Hume v. Vill. of Fruitport
Decision Date | 04 June 1928 |
Docket Number | No. 129.,129. |
Citation | 242 Mich. 698,219 N.W. 648 |
Parties | HUME v. VILLAGE OF FRUITPORT. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Ottawa County, in Chancery; Orien S. Cross, Judge.
Bill by George A. Hume against the Village of Fruitport. Decree for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Edward C. Farmer, of Muskegon, for appellant.
Hugh E. Lillie, of Grand Haven, for appellee.
Of Act No. 236, Local Acts of 1891, we quote the title and a section:
‘An act to incorporate the village of Fruitport, in the county of Muskegon.
Plaintiff is the owner of lands in Ottawa county included in the description set forth in the act, which lands he purchased lately on contract. He filed this bill to restrain the defendant village from exercising jurisdiction and control, including taxing, of his lands, alleging that as to his lands the law is void because of section 20, art. 4, Constitution of 1850: ‘No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.’ The same provision is in section 21, art. 5, Constitution of 1908. Plaintiff had decree. Defendant has appealed.
The sole question presented for decision is whether the act offends the quoted provision of the Constitution, and it is presented as a thing apart, free from any other matter or consideration. We dispose of it accordingly.
It may be that the words, ‘An act to incorporate the village of Fruitport,’ would have been a sufficient title, and that the words, ‘in the county of Muskegon,’ were unnecessary, but we do not agree with appellant that the words last quoted may, for that reason, be disregarded as surplusage. 36 Cyc. 1033.
A typical case of rejecting surplusage is where the title is to ‘regulate and prohibit’ and the act is merely to prohibit. No harm is done. No one is misled. The word ‘regulate’ may be discarded. Jasnowski v. Judge Recorder's Court, 192 Mich. 139, 158 N. W. 229. Under the guise of discarding surplusage, a court cannot reject a part of the title of an act for the purpose of saving the act. Schmalz v. Wooley, 56 N. J. Eq. 649, 39 A. 539.
A purpose of the provision of the Constitution is to ‘challenge the attention of those affected by the act to its provisions.’ Savings Bank v. State of Michigan, 228 Mich. 316, 200 N. W. 267.
The title here is restrictive. It restricts the operation of the act to Muskegon county. The act does beyond the restriction. As was said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bankhead v. McEwan
...applied to the local governments not indicated by the title. Wilcox v. Paddock (1887), 65 Mich. 23, 31 N.W. 609; Hume v. Village of Fruitport (1928), 242 Mich. 698, 219 N.W. 648. We hold that where, as here, the body of the act is broader in scope than the limitations of the title of the ac......
- Gillette v. Metzgar Register Co.
-
Esling v. City Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Battle Creek
...gave no intimation. People v. Collins, 3 Mich. 343;People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481;Kurtz v. People, 33 Mich. 279;Hume v. Village of Fruitport, 242 Mich. 698, 219 N.W. 648, and other cases. The Constitution requires that the titles to legislative acts shall be truthful indexes to legislation......