Dorsey's Appeal

Decision Date04 November 1872
Citation72 Pa. 192
PartiesDorsey and Macklin, and Donnelly & Co.'s Appeal.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Venango county: No. 114, to October and November Term 1871.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

E. L. Keenan and James D. Hancock, for appellants, cited Grubbs v. State, 24 Ind. 265; Indiana Central Railroad v. Pott, 7 Id. 681; Prosher v. Orr, 12 Ga. 36; Fishkill v. Fishkill & Beekman Plank R., 32 Barbour 634.

Sherman & Beebe and Barry & Johns, for appellees, cited Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 9 Harris 147; Penna. Railroad v. Riblet, 16 P. F. Smith 164; Sun Ins. Co. v. New York, 4 Selden 241; People v. McCann, 2 Smith (N. Y.) 58; State v. County Judge, 2 Iowa 280; Blood v. Mercilliott, 3 P. F. Smith 391.

The opinion of the court was delivered, November 4th 1872, by AGNEW, J.

The question in this case is between the mechanics' claim creditors and the judgment creditors. The court below decided in favor of the mechanics' liens, reversing the report of the auditor who had found the other way. The case arose under a special act, and the objection is that freehold estates are not within the title of the act, and therefore that the sixth section, under which these claims were filed, is unconstitutional. The title is "An act relating to the liens of mechanics, materialmen and laborers upon leasehold estates and property thereon, in the county of Venango." The estate sold by the sheriff was a fee-simple, and not a leasehold. Reasons might be given why leaseholds should be subjected to a lien for work and materials, when a freehold would not be. The former are often of short duration, and engines, derricks, machinery, and even buildings may be removed therefrom during the term. But it is sufficient that the legislature has, by the title of the act, clearly confined the lien to leaseholds. This description ex vi termini excludes estates of a higher grade. The second amendment to the Constitution, adopted in 1864, provides that "no bill shall be passed by the legislature containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title, except appropriation bills." The word "subject" has a large signification, often embracing different kinds, different classes, and various modes, all belonging to the general subject. The word estates is itself an example, embracing fees, fee tails, estates for life, and estates for years, commonly called leaseholds. Had the qualifying term "leaseholds" been omitted in this title, all the various kinds of estates of freehold would have been comprehended within the title, and the sale of a freehold interest under the lien would have been good. Mere generality of meaning in the title ought not to avoid a law. For instance, the title, "An act relating to executions," is quite general as an expression of the subject of the act; yet no one could doubt the power of the legislature, under this title, to provide for the various kinds of executions generally comprised within the term execution; as for example writs of fieri facias, liberari facias, levari facias, venditioni exponas, &c. So an act relating to actions might include covenant,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
70 cases
  • State v. Coffin
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 26, 1903
    ......327, 6 N.E. 480; Leach v. People, 122 Ill. 421, 12 N.E. 726; Dolese v. Pierce, 124 Ill. 140, 16 N.E. 218; Dorsey's Appeal,. 72 Pa. 192; Moses v. Mayor, 52 Ala. 198; Davis. v. State, 7 Md. 160, 61 Am. Dec. 331; Brieswick v. Mayor, 51 Ga. 639, 21 Am. Rep. 240; ......
  • Commonwealth v. McKenty
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • December 9, 1912
    ...... particular, if in none other, clearly violates the. constitutional requirement: Barrett's Appeal, 116 Pa. 486; Titusville Iron Works v. Keystone Oil Co., 122. Pa. 627; Lloyd v. Smith, 176 Pa. 213; Oil City and. Petroleum Bridge, 9 Pa. Dist. ......
  • Tranter v. Allegheny County Auth.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • June 13, 1934
    ...expressed in its title." The purpose of this provision has been many times stated by us. Beginning at least as far back as Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. 192, 195, we said: "The title should be so certain as not to mislead. The language of the amendment is 'one subject which shall be clearly expre......
  • In re Fourth Judicial District
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 24, 1893
    ...... incongruous matters. The purpose of the latter is thus. tersely and forcibly stated in Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. 192: 'Another purpose was to give information to the. members, or others interested, by the title of the bill, of. the contemplated ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT