Engle v. Bonnie

• Decision Date: 11 November 1947
• Citation: 305 Ky. 850
• Parties: Engle et al. v. Bonnie et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky

305 Ky. 850

Engle et al. v.Bonnie et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Chancery Branch, Second Division.

May 16, 1947.

Rehearing denied November 11, 1947.

1. Statutes.— One of the purposes of the constitutional provision that the subject of a law enacted shall be expressed in the title is to prevent surprise or fraud, and the enactment of vicious legislation under an innocent and misleading title.Const. sec. 51.

2. Statutes.— The title of a law must give fair and reasonable notice of the nature and provisions of the law, so that a member of the Legislature or any other interested person reading the title may obtain a general notice or knowledge of the contents of the law or what it proposes to do.Const. sec. 51.

3. Statutes.— The title of a law must be a true, though not a detailed, index of its contents and, if it is restrictive, then the law must not exceed the specifications or include what is not reasonably and properly connected with or germane to it.Const. sec. 51.

4. Statutes.— Act entitled "An Act relating to cities," but relating to the incorporation of unincorporated communities or the creation of municipalities, violated constitutional provision requiring that the subject of a law enacted by the General Assembly shall be expressed in the title.Acts 1946, c. 42;Const. sec. 51.

5. Statutes.— Where section 4 of "An Act relating to cities," which requires the creation of a municipality on petition of a majority of the voters or 500 voters, was void, because the subject was not expressed in the title, and the other sections of the law would not have been enacted without the void section, all sections of the act must fall.Acts 1946, c. 42;KRS 446.090;Const. sec. 51.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.

Franklin P. Hays and Skaggs, Hays & Fahey for appellants.

Lawrence S. Grauman, James T. Robertson and H. Bemis Lawrence for appellees.

Before W. ScottMiller, Judge.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY STANLEY, COMMISSIONER.

Affirming in part, reversing in part.

The appeal is from a judgment declaring unconstitutional an Act of the Legislature, entitled "An Act relating to cities."Chapter 42, Acts of 1946, now published as KRS 81.030 et seq.In denying a writ prohibiting the circuit court from entering the judgment, we held that an appeal might be had under what we deemed to be the proper construction of the provision in the Act which denied an appeal.We construed this as applying only to a judgment on the merits, or as to the factual conditions, and not to a judicial determination as to the constitutionality of the Act.Engle v. Miller, 303 Ky. 731, 199 S.W. 2d 123.As stated there, the suit challenges the validity of the Act under which a group of inhabitants of the St. Matthews community petitioned for its incorporation as a city.

The Act made a radical revision in the law with respect to procedure for the establishment of a municipality and the classification of such new city.The essential substance of the Act requires the creation of a municipality on the petition of 500 of the voters residing within a specified area, or a majority, whichever is the less.The St. Matthews community sought to be incorporated has 9,702 inhabitants, of which 6,488 are voters.The petition for incorporation was signed by 1,003 voters.Three groups opposed incorporation upon various grounds.If the Act is constitutional, the new municipality would become a city of the third class.Section 156, Constitution.

The circuit court declared Section 4 of the Act unconstitutional as being arbitrary legislation, particularly as giving to a minority the arbitrary power to impose their will upon a majority.Section 2, Constitution.There were several other grounds of attack.We deem it necessary to consider only whether the Act must fail because of insufficiency of the title.

Section 51 of the Constitution requires that the subject of a law enacted by the General Assembly "shall be expressed in the title."The purposes of the provision have been stated many times.Among them is the important purpose to prevent surprise or fraud, and the enactment of vicious legislation under an innocent and misleading title.Therefore, the title must give fair and reasonable notice of the nature and provisions of the Act so that a member of the legislature or any other interested person reading the title may obtain a general notice or knowledge of the contents of the Act or what it proposes to do.The title must be a true although not a detailed index of the contents.If it is restrictive, then the Act must not exceed the specification or include what is not reasonably and properly connected with or germane to it.Among recent decisions so declaring these purposes are Wood v. Commonwealth, 225 Ky. 294, 8 S.W. 2d 428;Frost v. Johnson, 262 Ky. 592, 90 S.W. 2d 1045;Booth v. City of Owensboro, 275 Ky. 491, 122 S.W. 2d 118;Board of Education of Louisville v. City of Louisville, 288 Ky. 656, 157 S.W. 2d 337.In recent years draftsmen of legislative acts have profited by the opinions of this court and have made the titles very general so as to embrace within their scope almost anything having even remote relation to the subject matter indicated.Perhaps the most restrictive titles to revolutionary enactments were those held sufficient in Talbott v. Laffoon, 257 Ky. 773, 79 S.W. 2d 244, andFidelity & Columbia...