Marion, Bluffton And Eastern Traction Co. v. Simmons
| Decision Date | 18 June 1913 |
| Docket Number | 21,937 |
| Citation | 102 N.E. 132,180 Ind. 289 |
| Parties | Marion, Bluffton and Eastern Traction Company v. Simmons |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied October 16, 1913.
From Grant Circuit Court; H. J. Paulus, Judge.
Action by Oren J. Simmons against the Marion, Bluffton and Eastern Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Abram Simmons and Frank C. Dailey, for appellant.
J. F Charles, for appellee.
Action by appellee to collect an assessment claimed to be due from appellant on account of the construction of a certain levee in Grant County, and to foreclose a lien.
The proceedings were had under § 8729 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 219, § 122, and appellant's first contention is that this statute is void for the reason that the subject thereof is not expressed in the title of the act of which it is a part. The statute authorizes the board of public works of any city of the first, second, third or fourth class to make provision, under certain conditions, for the construction or change of levees, watercourses, drains and sewers, and was enacted as § 122 of the cities and towns act of 1905 (Acts 1905 p. 219) under the title of "An Act concerning municipal corporations".
Article 4, § 19, of our State Constitution provides that "Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title." But if the title covers a general subject, matters germane to such subject may be included in the act although not specifically mentioned in the title. Nor is it necessary that details be set out in such title. Knight & Jillson Co. v Miller (1909), 172 Ind. 27, 87 N.E. 823, 18 Ann. Cas. 1146; Swartz v. Board, etc. (1902), 158 Ind. 141, 63 N.E. 31; State v. Bailey (1901), 157 Ind. 324, 61 N.E. 730, 59 L. R. A. 435; Maule Coal Co. v. Partenheimer (1900), 155 Ind. 100, 55 N.E. 751, 57 N.E. 710; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Montgomery (1898), 152 Ind. 1, 49 N.E. 582, 69 L. R. A. 875, 71 Am. St. 300.
It was the purpose of the act of 1905 to codify and reenact the statute law of this State as it applied to the organization of cities and towns and prescribed the powers and duties of their officers and boards. Its purpose was general and, of necessity, its title was also general. The particular provisions of its many sections could not well be even suggested in more specific language, and in determining whether any given section is within the scope of the title used, it is only necessary to decide whether the subject-matter of such section is germane to the purpose for which the act was passed. One of the prime functions of a municipality is to protect and preserve the lives and property of its inhabitants. To do this, it is often necessary to make provision against the inflow of water from streams in times of flood; to remove excess water from lands by means of drains, and to guard against the spread of disease by the construction of proper sanitary systems. The statute here in question authorizes such provisions and its subject-matter is germane to the general purpose of the act of which it is a part. It is, therefore, not unconstitutional for any defect in the title of such act.
Appellant's second proposition is that, if the statute is constitutional it does not warrant a recovery against appellant in this action for the reason that no assessment against an interurban right of way is therein provided for. The statute authorizes the board of public works to make...
To continue reading
Request your trial