Blood v. Mercelliott

• Citation: 53 Pa. 391
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 13 May 1867
• Parties: Blood <I>et al. versus</I> Mercelliott <I>et al.</I>

53 Pa. 391

Blood et al. versus Mercelliott et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 13, 1867.

APPEAL from the decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Forest county. In Equity.

W. P. and G. A. Jenks, for appellants.

For the appellees (whose paper-book was not signed) were cited Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87; Commonwealth v. Smith, 4 Binn. 123; Moore v. Houston, 3 S. & R. 178; Eakin v. Raub, 12 Id. 339; Sharpless v. Mayor, 9 Harris 164.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 13th 1867, by READ, J.

It appears that, in pursuance of an Act of 11th April 1848, a new county was erected out of certain territory formerly part of Jefferson county, called Forest county, and the commissioners named in said act ran the lines of said new county and located a site for the seat of justice thereof at the village of Marien, where the public buildings are erected; and on the 20th May 1857, another act was passed organizing the said county of Forest for judicial purposes.

The legislature, on the 31st October 1866, passed "An act to increase the boundaries of Forest county," and also "A supplement" thereto, by which certain territory in Venango county was attached to and made part of the county of Forest. The commissioners who were authorized to run and mark the lines of the said county of Forest, were also authorized, as soon as they shall have completed a survey of the boundaries mentioned in the 1st section of the act, to relocate and fix the county seat of said county of Forest, and the commissioners of the county were authorized to take assurances to them and their successors in office of such lot or lots of ground as may have been designated by the commissioners authorized to locate the county seat, for the purpose of erecting thereon a court-house, jail and offices for the safe keeping of the records. The county commissioners were also authorized to receive by subscriptions or donations, money and materials towards defraying the expenses thereof, and for building a court-house and prison, or so much as may be needful to supply deficiencies in case there shall not be sufficiency given and subscribed as aforesaid, which court-house and prison they are authorized to erect.

The plaintiffs allege that this act is unconstitutional because, 1. It contains more than one subject. 2. The title of the act does not clearly express the subject contained in it. The question, therefore, involves the construction of the 8th section of the 11th article of the Constitution, being the second amendment of 1864, which is in these words: "No bill shall be passed by the legislature containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title, except appropriation bills."

Such a provision, in the same or different words, is to be found in the constitutions of other states. In New Jersey, in article 4, section 7, paragraph 4 of the constitution, it is in these words: "4. To avoid improper influences which may result from intermixing in one and the same acts, such things as have no proper relation to each other, every law shall embrace but one object, and that shall be expressed in the title." "The design of this provision is declared to be to prevent improper influences which may result from intermixing in one and the same act such things as have no proper relation to each other. The objects in that statute are parts of the same enterprise, and cannot be said to have any improper relation to each other:" Gifford v. New Jersey Railroad Co., 2 Stockton (N. J. Ch. R.) 177. In Iowa, the constitution requires that "every law shall embrace but one object, which shall be expressed in its title." In Morford v. Unger, 8 Clarke 86, the Supreme Court of that state said: "The object expressed in this instance was to amend the act incorporating the city. With this object, was consistent the purpose of enlarging the limits of the city. These limits were fixed by the act sought to be amended, and an alteration of them was one of the modes in which the act was subject to amendment. The general purpose was well expressed by entitling the act `An act to amend the act to incorporate the city of Muscatine,' and as entirely in...