Southard v. Short

• Decision Date: 30 July 1928
• Docket Number: No. 26813.,26813.
• Citation: 8 S.W.2d 903
• Parties: GERTRUDE SOUTHARD, Appellant, v. W. BLAINE SHORT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W.2d 903

GERTRUDE SOUTHARD, Appellant, v. W. BLAINE SHORT.

No. 26813.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division One.

July 30, 1928.

Appeal from Webster Circuit Court. — Hon. C.H. Skinker, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Allen & Allen for appellant.

(1) "The requirements of Article 4. Section 28, of the Constitution that a statute shall contain but a single subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, was designed to attain unity of object in the ultimate aim of the statute, not in the details looking to that end, and the title need not refer literally to all of the details suggested by the general subject." Where all the provisions of a statute fairly relate to the same subject, have a natural connection with it, are the incidents or means of accomplishing it, the subject is single, and if it is sufficiently expressed in the title, the statute is valid under Article 4, Section 28, of the Constitution. The principle that a statute will not be held unconstitutional unless it appears to be so beyond a reasonable doubt applies to questions concerning the sufficiency of titles to acts. State ex inf. Attorney-General ex rel. Bradshaw v. Hedrick, 241 S.W. 415; Asel v. Jefferson City, 187 Mo. 195. "An act creating levy district held not invalid, because not referring in title to section imposing penalty for delinquent taxes." St. Francis Levy District v. Dorrah, 289 S.W. 931. (2) "The generality of the title will not affect its validity, where it does not tend to cover up or obscure legislation, which is in itself congruous. A requisite to congruity is that the amendatory act shall pertain to and admit of being made a consistent part of the law to be amended. The disposition of the courts has always been to avoid thwarting the efficiency or evident salutary effect of legislative action by liberal interpretation of the constitutional provisions." State v. Mullinix, 301 Mo. 385; McCue v. Peery, 238 S.W. 798. "Where all the provisions of a statute fairly relate to the same subject, have a natural connection with it, and the incidents or means of accomplishing it, then the subject is single, and if it is fully expressed in the title the statute is valid." State ex rel. v. Vandiver, 222 Mo. 206; State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439; State v. Bixman, 162 Mo. 116; Elting v. Hickman, 172 Mo. 237; State v. Doerring, 194 Mo. 408; O'Conner v. Transit Co., 198 Mo. 622; State ex inf. v. Jockey Co., 200 Mo. 56; State v. Brodnax, 228 Mo. 53; State ex rel. v. Williams, 232 Mo. 75; and numerous other decisions of this court. Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Mosby, 289 Mo. 473. (4) A misstatement of the number of the article in Chapter 1, that is referred to as Article 15, when in truth and in fact it was Article 14, will not invalidate the act. State ex rel. v. Wiethaupt, 231 Mo. 449: State ex inf. v. Ark. Lumber Co., 260 Mo. 294.

G.W. Thornberry and Rufe Scott for respondent.

(1) The title "Descents and Distributions" cannot be construed to comprehend other than hereditary succession, and the division of the estate upon the death of some person. 9 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.) 400. (a) An heir presumptive or apparent has no rights which the law recognizes in any way. Gardner v. Pace, 11 S.W. 779; Lockwood v. Jessup, 9 Conn. 228. (b) The act provides for the institution, prosecution and determination of an action at law between two persons to secure a finding and judgment of a court of record effecting personal obligations which is not within the subject of "Descents and Distributions of Estates." In re Fannie W. Goode, 3 Mo. App. 226; St. Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo. 616; Williams v. Railroad, 233 Mo. 676; State v. Burgdoerfer, 107 Mo. 30; State ex rel. v. Thomas, 313 Mo. 166; State v. Great Western Coffee & Tea Co., 171 Mo. 673; Berry v. Majestic Milling Co., 284 Mo. 182; State v. Sloan, 258 Mo. 305; Hardware Co. v. Fisher, 269 Mo. 271; State ex rel. v. Gideon, 277 Mo. 356; State v. Crites, 277 Mo. 194; Vice v. Kirksville, 280 Mo. 348; State ex rel. v. Hackman, 292 Mo. 31; State v. Rawlings, 232 Mo. 556; State ex rel. v. Wiethaup, 231 Mo. 463. (2) This being a case founded upon a statute which, if unconstitutional and void the petition and cause of action founded thereon is likewise void. McGrew v. Railroad, 230 Mo. 496.

