. 77

Allegheny County Home's Case.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

November 3, 1874.

November 16, 1874.

November 3d 1874.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, WILLIAMS, MERCUR and GORDON, JJ.

Appeal from the Court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny county: Of October and November Term 1874, No. 228 R. Woods and G. P. Hamilton (with whom was S. Woods), for certiorari, cited Constitution of Pennsylvania, art. 1, § 8, 1 Br. Purd. 34 (Amendments of 1864); Yeager v. Weaver, 14 P. F. Smith 427.

J. I. Kuhn, contrà.—Although the 3d section of the act be void, this does not render the other sections void: Williams v. Payson, 11 Louisiana Ann. Rep. 7; Blood v. Mercelliott, 3 P. F. Smith 391; Commonwealth v. Green, 8 Id. 234; Dorsey's Appeal, 22 Id. 192. It is sufficient for the requirements of the Constitution, if the provisions of an act come fairly within the object expressed in the title: Church Street, 4 P. F. Smith 353; Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 New York Rep. 116; Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 184.

Judgment was entered in the Supreme Court, November 16th 1874.

PER CURIAM.

The assignments of error raise but one question, to wit: the constitutionality of the Act of April 25th 1871, entitled "An Act providing for an equitable division of property between the county of Allegheny and the city of Pittsburg."

Perhaps the petition ought to have used the names of the city and county, and not of the guardians of the poor; but as the poor districts of the city and the county are respectively identical with the city and county in regard to the interests involved in the proceeding, the error is of no moment, and at all events is not assigned.

The act is clearly constitutional as to the city of Pittsburg and the county of Allegheny, these parties being named in the title. If the section relating to the city of Allegheny be unconstitutional, as asserted, it does not affect that part of the act referred to in the title. Dorsey's Appeal, 22 P. F. Smith, 192. The course of decision in this court has been intended to carry out the true intent of the amendment of 1864, as to the title and subject of bills, instead of resorting to sharp criticism, which must often bring legislation to nought. The Amendment of 1864 was in substance proposed in the Constitutional Convention of 1837-8, and rejected, because it was feared it would render legislation too difficult and uncertain and lead to litigation. It will not do, therefore, to impale the legislation of the state upon the sharp points of criticism, but we must give each title, as it comes before us, a reasonable interpretation, ut res magis valeat quam pereat. If the title fairly gives notice of the subject of the act, so as reasonably to lead to an inquiry into the body of the bill, it is all that is necessary. It need not be an index to the contents, as...