mmmmm 'i.y'' I Cornell University ^ Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924018031702 Cornell University Library KF 425.S96 1904 Statutes and statutory construction, inci 3 1924 018 031 702 STATUTES AND STATUTOET CONSTEUCTION INCLUDINa A DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS, CONSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS RELATIVE TO THE FORMS OP LEGIS- LATION AND TO LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE J. a. SUTHERLAND AuTHOE or "A Tkeatiss on the Law of Dakaqes" SECOND EDITION BY JOHN LEWIS Author of "A Treatise on the Law of Eminent Domain* VOLUME I CHICAGO CALLAGHAN AND COMPANY 1904 COPYEIGHT, 1904, BY CALLAGHAN AND COMPANT. 1,^ STATE JOURNAL FEINTING COMPANT, Fbintebs and Sterbotypebs, uasisoh, wis. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. The favor which has b«en accorded the first edition of this work by the profession and the courts, well deserves a new edition, which is now offered, with the hope that it will merit a continuance of such favor. About six thousand new cases have been incorporated in the present edition. No material change has been made in the arrangement or plan of the work and the text of the first edition has, for the most part, been preserved without change. Nearly two hundred and fifty new sections have been added, which gives some idea of the importance and variety of the new cases. Par- allel references have been made, in the notes-, to the Re- porter System, American Decisions, American Eeports, American State Keports, Lawyers' Eeports Annotated, The Federal Cases and to the Lawyers' Edition of the United States Supreme Court decisions. John Lewis. Chicago, October, 1904, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. No apology to the profession is necessar}' from the author for offering a new book on Statutory Construction, although it is a subject which his predecessors in the same work have treated in a masterly manner. It is a field in no danger of being over-cultivated. The law for the construction of written contracts and other private documents is as certain and well defined as upon any other branch of legal science. This is not equally true of the law for the construction of Written Laws. They deal with subjects of greater complexity; they are the pro duct of so many minds, not having common views, that in- congruities cannot be wholly excluded, and threads of diverse ideas are often interwoven ; and, moreover, oppos- ing considerations of broader range press for recognition in their construction. In many ways converse rules overlap, and the lines of distinction are faint and shifting. The natural tendency' and growth of the law is towards system and towards certainty, towards modes of operation at once practical and just, by the process of its intelligent judicial administration; but this process is impaired by overwork and legislative interference. When it is considered how many legislative bodies there are, and how many independent courts administer their laws, the diversities of construction which have occurred "VI PEBFACE TO THE FIEST EDITION. are not surprising; these divergencies lead to permanent contrarieties bounded by state lines. Under such circum- stances it is important that cognate cases be often collated and their principles generalized, with a view to maintain- ing the domain of the law as a science by remarking the true lines. The frequent assertion of sound doctrine with copious illustrations is promotive of harmony. The author has em- bodied in ^this work the result of thorough reading of the cases, and a thoughtful and earnest endeavor to extract and put in elementary form their best teaching. And he sub- mits it in the modest hope that his fellow-practitioners and the courts may find it useful and contributory to that end. J. G. S. Salt Lake City, Deeemher, 1890, TABLE OF CONTENTS. VOLUME I. CHAPTER L THE LEGISLATIVE POWER AS DISTINGUISHED PROM OTHER SOVEREIGK POWERS, AND THE GENERAL NATURE OF STATUTORY LAW. § 1. The order of subjects. 2-5. The three departments of e:overnment and their respective functions. 6. The judicial power. 7. The legislative power. 8. 9. Statutory law in general 10. Rules of action. 11, 13. Legislative rules of action — essential limitations. 13-15. Statutes have no extraterritorial effect. 16, 17. Extraterritorial operation of laws in case of colonization of of a new country. 18, 19. English statutes passed after the establishment of the col- onies. 20. Continuance of laws after a change of sovereignty. 21. Laws of states in rebellion. 22. 23. Federal and state statutes. 24, 25. Territorial statutes. £6. Territories have but temporary governments — Are in tutelage to become state& CHAPTER II. THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS AND HOW THEIR EXISTENCE IS ESTABLISHED. § 27. The legislature. 28. How existence of statute established — English rula 29, 80. Legislative records. 31. Constitutional provisions prescribing parliamentary procedure. 32-43. Courts holding enrolled act conclusive. 44. Courts holding enrolled act not conclusive — Constitutional provisions as to procedure mandatory. 45. Legislative journals as evidence. VUl TABLE OF CONTENTS. § 46. Unreliability of the journals. 47, 48. Evidence to impeach enrolled bill —Legislative journala 49. Court will not act on admission of parties. 50. Presumption in favor of enrolled act. 51. Enrolled act not impeached by silence of journals. 53. What suflScient to impeach enrolled act. 53. Matters which the constitution expressly requires to be entered in journal. 54, 55. Required reading, printing and reference of bills. 56. Necessity of signature of presiding officers. 57-59, How the question of the due passage or enactment of statutes is tried. 