Holmberg v. Hauck

• Decision Date: 06 August 1884
• Citation: 20 N.W. 279,16 Neb. 337
• Parties: ADOLPH HOLMBERG, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. CONRAD HAUCK, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

20 N.W. 279

16 Neb. 337

ADOLPH HOLMBERG, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. CONRAD HAUCK, DEFENDANT IN ERROR

Supreme Court of Nebraska

August 6, 1884

ERROR to district court for Lancaster county. Tried below before POUND, J.

AFFIRMED.

Harwood Ames & Kelly, for plaintiff in error.

Caldwell & Huston, for defendant in error.

OPINION

MAXWELL, J.

In 1883 the legislature passed "an act to provide for the organization, government, and powers of cities of the second class having more than ten thousand inhabitants." The only city to which it would apply at the time of its passage was Lincoln; but as it was a general statute and intended for other cities when their population should reach the requisite number the act was sustained as not being in conflict with the constitution. State, ex rel. Jones, v. Graham ante p. 74, and we see no reason to change that decision.

Sec. 82 of the act provides that "The police judge shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all offenses against the ordinances of the city, and concurrent and co-extensive jurisdiction with county courts of all ordinary civil actions and criminal proceedings; and all provisions of law relative to practice, process, and judgments, and appeals therefrom, and stay of execution relative to county courts shall apply to and govern the police court in civil actions, and summons in civil actions shall be returnable, and such cases shall stand for trial as in justice's court." Comp. Stat., edition of 1883, 852.

Under this section of the act the plaintiff brought an action in the police court of Lincoln, against the defendants upon a promissory note to recover the sum of $ 250.50 with interest and costs. A summons was duly issued and served upon the defendant, who appeared and answered, denying the jurisdiction of the court. The objection was overruled and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $ 260.40 and costs. The cause was taken on error to the district court where the judgment of the police court was reversed and the action dismissed, upon the ground that the police court had no jurisdiction.

The question for determination by this court is, whether the legislation under the title of an act "to provide for the organization, government, and powers" of certain cities can invest the police court with extraordinary powers in civil cases.

Sec. 11, Art. III., of the constitution, provides that "No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the same shall be clearly expressed in its title."

In White v. The City of Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505, it is said the object of this provision is to prevent surreptitious legislation by incorporating into bills obnoxious provisions which have no connection with the general object of the bill, and of which the title gives no indication.

In Mahaney v. The People, 13 Mich. 481, the supreme court of Michigan say: "The practice of bringing together into one bill subjects diverse in their nature, and having no necessary connection, with a view to combine in their favor the advocates of all, and thus secure the passage of several measures no one of which could succeed upon its own merits, was one both corruptive to the legislature and dangerous to the state. The general purpose of the constitutional provision is accomplished when a law has but one general object which is...