GENTRY, J.

This suit was instituted in the Circuit Court of Stone County, but the venne was changed to Webster County. It is an action in two counts. The first count alleged that the plaintiff and defendant belonged to the white race; that plaintiff is the mother of an infant child, Bobbie Blaine Short, and that the defendant is the father of said child, which was conceived in Missouri and born out of wedlock. The petition further stated that at the time of the birth of said child, the plaintiff and defendant were not married to each other but were both single, and that they have not married since then. Prayer was then made for judgment and decree to the effect that the defendant was the father of said child, that the child bear his name and for such other orders and judgments as might to the court seem proper. The second count, after containing the same allegations as the first, alleged that plaintiff did not have the means to support said child; that the defendant possessed real and personal property, was an able-bodied man and capable of earning a good income, and that plaintiff had paid out large sums of money at the time prior and since the birth of said child for food, clothing and other necessities for herself and child, which the defendant neglected, failed and refused to provide. There was a further allegation that plaintiff was without means to prosecute this action or to pay an attorney's fee to establish the paternity of her child. Prayer was then made that the court adjudge defendant to be the father of the child that said child should bear his name, and that the plaintiff have and recover from defendant such sums as to the court may seem reasonable and proper for money expended in support of said child in the past as well as in the future. In due time, defendant filed a demurrer which challenged the sufficiency of the petition to state a cause of action, and which also challenged the act of the Legislature of Missouri, approved March 31, 1921, Section 311a, Laws of Missouri, 1921. page 118, as being in violation of Article IV, Section 28, Constitution of Missouri. The trial court sustained the demurrer, and plaintiff refused to further plead; hence this appeal.

The question uppermost in this case is, was the act in question passed in accordance with the provisions of the Missouri Constitution. Article IV, Section 28, of the Constitution provides: "No bill (except general appropriation bills, which may embrace the various subjects and accounts for and on account of which moneys are appropriated, and except bills passed under the third subdivision of Section 44 of this article) shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."

The question raised by the demurrer is, does the title of the Act of 1921 conform to this constitutional requirement. By referring to Laws of Missouri 1921, page 117, we read in the title thereof, "An Act to repeal Sections 311, 312, and 314 of Article XV of Chapter 1 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri for the year 1919, entitled `Descents and Distributions,' and to enact four new sections in lieu thereof, all relating to the descents and distributions of estates and to form a part of said Article XV of said Chapter 1, said sections to be designated and numbered, respectively, as Sections 311, 311a, 312 and 314."

Section 311a, which is the section challenged by this demurrer reads as follows:

"Child Born Out of Wedlock Authorized to Institute a Suit, When. — Whenever any child shall have been born out of lawful wedlock and the father and mother of such child shall not thereafter intermarry, then the mother of such child or any person of kin within the second degree of consanguinity shall be authorized to institute a suit in the circuit court having competent jurisdiction, the object and purpose of which shall be the obtaining of a decree establishing the paternity of said child; the practice and proceedings relative thereto shall be the same as in ordinary civil cases; providing however, that no suit shall be instituted for the establishment of such paternity wherein the child and the alleged father do not belong to the same race."

By referring to the article of Revised Statutes 1919 on the subject of descents and distributions, it will be seen that said article is not XV but Article XIV. Article XV refers to dower, while Article XIV concerns descents and distributions.

A further question involved is, does Section 311a, which provides for the bringing of a suit by a child born out of lawful wedlock against his father, and the practice and proceedings incident to such a suit properly come under the heading "Descents and Distributions of Estates."

Our Constitution very wisely provides the method for the enactment of a statute by our lawmaking body. The framers of the Constitution knew that many bills would be introduced into the General Assembly at each session, and legislators and citizens of our State learn of that fact at least every two years. During the Fifty-first General Assembly, there were 755 bills introduced in the House, and 555 bills introduced into the Senate, besides committee substitutes, as will appear from the journals of the House and of the Senate of 1921. The time for the consideration of so many bills has always been limited; hence the chance for legislative mistakes is great. The constitutional provision that the subject of the bill shall be clearly expressed in its title enables the lawmakers as well as the public to readily understand the contents of the proposed piece of legislation, and aids the former to vote intelligently thereon. Our courts have not given this provision a narrow construction, but have upheld acts...