60, 61. Approval by exeoutiva 62, 63. How a bill will become a law without approval 64. Presentation to executive — Veto. 65. Extra sessions. 66. Limitation of time for introduction of bills or duration of ses- sion, 67, 68. Forms of legislation 69, 70. Constitutional provisions as to enacting style held directory. 71-73. Constitutional provisions as to enacting style held manda- tory. 74 Enrolled act conclusive as to words. of statute. 75. Adoption of code or revision by reference. 76. Statutes and legislative rules relating to the enactment of laws. 77. Federal courts follow state courts. 78. Notice of private and local bills. 79. Where the power to legislate upon a subject is conditioned upon the existence of certain facts. 80. Miscellaneous cases as to procedure in the enactment of laws. CHAPTER III. VALTDITT OF STATUTKS IN GENERAL AND DELEGATION OP THE LEGIS- LATIVE POWEE. § 81. The constitution a limitation — Legislative authority plenary. 83. Presumption in favor of validity. 88. Statutes construed, if possible, so as to be valid. 84. Fraud ov conspiracy in passing act. 85. Considerations of the justice, wisdom and policy of statutes — Spirit of the constitution. 86. When statutes void for uncertainty. 87. 88. The legislative power cannot be delegated. 89. What is a delegation of legislative power — Authority to make rules and i-egulations. 90. Power to suspend and put in force a statute at pleasure. TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX § 91. Authority to prescribe form of insurance policy. 93. Acts for the incorporation of municipalities or for annexing or excluding territory. 93, Acts held to be a delegation of legislative power. 94 Acts held not to be a delegation of legislative power. 96-98. Effect of submitting laws or questions controlling their effect to popular vote of the state at large. 99. Cases maintaining the constitutionality of such acts. 100. The operation and terms of an act may be made to depend on foreign legislation, 101. Effect of giving president power to suspend operation of act 103. Local laws dependent on popular vote generally held valid. 103. Operation of law dependent upon adoption by corporate au- thorities. 104. Operation of general law dependent upon local adoption. 105. Adoption must be co-extensive with territory affected by the law. 106. Municipalities may not be authorized to make or amend their charters. 107. Other decisions on the validity of statutes, 108. Acts done under an invalid statute. CHAPTER IV. CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT NO ACT EMBRACE MORE THAN ONE SUBJECT AND THAT IT BE EXPRESSED IN THE TITLK § 109, 110. Substantial agreement of constitutional provisions — Ex- ceptions. ' 111, The mischief intended to be remedied — The purpose of these restrictive provisions, 113-114, Regarded as mandatory. 115. Liberally construed to sustain legislation not within the mis- chief. 116. The subject or object of a statute. 117. The constitution does not restrict the scope of the subject em- braced by an act. 118. The provisions of an act must be germane to one subject. 119. Requirement as to form or manner of expressing subject in title. 130. The subject in an act can be no broader than the statement of it in the title. 131, Requisites of title generally — It need not index the details of , the act. 133, Effect of "etc," "and so forth," "and for other purposes," in title, 133. Title misleading by reason of generality. 134. The title may be broader and more comprehensive than the act. X TABLE OF CONTENTS. § 125. Misleading titles. 126. The title should accompany a bill in Its passage through the legislature. 137, 128. Title and act liberally construed to sustain legislation. 139. The subject or object stated generally in the title includes in- cidents and subsidiary details. 130. The subject or object stated generally in the title includes the abolition of things inconsistent. 131. Whei-e the title expresses a general subject and also details, particulars or sub-titles. 133. Effect of title referring to act or other sources of information. 183. Errors in title, and whether title can be corrected by act or otherwisa 134. The subject may be expressed by the description of its parts or subdivisions. 135. Words of act restrained or qualified by title. 136. Acts to prohibit, regulate, protect, etc., imply penalties and civil liabilities. 137. The title and subject of amendatory and supplemental acts — General principles. 138. Effect of error or uncertainty in title of amendatory act. 139. Effect of title specifying the section or sections to be amended. 140. Effect of title indicating the amendments to be made — Whether a limitation. 141. Whether title specifying section is sufficient, without giving title or subject of act amended — References to codes and compilations, official and otherwise. 143. Title of amendatory acts — Illustrations and miscellaneous cases. 143. Whether an act embraces a plurality of subjects. 144. Effect of duplicity of subject in act or title. 145. Provisions in an act not within the subject expressed in the title — Examples. 146. Acts incorporating or relating to railroads and common car- riers. 147. Acts creating, regulating or otherwise relating to corporations in general. 148. Acts to create municipal corporations or to revise, amend or consolidate their charters. 149. Acts relating to light, water, railroads, etc., in municipalities. 150. Acts relating to municipal streets, improvements, buildings, lands, etc. 151. Acts relating to the annexation and exclusion of territory to or from municipalities. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Xi j 153. Miscellaneous acts relating to municipal corporations. 153. Acts relating to counties and county seats. 154. Acts relating to schools, school districts and education. 155. Acts relating to ofiSces and officers. 156. Acts relating to irrigation, drainage, levees, and the like. 157. Acts relating to roads, bridges, ferries, etc. 158. Acts relating to courts and judicial practice and prooeedinga 159. Acts relating to probate law and the descent and distribution of property. IfiO. Acts relating to elections. 161. Acts relating to taxation and revenue. 163. Curative acts and provisions. 163. Acts relating to intoxicating liquors. 164. Pure food lav^s. 165. Acts relating to gaming, pool-selling, etc. 166. Acts relating to fish, game, etc. 167. Acts relating to crimes in general. 168. Acts relating to convicts and penal institutions. 169. Miscellaneous cases in which acts were held to conform to the constitution as to title. 170. Miscellaneous cases in which acts were held not to conform to the constitution as to title. 171. Miscellaneous points as to titles. CHAPTER V. TIME OP TAKING EFFECT, 172. When silent as to commencement — Date of passage. 173. Acts of parliament formerly took effect from the first day of the session. 174 The actual date of passage adopted in this country. 175. The legislature may fix a future day for an act to take effect. 176. Constitutional provisions regulating the time of acts taking effect — Emergency clause. 177. Where the constitution requires the legislature to fix the time. 178. Taking effect on publication. 179. The precise time of taking effect — Fractions of a day. 180. Acts approved on the same day. 181. Time of taking effect — Miscellaneous cases. 183. When act provides for things to be done before it takes effect. 183. Meaning of words " now," "heretofore," "hereafter,' "from and after the passage of this act," etc. 184-187. Computation of time when an act is to take effect in a speci- fied number of days. 188. When Sundays are included or excluded, b Xil TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER VI REQUIREMENT OF GENERAL LAWS AND THAT THEY BE OF UNIFOEM OPEEA- TION. g 189. The constitutional requirements. 190. The constitutional provisions mandatory. 191. When a'general law on the subject is in existence. 193. Local and special laws valid if not forbidden. 193. Peculiar provision in South Carolina. 194-196. What are general laws — General principles. 197. What are laws of a general nature. 198. The uniform operation of laws of a general nature. 199. Special and local laws. 200. Whether act general or special — General principles — Not a question of form, 301. Acts whose operation is dependent upon local adoption — Ef- fect of limit of time for adoption. 303. Class legislation. 303. Classification of subjects for legislation — General principles. 204. Classification of municipalities according to population — Cali- fornia. 205. Same — Minnesota. 303. Same — Missouri. 307. Same — New Jersey. 208. Same — Ohio. 209. Same — Pennsylvania. 310. Same — Other states. 311. For what purposes the classification of municipalities is per- missible. 313. Municipalities under special charters, 213. Other classification of municipalities or for municipal purposes, 214. Classification based on existing or past conditions. 315. Validity of class not dependent upon number — Classes of one or a few. 316. Evasive classification — Examples. 317. Classification of counties and legislation in respect thereto, 318. Schools, school districts and school affairs. 819. Railroads. 230. Courts and judicial procedure. 231. Insurance and insurance companies, 332. Building and loan associations, 233, Wages — Labor — Employees. 224. Mines. ■ 335. Sunday laws. 226. Allowing plaintiff an attorney's fee. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIU § 227. Criminal laws. 228. Miscellaneous. " 829. Amendatory aircl curative aoti CHAPTER VII. AMENDATORY ACTS AND ACTS TO REVIVE, ADOPT OR EXTEND THE PRO- VISIONS OF OTHER ACTS. § 230. The constitutional requirement as to amendments and its pur- pose. 231. Requisites of amendatory act. 332, Constitutional provisions in Georgia, Nebraska and Tennessee. 288. Amendment of repealed or void act or section. 234. Effect of second amendment of section which ignores prior amendment. 235. When section subdivided into clauses or paragraphs. 236. Discrepancy between amendment specified and section as amended. S37. EflEect of amendment " so as to read as follows." 238. Repeal and re-enactment — Construction and effect. 239. Amendments by implicatipn not within the constitutional re- quirement — Acts complete in themselves. 240. Whether act amendatory within the constitutional provision — Illustrations. ■241. Miscellaneous oases and questions in regard to amendatory acts. 242. Revival of law. 243. Constitutional provisions against adopting or extending the provisions of a law. CHAPTER VIIL REPEALS AND REPEALING ACTS. § 244. Duration of statutes and power of repeal. 245. Repealing effect of an unconstitutional statute, 246. Modes of repeal — Express or implied — Effect of disuse. 247. Repeals by implication — General rules — Same not favored, 248. Negative and affirmative statutes. 249. Repealing effect of afiQrmative statutes conferring power and regulating its exercise. 250. New grant of part of power already possessed. 251-253. Repealing effect of new statutes changing criminal laws. ■254. Statutes granting larger or different power or right. 355. Repeal by radical change of leading part or system. 356. Effect of clause repealing all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with new law. 357. Effect of repeal of statute adopter! by reference. XIV TABLE OF CONTENTS. § 358. Reconcilement of aflBrmative statutes — Illustrationa 259. Repeal by implication — Particular acts construed — Acts re- lating to the liquor traflBc. 260. Same — Acts relating to courts, jurisdiction, practice, proced- ure, etc. 361. Same — Acts relating to oflSoers, their election, appointment. removal, fees, compensation, etc. 368. Same — Acts relating to municipal corporations. 