People v. Wohlford
| Decision Date | 05 March 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 144.,144. |
| Citation | 197 N.W. 558,226 Mich. 166 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WOHLFORD. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Superior Court of Grand Rapids; Leonard D. Verdier, Judge.
Curtis T. Wohlford was convicted of failing to report a venereal disease treated by him to the state department of health, but upon his motion the conviction was set aside, and the People bring error. Judgment set aside, with directions to proceed to sentence.
Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Andrew B. Dougherty, Atty. Gen., and Fred L. Warner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Cornelius Hoffius, Pros. Atty., of Grand Rapids, for the People.
S. Wesselius, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.
Defendant was convicted of a violation of section 2 of Act No. 272, Public Acts of 1919, which requires physicians to report any case of venereal disease treated by them to the state department of health. Section 4 prescribes a penalty for failure to do so. He moved for his discharge in arrest of sentence, for the reason that said act is unconstitutional and void. The trial court held that the object of the act is not expressed in the title, as required by section 21 of article 5 of the Constitution of this state. The conviction was set aside, and the defendant discharged. The prosecution reviews the judgment this entered by writ of error under the provisions of Act No. 159, Public Acts of 1917. The title to Act No. 272 reads as follows:
‘An act to protect the public health; to prevent the spreading of venereal diseases, to prescribe the duties and power of the state department of health and of local health officers and health boards with reference thereto, and to make an appropriation to carry out the provisions hereof.’
The constitutional provision that ‘No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title’ is mandatory and a failure on the part of the Legislature to obey it is sufficient to void the law. The purpose of the provision is plain. It was thereby sought to prevent abuses brought about by bills having, apparently, a harmless looking title, containing provisions not discernible therefrom. The purpose of the title is to indicate the contents of the act, to challenge the attention of the legislators, and those affected by it, thereto. The test to be applied is whether the language of the title is sufficient to give notice of the general subject of the legislative act and the interests likely to be affected thereby. The effort usually made by the person drafting the bill is to make the title as concise as possible, but broad enough to indicate its scope with clearness. It does not in itself create, repeal, or put a law into effect.
The purpose of this act is clearly indicated in the first words of the title: ‘An act to protect the public health.’ The language which follows is suggestive that such protection is to be afforded by preventing the spread of venereal diseases, and that certain duties and powers are conferred upon the state department of health to accomplish this result. The general purpose is clearly expressed. The means for its accomplishment are clearly stated. In...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bankhead v. McEwan
...of Michigan v. Pray (1933), 264 Mich. 693, 251 N.W. 348; People v. Carroll (1936), 274 Mich. 451, 264 N.W. 861; People v. Wohlford (1924), 226 Mich. 166, 197 N.W. 558. The title of the act must be sufficiently broad to permit the enactment of the provisions found in the body of the legislat......
-
Rohan v. Detroit Racing Ass'n
...Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481, 494); and, second, to ‘challenge the attention’ of those affected by the act to its provisions (People v. Wohlford, 226 Mich. 166, 168, 197 N.W. 558).' Applying the above-quoted constitutional prohibition to the title and provisions of section 9 of Act No. 199, the fo......
-
Requests of Governor and Senate on Constitutionality of Act No. 294 of Public Acts of 1972, In re
...Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481, 494); and, Second, to 'challenge the attention' of those affected by the act to its provisions (People v. Wohlford, 226 Mich. 166, 168, 197 N.W. 558.)" The second question posed is whether 1972 P.A. 294 violates art. 4, § 25 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution which rea......
-
Commerce-Guardian Trust & Sav. Bank v. State
...13 Mich. 481, 495); and, second, to ‘challenge the attention’ of those affected by the act to its provisions (People v. Wohlford, 226 Mich. 166, 168, 197 N. W. 558). The duty of this court in passing upon the question presented is well expressed in Matter of Charles Hauck, 70 Mich. 396, whe......