State ex rel. Taylor v. Greene Circuit Court

• Decision Date: 07 November 1945
• Docket Number: 28129.
• Citation: State ex rel. Taylor v. Greene Circuit Court, 223 Ind. 562, 63 N.E.2d 287 (Ind. 1945)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. TAYLOR v. GREENE CIRCUIT COURT et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

63 N.E.2d 287

223 Ind. 562

STATE ex rel. TAYLOR v. GREENE CIRCUIT COURT et al.

No. 28129.

Supreme Court of Indiana

November 7, 1945

Clinton H. Givan, of Indianapolis, for relator.

Paul Haywood, of Bloomfield, and Kern G. Beasley, of Linton, for respondent.

GILKISON Judge.

An original action was filed in this court by the plaintiff praying that a writ of prohibition issue against the defendant, the Greene Circuit Court, and Karl Parker Vosloh Judge thereof, prohibiting further action in a cause entitled, Georgia Irene Chaney v. Elbert Taylor, filed in said court on September 18, 1944.The purpose of the action in said court was to secure the relief provided for an unmarried mother, her illegitimate child, and other interested persons by Chapter 112, Acts 1941, page 301 et seq., approved March 6, 1941, Burns' 1933 (Supp.)§ 3-623 to § 3-655, inclusive.

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the law under which the action is brought is unconstitutional because its title is not broad enough to cover the subject of the act.

The title of the act is: 'An Act concerning children born out of wedlock.'There are thirty-six sections in the act covering many matters in which such a child or its mother might be interested, including those who may extend credit to them in their support and maintenance, and the institution and trial of an action to establish the paternity.It clothes juvenile courts with jurisdiction of the action, and fixes either the county where the mother or child, or the alleged father, resides or may be found as the place where the action may be commenced.It also provides for registration of the child's birth by the State Board of Health, and the maintenance of secrecy that it was born out of wedlock.It also repeals all conflicting laws and specifically repeals four former laws providing for the prosecution of bastardy proceedings, and many other things.

Article 4, § 19, of the Constitution of Indiana provides as follows:

'Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith; which subject shall be expressed in the title.But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in the title.'

The title of an act, therefore, should embrace a single subject that is reasonably particular.It should indicate the character of the sections of the act and the means by which the ends are to be accomplished.Trainer v. State,1926, 198 Ind. 502, 505, 506, 154 N.E. 273;Baldwin v State,1923, 194 Ind. 303, 305, 306, 141 N.E. 343;State v. Bailey,1901, 157 Ind. 324, 326, 61 N.E. 730, 59 L.R.A. 435;Henderson, Auditor, v. London & Lancashire Insurance Co., 1893, 135 Ind. 23, 25, 32, 34 N.E. 565, 20 L.R.A. 827, 41 Am.St.Rep. 410;Indiana Central Ry. Co. v. Potts et al.,1856, 7 Ind. 681, 683.

The position of our courts with respect to the sufficiency of a title, expressed in general terms, is fairly explained as follows:

'Generality of a title is not objectionable if it is not made a cover to legislation incongruous in itself, and which by no fair intendment can be considered as having a necessary or proper connection.'Sarlls, City Clerk, v. State ex rel. Trimble,1929, 201 Ind. 88, 102, 166 N.E. 270, 275, 67 A.L.R. 718;Crabbs v. State,1923, 193 Ind. 248, 255, 139 N.E. 180.

'If the title expresses the general purpose of the act, everything contained in the act which is germane to such purpose or properly connected therewith as a means of making the act effective, is covered by the title.'(Our italics.)Sarlls, City Clerk, v. State ex rel. Trimble, supra;Cyrus v. State, 1924, 195 Ind. 346, 145 N.E. 497;White v. State,1924, 195 Ind. 63, 64, 65, 144 N.E. 531;Baldwin v. State, supra;Wright v. House,1919, 188 Ind. 247, 249, 121 N.E. 433;Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Town of Whiting,1903, 161 Ind. 228, 68 N.E. 266.

The general rules with respect to the sufficiency of the title of an act have been expressed as follows:

'* * * the title is of the nature of a label, its purpose being to give notice of the subject of the act.So a title must fairly set forth the subject of legislation with sufficient clearness to give notice of the legislative intent and purpose to those interested therein or affected by the terms of the act without the aid of any suggestions or inferences which may be drawn from knowledge dehors the language used; and, while technical accuracy is not essential, and the subject need not be stated in express terms where it is clearly inferable from the details set forth, a title which is so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where another or different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or indication of the real subject or scope of the act, is bad * * *.'59 C.J. 804, § 387.

'All matters which are germane to and connected with the general subject of a statute may be included in its provisions without rendering it violative of a constitutional provision prohibiting a statute from embracing more than one subject and a statute, no matter how comprehensive it may be or how unmerous its provisions, complies with the constitutional requirement if a single main...