263. Same — Acts relating to revenue, taxation, bonds, assessments, etc. 364. Same — Acts relating to married women. 265. Same — Acts relating to the limitation of actions. 366. Same — Miscellaneous cases. 267. Repeals by implication avoided, if possible. 268. Acts passed at same session — Provisions in same act. 269. Repeal by revision. 370, 271. As a general rule whatever is excluded from the revised act is repealed. 373. Apparent exceptions to the general rule — Effect of express re- peal of inconsistent acts and parts of acts. 373. Repeal and re-enactment — Effect of re-enactment on interme- diate acts. 274, 375. As a rule general laws will not impliedly repeal those which are special or local. 276. The question is one of intent. 277. Illustrations — Local and special acts held to be repealed by general acts. 878. Illustrations — Local and special acts held not to be repealed by general acts. 279. Effect of constitutional provisions requiring genesal laws and laws of uniform operation upon repeal of special by general laws. 380. What is the later law which is potent to repeaL 381. Effect where different statutes are incorporated into a revision.. 888. Effect of repeal in general, 883. Effect on inchoate rights. 384. Effect on vested rights. 285. Effect on powers, jurisdiction and pending proceedings. 286. Effect of repeal of a penal statute. 287. Saving clauses and general saving statutes. 288. Revival by repeal of repealing statute. 289. Constitutional provisions as to repeals, 390. Repeal by constitution. 291. An act to repeal a void act. 292. Construction of express repeals. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XV 293. Errors and mistakes in express repeals. 394. Effect of a statute and its repeal upon the common law. 295. Miscellaneous points and cases. CHAPTER IX STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 896. Statutes may be void in part and good in part, 297. General rules and principles. 298. Eule when physical severance is impossible — Whether words or provisions can be severed in their application or scope. 399, 300. The same question in case of criminal statutes. 301, 302. The main purpose being unconstitutional the whole act void. 303. When the void part is inducement to or consideration of residue of act 304 Same— Illustrations. 305. The valid part must be complete and accord with the legislative intent. 306. Eflfeot of void exceptions, provisos, restrictions, etc. 307. When act intended to operate as a whole. 308. Miscellaneous acts held severable. VOLUME II. CHAPTER X JUDICIAL NOTICE AND PROOF OF STATUTES AND OP PACTS RELATING TO THEIR VALIDITY, OPERATION AND CONSTRUCTION. § 309. Judicial notice of statutes. 310. Courts will take notice of facts that affect the validity, oper- ation or construction of a statute. 311. Judicial notice of facts relating to the passage or existence of statutes. 312. Judicial notice of English statutes and of the common law. 313. State statutes in the federal courts. 314. 315. Interpretation of state and federal laws. 316-319. Foreign statutes, how proved. 320. The functions of the court and jury in regard to foreign laws. 321, 323. Private statutes. 333. Miscellaneous cases. CHAPTER XI CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OP STATUTES. § 334. The names of statutes. 335. Ancient statutes of England. 326. Federal, state, territorial and colonial statutes. XVI TABLE OF CONTENTS. § 327, 828. Public and private statutes. 329, 380. Declaratory statutes. 331-333. Affirmative and negative statutes. 834. Perceptive, prohibitive and permissive statutes. 335. Prospective and retrospective statutes. 336. Remedial statutes. 337. Penal statutes. 388. Repealing statutes. CHAPTER XII. PARTS OF A STATUTE AND THEIR RELATIONS. § 339, 340. The title. 341, 342. The preamble. 343. The enacting style. 344, 345. The purview — One part to be construed by another. 346. Partial conflict resolved into an exception. 347, 348. Words expanded or limited to accord with intent. 349, 350. Effect of total conflict between two parts of an act. 351-357. Provisos, exceptions and saving clauses. 858-360. Interpretation clauses. 361. Punctuation. 862. Headings and marginal notes. CHAPTER XIIL INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION — GENERAL PRINCIPLES. § 363. The intent of the statute is the law. 864. To find out the intent is the object of all interpretation, 365. Interpretation and construction compared. 366. Intent first to be sought in language of statute itself. 367. If intent plainly expressed it is to be followed without further inquiry. 368. The entire statute to be considered in ascertaining intent. 369. General intent of statute the key to meaning of the parts. 370. ■ The intention of the whole act will control interpretation of the parts. 371-373. Same — Illustrations. 374, 875. The flexibility of words and clauses to harmonize with gen- eral intent. 376-878. The literal sense not controlling, 379. Letter and intent. 380. Some effect, if possible, to be given every word, clause and sen- tence. 381. Words enlarged or restriotad to carry out intent. 382. Words deemed inserted to carry out intent 388. One word substituted for another. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XTU 384. Words disregarded or eliminated. 385. Implied exceptions to general language. 386. Transposition of words and phrases. 387. Particular and general intent. 388. There can be no intent of a statute not expressed in its words. 389. Interpretation of words and phrases — General rules. 39(X Words and phrases should be construed as they are generally understood. 391. Meaning of words for the court — Sources of information. 898. How general words construed. 393. Technical words. 894-896. Words having both a popular and technical meaning. 397. Use of the words " or " and " and." 398. Words having a special sense in the common law. 399. Statutory use of words. 400. Particular words and phrases construed. ' 401, 402. Change of phraseology of statutes. ' 403. Ee-enaoted statutes and parts of statutes. 404 Statutes adopted from other states or jurisdictions. 405. Statutes which adopt other statutes by particular or general reference. 406. Examples of the two modes of adoption. 407. Construction and effect of acts adopting other acts in particular cases. 408. 409. Interpretation with reference to grammatical sense. 410-413. Mistakes — Their correction and effect. 414-419. Effect of context and association of words and phrases — Maxim, noscitur a sociis. 420, 431. Relative and qualifying words and phrases. 422-484. When general words follow particular — Doctrine of ejtts- dem generis. 435. General words following particular, will not include things of a superior class. 436. It is otherwise when this rule would leave the general words without effect. 437-441. Qualifications and exceptions to the rule of ejusdem generis. 442. Reddendo singula singulis. 443-448. Interpretation as affected by other statutes — Acts in pari materia. 449. When statutes are in pari materia. 450, 451. Eesort to original acts in case of revisions and codifications. 452. Repealed and invalid statutes may be considered. 453-455. Interpretation with reference to the common law. 456. Extraneous facts in aid of construction. 457-460. Judicial knowledge. XVIH TABLE OF CONTENTS. § 461. Of facts relative to foreign states and nations. 463, 463. Judicial notice of historical and other facts relating to leg- islation. 464-469. Judicial knowledge of facts in general. 470. Proceedings in the legislature — Amendments, debates, commit- tee reports, etc. 471. Surrounding facts and conditions — Mischief to be remedied. 473. Contemporaneous construction. 473-478. General usage and practical construction, 479-486. Stare decises. 487-490. Effects and consequences. 491-495. Eocpressio unius est exclusio alteriits. 496-499. Presumptions. 500-518, Implications and incidents. 513. Acts deemed to refer and apply to persons and things within the state and within the power of the legislature. 514. Whether state or public corporations embraced by general words of statute. 515. . Mistake of legislature as to existence, application or effect of statute. 516. Miscellaneous. CHAPTER XIV. STRICT CONSTETJCTION. § 517-519. Literal and strict construction compared. 520-527. Strict construction of penal statutes. 528-580. Courts will not by the strict construction of penal statutes defeat the intention of the law-maker. 531-533. What statutes are penal. 534, Miscellaneous cases on the construction of penal statutes. 535. Eevenue laws. 536-538. Statutes which impose burdens — Taxes. 539, 540. Exemption from taxation or other general burden. 541. Acts delegating the power of taxation. 542, 543. Statutes against common right. 544. Statutes of limitations. 545. Limitations as to new trials and appeals. 546. Statutes interfering with legitimate industries. 547. Statutes creating liability. 548. Public grants. 549. Grants of franchises and privileges. 550. Public grants of land in aid of railroads and for other purposes. 551. Acts creating municipal corporations or granting power thereto. 552. 553. Construction of particular powers to municipal corpora- tions. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XIX ^ 554-557. Acts creating private corporations or granting power thereto. 558. Public grants in general. 559-561. Statutes for exercise of power of eminent domain, 562-567. Statutes granting power. 568-570. Jurisdiction of courts. 571, 572. Statutory rights. 573-575. Statutes in derogation of the common law, 576-579. Interpretation clauses. 580. Retrospective laws, 581. Construction of acts affecting previous statutory policy, CHAPTER XV. LTBEBAL CONSTEUCTION. ;§ 582. General statement of the subject. 583-586. Remedial statutes to be liberally construed — What are remedial statutes. 587, 588. Equitable construction. 588-590. What is liberal construction. 591-604. Illustrations of liberal construction, 605-609. Casus omissus. CHAPTER XVL DIRECTORY AND MANDATORY STATUTES. :::§ 610. Preliminary explanation of directory and mandatory statutes., fill. Whether statute directory or mandatory — General considera- tion. 613-616. Provisions directory as to time. •617. Time provisions held mandatory. 618-631. Formal and incidental requirements directory, 632, 633. Statutes which confer new right, privilege, etc. 634-636. Statutes which are permissive.in form. 637, 638. Permissive statutes held mandatory. 639. Permissive statutes held not mandatory, 640. The words " may " and " shall" CHAPTER XVII. RETROACTIVE STATUTES. !§ 641. Retroactive statutes regarded with disfavor. 642, 643. Statutes operate prospectively only unless intent clear to the contrary. ■644. Acts relating to husband and wife. '645. Acts relating to taxation. XX TABLE OF CONTENTS. § 646. Miscellaneous cases. 647. Retrospective statutes not necessarily invalid. 648. Constitutonal provisions forbidding retrospective or retroactive - laws. 649,650. Ex post f acfo la.wB. 651. Acts relating to procedure only — General principles. 653. Particular acts held to be ex post facto. 653. Particular acts held not to be ex post facto 654. Acts relating to evidence. 655. Acts in relation to jurisdiction — Change of venue, etc. 658. Acts relating to practice and procedure. 657. Habitual criminals statutes. 658. Change of punishment by subsequent legislation. 659. Changing the mode of executing sentence. 660-664. Laws impairing the obligation of contracts, 665-668. Change of remedy. 669. Whether judgment a contract. 670. Acts held not to impair contiacts. 671-673. Vested rights inviolable. 674. Remedial statutes may apply to past transactions and pending^ oases. 675-677. Curative statutes. CHAPTER XVHL CONSTRUCTION OF PARTICULAE STATUTES. § 678. Scope and explanation of chapter. 679-684. Remedial statutes in general. 685. Arbitration statutes. 686-689. Acts relating to judicial procedure, pleading, practice, et«x - 690, 691. Mechanics' lien statutes. 693. Other lien laws. 693. Exemption statutes. 694. Attachment and garnishment statutes. 695-701. Civil damage acts. 703-705. Statutes of limitation. 706, 707. Acts changing the period of limitation. 708. Whether rights once barred may be revived. 709. Election and ballot laws. 710. Statutes giving an action for wrongful death. 711. Married women's acts. 712. Other acts relating to husband and wife. 713. Game laws. 714. Acts relating to public officers, their qualifications, compensa-- tion, election, etc. TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXT § 715. Statutes requiring majority vote. 716. Words and provisions relating to time and Its computation. 717. Statutes relating to appeals, writs of error, etc, 718. Statutes relating to costs. 719. Conflicting petitions for the organization of tei-ritory and the like. 720. Statutes giving new rights and remedies. 721. Miscellaneous, TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. J, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. A. Aaron v. State, 40 Ala. 307: 655, 561, 683. V. State, 34 Tex; Grim. App^ 103: 470. Abbotsford, The, 98 U. a 440: 758, 930. Abbot V. Wood, 22 Me. 541: 990, 991. V. Middleton, 7 a L. Caa 68: 699, 747. Abeel v, Clark, 84 Cal. 226: 210. Abel V. Douglass, 4 Denio, 805 610. V. Lee, L. R. 6 C. P. 371: 793. V, Minneapolis, 68 Minn. 89 917, 918, 1311. Aberdare Local Board v. Eammelt, L. R. 10 Q. B. 162: 1108. Abernathy v. Miohell, 113 Ga. 127 239, 441, 797, 801. V. State, 78 Ala. 411: 465. Abington v. Cabeen, 106 IlL 200 221, 258. V. Duxbury, 105 Masa 287: 641 Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506: 39. Abley v. Dale, 11 C. B. 378: 702, 704, 705. Acker v. Acker, 81 N. Y. 143: 505, Ackerson v. Supervisors, 73 Hun, 616: 467. Ackley School Dist. v. Hall, 113 U. S. 135: 222, 275. Adam v. Stephens, 88 Ky. 443: 468. Adam v. Wright, 84 Ga. 720: 457, 565, 566. Adams v. Abram, 38 Mich. 302: 1306. V, Ackerlund, 168 III. 632: 3a V. Bank of Oxford, 78 Miss. 532; 899, 906. V. Beloit, 105 Wis. 363: 174, 360, 393. V. Field, 21 Vt. 266: 930. V. Foster, 20 John. 452: 941. V. Lock wood, 30 Kan. 773: 1049. V. Nashville, 95 U. S. 19: 614. V. New York, 192 U. S. 585: 614 V. Oaks, 20 John. 282: 941. V. San Angelo W. W. Co. 86 Tex. 485: 193, 271, 920. V. Saratoga, etc. R. Ca 10 N. Y. 328: 1040. V. Sleeper, 64 Vt. 544: 707, 722L 1131. V. Smith, 6 Dak. 94: 403, 407. V. State, 156 Ind. 596: 19. V. Turrentine, 8 Ired. L. 147: 748, 757, 864. V. Tyler, 131 Mass. 380: 1102. V. Webster, 26 La. Ann. 142: 221, 251. V. Yazoo, etc, R. R. Co. 75 Miss. 275: 694, 708, 713, 732, 733, 1003. Adams Express Co. v. Owensboro, 85Ky.265: 527. XXIV TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Adamsonv. Davis, 47 Mo. 268: SO. Adkinson v. Handle, 93 Ky. 310: 710, 730, 741. Adjutant General v. Dossee, 9 Moore, 887: 28. Adler v. State, 55 Ala. 16: 1276. Advance Thresher Co. v. Esteb, 41 Ore. 469: 464. Aechternacht v. Watmough, 8 Watts & S. 163: 987. Aerated Bread Co. v. Gregg, L. R. 8 Q. B. 355: 748, 755. ^tna Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 11 Wis. 894: 938. V. New York, 153 N. T. 331: 1165. Affholder v. State, 51 Neb. 91: 216, 217. Aggers V. People, 20 Colo. 348: 1001. Ah Hoy, Ex parte, 23 Ore. 89: 711, 717, 745, 956, 979. Ah King v. Police Court, 139 Cal. 718: 247. Ahl V. Rhoads, 84 Pa. St. 319: 640. Aicard v. Daly, 7 La. Ann. 613: 899. Aikin v. Western R. R Co 20 N. Y. 370: 684. Aikman v. Edwards, 55 Kan. 751: 301, 446. Airy v. People. 21 Colo. 144: 800. Alabama, etc. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 78 Miss. 209: 760, 861, 1291. Alabama Great So. R. R. Co. v. Fowler, 104 Ga. 148: 963. V. Reed, 134 Ala. 253: 133, 221. Alabama Ins. Co. v. Boykin, 38 Ala. 510: 1231. Alabama Med. Coll. v. Muldon, 46 Ala. 603: 544. Alabama State Land Co. v. Beck, 108 Ala, 71: 1319. Albany v. Gilbert, 144 Mo. 224: 469. Alberson v. Mayor, 83 Ga. 30: 230, 231, 384. Albert v. Twohig, 85 Neb. 563: 511. Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Alberts v. Torrent, 98 Mich. 513: 1299. Albertson v. Robeson, 1 Dall. 9: 310. V. State, 9 Neb. 429: 541, 668. Albion V. Maple Lake, 71 Minn. 503: 636. Albion Nat. Bank v. Montgomery, 54 Neb. 681: 770. Albon V. Pyke, 4 M. & Gr. 424: 1053. Albright v. Fisher, 164 Mo. 56: 5, 13. V. Lapp, 26 Pa. St. 99: 947. V. Payne, 43 Ohio St. 8: 688. V. Sussex Co. L. & P. Com., 6^ N. J. L. 533: 347, 363, 368, 408, 1117, 1120. Alcorn v. Hamer, 88 Miss. 653: 146, 164, 170, 171. Alderman v. Phelps, 15 Mass. 335: 336. Aldrich v. Columbia Ry. Co., 39 Ore. 263: 541. V. Parnell, 147 Mass. 409: 1375. Aldridge v. MardoC, 33 Tex. 304: 733. V. Tuscumbia, etc. R. R. Co., 3 St. & P. 199: 1217. V. Williams, 8 How. 9: 883, 888. Allegheny Co. v. Howe's Case, 77 Pa St. 77: 251, 581. Alexander v. Alexander, 85 Va. 853: 934. V. Bennett, 60 N. Y. 204: 1051. V. Burnham, 18 Wis. 199: 871. V. Duluth, 57 Minn. 47: 898, 593. V. Duluth, 77 Minn. 445: 863, 373, 398. V. Saulsbury, 37 Ala. 375: 1062, 1294. V. State, 56 Ga. 478: 931. V. State, 9 Ind. 337: 443, 443. V. Worthington, 5 Md. 471: 660, 698, 699. Alexandria Co. Sup'rs v. Alexan- dria, 95 Va. 469: 375. TABLE OF CASES CITED. XXV The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. - Alferitz V. Borgwardt, 126 Cal. 2C1: 907. Alina, The, 5 Ex. Div. 337: 814. .-Alina, The, 5 Prob. Div. 138: 814. - Alkins V. Jupe, 3 C. E. D. 375: 649. Allaire v. Howell Works Co. 14 N. J. L. 21: 986. AUardt v. People, 197 111. 501: 209, 427. ^Allen V. Allen, 114 Wis. 615: 1117, 1119. V. Bernards Tp. 57 N. J. L. 303: 202, 230, 585, 1159. V. Board of State Auditors, 133 Mich. 334: 131. T. Colburn. 65 N. H. 37: 1164, 1330, 1295. -v. Forest, 8 Wash. 700: 1316. V. Glynn, 17 Colo. 338: 1390. V. Hall, 14 Bush 85: 283. V. Hirsoh, 8 Ore. 412: 624. V. Hopkins, 63 Kan. 175: 227. -V. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80: 579, 592. ■V. Manasse, 4 Ala. 654: 1098. V. Massey, 17 Wall. 351: 614. V. Parish, 3 Ohio, 198: 739. V. Pioneer Press, 40 Minn. 117: 369, 386, 433. V. Ramsey, 1 Met. (Ky.) 635: 778. V. Reed, 10 Okl. 105: 43. T. Roundtree, 1 Spear.s. 80 : 1278. V. Russell, 39 Ohio St. 336: 688. V. Salem, 10 Ind. App. 650: 468. V. Savannah, 9 Ga. 286: 912. V. Scharinghausen, 8 Mo. App. 339: 879. V. Sohweigert, 110 Ga. 333: 1358. v. Stevens, 29 N. J. L. 509: 986. ■V. Tison, 50 Ga. 374: 321, 245. V. Watson, 2 Hill (S. C.) 319: 611, 613, 619. V. Young, 76 Me. 80: 716, 1297. _^llen. Ball & Co. v. Mayor, 9 Ga. 286: 788. Allen's Appeal, 81* Pa. St. 303: 820. Allen's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 190: 748, 757, 864. Allentown v. Hower, 93 Pa. St 332: 633. Allerton v. Monona Co., Ill Iowa, 560: 1167, 1225. Alley in Kutztown, 3 Woodw. Dec. (Pa.) 373: 638. Allhusen v. Brooking, L. R. 36 Ch. Div. 564: 1160, 1324. Ailing V. Wenzel, 133 111. 264: 706. Allison V. Crocker, 67 N. J. L. 596: 381, 437, 439. Allman v. Owens, 31 Ala. 167: 876. Allor V. Wayne Co. Auditors, 43 Mich. 70: 319, 653. AUsop v. Day, 7 H. & N. 463: 1065. Alma Spinning Co., In re, L. R. 16 Ch. Div. 686: 911, 915. Almy V. Harris, 5 John. 175: 636, 638, 917, 1057, 1058. Aloe V. Fidelity Mut. L. Ass'n, 164 Mo. 675: 857, 858. Alsbath V. Philbrick, 50 N. J. L. 581: 378. Alter V. Shepherd, 27 La. Ann. 207: 1001, 1096. Altmeyer v. Caulfield, 37 W. Va. 847: 1059, 1261. Altoona v. Calvert, 31 Pa. Co. Ct. 363: 530. Altrincham Union v. Cheshire Lines Com., L. R. 15 Q. B. Div. 597: 634. Alvord V. Lent, 33 Mich. 373: 704. V. Lent, 33 Mich. 369: 1258. V. Little, 16 Fla. 158: 19. Ambler v. Whipple, 139 III 311: 717, 731, 815, 830, 831. Ambrosewf, In re, 109 Cal. 264: 484. American B. & L. Ass'n v. Rain- bolt, 48 Neb. 434: 135, 1161, 1191. XXVI TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603 ; Vol. H, pp. 605-1315. American Fur Co. v. United States, 3 Pet. 367: 963. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 541: 34,43,46, 609. American Invest; Co. v. Tliayer, 7 S. D. 73: 1160, 1166. American L. & S. Co. v. Minn. etc. E. R. Co., 157 111. 641; 1158. American Manganese Co. v. Va. Manganese Co., 91 Va. 373: 815. American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468: 883, 956, 995. American PrintingHousev. Dupuy, 37 La. Ann. 188: 204. American Print Worlis v, Law- rence, 23 N. J. L. 590: 577, 681. American Refrig. T. Co. v. Adams, 28 Colo. 119: 1158. American Surety Co. v. Great W. S. Co., 58N. J. L. 536: 235. American Transportation Co. v. Moore, 5 Mich. 368: 818, 819. Americus v. Perry, 114 Ga. 871; 7, 140, S66. Ames V. Martin, 6 Wis. 361: 1097. V. MoCamber, 134 Mass. 85 623. V. U. P. R. R. Co., 64 Fed. 165 78, 93, 137. Amsbry v. Hinds, 48 N. Y. 57: 641, Amy V. Watertown, 130 U. S. 301 616. Anable v. Patch, 3 Pick. 360: 643. Ancona v. Becker, 3 Pa. Dist. 86 794. Andel v. People, 106 111, App. 558 790. Anderson v. Anderson, 33 Tex. 639 869. V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 85 Minn. 337: 1038. V. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 295: 447. Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 304: 17. V. Folger, 11 La. Ann. 369: 869. V. Hill, 54 Mich. 477: 313. V. Hill, 43 N. J. L. 351: 538. V. Levely, 58 Md. 192: 146, 945,- 946. V. Levyson, 1 Tex. App. 520: 518. V. Manchester F. Ass'n Co., 59 Minn. 182: 154. V. Mayfield, 93 Ky. 330: 1117,. 1119. V. O'Donnell, 39 S. C. 355: 33^- 1174. V. Seymour, 70 Minn. 358: 303, 429, 846, 1169, 1335. V. Trenton, 43 N. J. L. 486: 377. V. Whatcom Co,, 15 Wash. 47: 275. V. Winfree, 85 Ky. 597: 929. Anderton v. Milwaukee, 83 Wis.. 279: 209. Andrew Co. v. Schell, 135 Mo. 31: 717, 732, 846, 854. Andrews v. Ada Co., 7 Idaho, 453r 234. V. Beane, 15 R. L 451: 797, 1219i,_ 1234. V. Herriot, 4 Cow. 508: 23. V. Hoxie, 5 Tex. 171: 610, 622. V. King, 77 Me. 234: 933. V. Knox Co., 70 111. 65: 607, 87a. V. People, 75 III. 605: 516. V. Russell, 7 Blackf. 474: 550. V. Schott, 10 Pa. St. 47: 1005. V. Shaffer, 12 How. Pr. 441 : 940 V. United States, 3 Story, 20a 645, 959, 964. Angele de Sentamanat v. Soule, 3& La. Ann. 609: 797. Angell V. Cass Co., 11 N. D. 265: 577, 603. V. West Bay City, 117 Mich. . 685: 1159, 1167. TABLE OF OASES CITED. XXVll The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315: Anglo-Greek Steam Co., In re, L. R. 2 Eq. 1: 816. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Bond, 66 Fed. 653: 1161, 1192. Annan v. Houck, i Gill, 332: 1084. Annapolis v. State, 80 Md. 112: 190. Anna, The, L. R. 1 P. Div. 259: 891, 893. Anness v. Providence, 18 R. L 17: 1049. Ann, The Brig, 1 Gall. 61: 808. Anonymous, 2 Hill, 375: 885, 386, 337. Anonymous, 2 Stew. 228: 1227. Anonymous) 1 Strange, 86: 837. Ansley v. Meikle, 81 Ind. 260: 619. Antelope, The, 10 Wheat. 66: 25. Anthony v. State, 39 Ala. 27: 778. Antony V. Cardenham, Fortes. 309: 1089. Aplin V. Baker, 84 Mich. 113: 1306. V. Stiles, 88 Mich. 460: 247. Appeal Tax Court v. Western Md. R. R. Co., 50 Md. 275: 462, 1159, 1219. Apple V. Apple, 1 Head, 348: 748, 757, 864. Appleton W. W. Co. v. Appleton, 116 Wis. 863: 392, 511, 909. Aranzo v. Mudie, 10 Ex. 203; 1042. Archbishop of Canterbury's Case, 2 Rep. 460: 830. Archer v. Ellison, 28 S. C. 238: 689. Arding v. Bonner, 2 Jur. (N. S.) 763: 881. Argand Ref. Ca v. Quinn, 39 W. Va. 535: 781. Argenti v. San Francisco, 16 CaL 283: 1033. Arguello v. United States, 18 How. 550: 606. Aritt V. Elmore, 2 Bailey, 695: 1281. Arkle v. Commissioners, 41 W. Va. 471: 6, 10. C Armsv. Ayer, 192 111. 601: 157,800, 428. Armstrong v. Berreman, 18 Ind. 423, 482. V. Mayer, 60 Neb. 423: 236, 452, 917, 1811. V. Ross, 20 N. J. Eq. 109: 1142. V. Toler, 11 Wheat. 358: 938. V, United States, 1 Pet. C. C. 46: 1184. Arnold v. Arnold, 140 Ind. 199: 1076, 1395. V. Cambridge, 106 Mass. 353: 757. V. Council Bluffs, 85 Iowa. 441: 530, 745, 955. V. Kelley, 5 W. Va. 446: 19, 343. V. Nye, 28 Mich. 286: 331. V. U. S., 9 Cranoh, 104: 331, 329, 672. Arnoult v. New Orleans, 11 La. Ann. 54: 433. Arthur v. Adam, 49 Miss. 404: 1181. V. Bokenham, 11 Mod. 150: 868. V. Dodge, 101 U. S. 84: 521. V. Homer, 96 U. S. 187: 463, 466. V. Morrison, 96 U. S. 108: 708, 755. Artman v. Ferguson, 73 Mich. 146: 1396. Arundel v. McCuUoch, 10 Mass. 70: 1040, 1044. Ash V. Thorp, 65 Kan. 60: 211, 249, 275, 389. Ashbrook v. Schaub, 160 Mo. 107: 137. Ashbury Co. v. Riche, L, R. 7 H. L. 653: 817. Ashford v. Watkins, 70 Ala. 156: 626. Ashland Sav. Bank v. Bailey, 66 N. H. 834: 1229. Ashland Water Co. v. Ashland Co., 87 Wis. 209: 442. XXVIU TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Ashley, Appellant, 4 Pick. 31: 517, 635. Ashley v. Harrington, 1 D. Chip. 348: 444. V. Martin, 59 Ala. 587: 873. Ashley's Case, 4 Pick. 33: 688. Asraole v. Goodwin. 3 Salk. 624 336, 337. Aspinwall V. Daviess Co., 33 How. 364: 548. Asplin V. Blackman, 7 Ex. 386 1149. Assessors v. Osbornes, 9 WalL 567 553, 1169. Assignment of Gilbert, 94 Wis. 108 524. Astor V. Arcade Ry. Co., 113 N. Y. 93: 191, 331, 834, 364. Atcheson v. Everett, 1 Cowp. 391 1075, 1086, 1108. Atchison, etc. R. R. Co. v. Haynes, 8 Okl. 576: 528, 530. V. Kearney Co., 58 Kan, 19 375. V. Matthews, 58 Kan. 447: 414. V. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96: 371, 414. V. Tanner, 19 Colo. 559: 988. Atkin V. Kansas, 191 U. S. 307: 417, 1194 Atkins V. Disintegrating Co., 18 Wall. 373: 659, 693, 733, 730. V. Kinnan, 30 Wend. 341 : ] 046, 1137. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 15 La. Ann. 491:611. V. Duffy, 16 Minn. 49: 190, 303, 318, 231, V. Dunlap, 50 Me. Ill: 19, 641. V. Rhea, 7 Humph. 59: 1117. Atlanta v. Gate City S. T. Ry. Co., 80 Ga. 376: 199, 366. Atlanta Savings Bank v. Spencer, 107 Ga. 629: 341. Atlantic City W. W. Co. v. Con- sumers W. Co., 44 N. J. Eq. 427: 136, 369, 377, 389. Atlantic & D. Ry. Co. v. Lyons, 101 Va. 1: 890. Attorney-General v. Abbot, 131 Mich. 540. 1301. V. Amos, 60 Mich. 373: 265. V. Anglesea, 58 N. J. L. 873: 396. V. Bailey, 1 Ex. 281:755. V. Baker, 9 Rich. Eq. 531: 1115. V. Bank, 5 Ired. Eq. 71: 888, Eolger, 128 Mich. 355: 331, 336. Brown, 1 Wis. 513: 457, 686. Brunst, 3 Wis. 787: 784. Chelsea W. W. Co., Fitzgib. 195: 541, 669. Commissioner, 117 Mich. 477: 518. Day, 1 Ves. Sr. 221: 1101. Detroit, 78 Mich. 545: 140. Detroit, etc. Co., 3 Mich. 138: 709, 781. Detroit, etc. Plank R. Co., 97 Mich. 589: 113, 113. Donaldson, 10 M. & W. 117: 981. Edison Telephone Co., L. R. 6 q. B. D. 344: 1036. Erie, etc. R. R. Co., 55 Mich. 31: 635. Gramlich, 139 Mich. 630: 577. Joy, 55 Mich. 94: 73, 124, 22a Kwok-A-Sing, L. R. 5 P. C. 179: 668, 729. Lamplough, L. R. 3 Ex. D. 333: 545. Look wood, 9 M. & W. 391: 484, 730, 793. Middleton, 3 H. & N. 138: TABLE OF OASES CITED. XXIX The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1316. Attorney-General v. Netherlands Ins. Co., 181 Mass. 533: 31. V. Parsell, 100 Mich. 170: 90, 518, 523. V. Pitcher, 183 Mass. 513: 964. V. Fowls, Kay, 186: 748. V. Preston, 56 Midi. 181: 893. V. Primati, 1 Jebb & Symes, 317: 88a V. Eioe, 64 Mich. 385: 214, 815. V. Saggers, 1 Price, 183: 956. V. SiUem, 3 a & C. 431: 699, 708, 710, 883, 884, 960, 961. V. Smith, 31 Mich. 359: 909, 1073. V. Stewart, 8 Merio. 163: 610. V. Tuckerton, 67 N. J. L. 120: 61, 138. V. Weymouth, 1 Amb. 30: 648. 783. Barr's Estate, 31 Pa. Co. Cfc. 323: 654. Barry v.Lancy, 179 Mass. 112: 1311. V. Merchants' Exoh. Ca, 1 Sand. Ch. 289: 1037. V. Randolph, 3 Binn. 377: 946. V. Viall, 13R. 1 1: 130. Bartch v. Meloy, 8 Utah, 424: 51& Bartels v. Kinnenger, 144 Mo. 370: 1360. Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 139: 1019. Bartlet v. King, 12 Mass. 545: 515. v. Viner, Skin. 322: 938. Bartlett v. Board, 59 111. 364: 1134. V. Morris, 9 Port. 266: 634, 649, 703, 704. V. O'Donoghue, 72 Mo. 563: 1142. V. Roberts, 66 Mo. App. 135: 1294. Barto V. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 483: 145, 161, 600. Barton v. Gadsden, 79 Ala.. 495: 558. V. Hannant, 3 B. & S. 16: 654. V. McWhinney, 85 Ind. 481: 118. V. Morris, 15 Ohio, 408: 643. V. Port J. etc. P. E. Co., 17 Barb. 397: 938. Barton Nat, Bank v. Atkins, 73 Vt. 33: 1161. Bartrufl v. Remey, 15 Iowa, 257: 558, 641. Bashaw v. State, 1 Yerg. 177: 639. Basnett v. Jacksonville, 19 Fla. 664: 435, 443. Bass V. Mayor, 30 Ga. 845: 1330. Basset v. Railroad Co., 145 Mass. 129: 1020. Bassett v. United States, 3 Ct. of CI. 448: 308, 635. XXXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. It, pp. 605-1G15. Batolielder v. Shapleigh, 10 Me. 135: 1099. Bateman v. Colgan, 111 Cal. 580: 530, 943. Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Sulz- berger, 157 U. S. 1: 855. Bates V. Bratton, 96 Tex. 379: 136, 758, 1160. V. Clark, 95 U. S. 304: 545. V. CuUum, 177 Pa. St. 633: 1328. V. Davis, 76 III 333: 1365. V. Gregory, 89 Cal. 387: 1206. V. Kimball, 2 D. Chip. 77: 19. V. Nelson, 49 Mich. 459: 201. V. Relyea, 28 Wend 340: 898. V. State, 118 Ala. 103: 433. V. Stearns,^ 33 Wend. 483: 1337. Batman v. Megowan, 1 Met. (Ky.) 548: 329. Batterman v. New York, 65 App. Div. 576: 1003, 1004. Battle V. Shiv'ers, 39 Ga. 405: 651. Bauen Co. Ct. v. Knislow, 9 Ky. L. E. 108: 573. Bauer Grocer Co. v. Zelle, 173 III. 407: 1158, 1191, 1203. Baugher v. Nelson, 9 Gill, 299: 1198, 1317, 1318, 1333. Baum V. