Joyce v. Woods

• Decision Date: 11 March 1880
• Citation: 78 Ky. 386
• Parties: Joyce v. Woods.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

Page 386

78 Ky. 386

Joyce v. Woods.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 11, 1880.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CHANCERY COURT.

T. F. HALLAM FOR APPELLANT.

No brief for appellee.

JUDGE HINES DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

Under an act, approved April 23d, 1873, entitled "An act to amend the charter of the city of Covington," the city council, by ordinance, declared a lot belonging to appellant, which was covered by stagnant water filled with putrid substances, to be a nuisance, and notified appellant that he must either fill or drain the lot within fifteen days after notice or that the city would cause it to be done at his expense. On failure of appellant to fill or drain the lot, it was filled by appellee, under contract with the city, and appellant refusing to pay appellee, he brought this action and obtained judgment subjecting the lot to the payment of the claim. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted, appellant claiming a reversal on two grounds:

First. Because the act under which the council proceeded is in violation of section 37, article 2, of the constitution of this state;

Second. Because the council declared the nuisance without any notice to appellant to defend.

The objection under the first head is that the body of the act does not designate the city of Covington by name. It reads: "Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That the city council," &c.

The section of the constitution invoked in aid of this objection is as follows: "No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." No question is made that the subject of the act is referred to in the title, provided the body of the act is sufficiently identified with or by the title to be operative at all. We are unable to perceive wherein the constitution interferes with the operation of this act. But for this provision the act might be operative without a title, or even in case where the title was in conflict with the body of the act. In that sense, then, and in the absence of such a constitutional provision, it may well be said that the title is no part of the act, but here the constitution makes the title a part of the act, even to such an extent as to control the application of the act itself. Instead of its being the duty of the courts to disregard the title, they are compelled by the constitution to consider both the body and the title in order to arrive at the legislative intention. When thus considered there can be no doubt, in the present instance, that the body of the act has reference to the city of Covington, and that the words "city council" refer to the council of the city of Covington.

The second question is one of more difficulty. It is whether the...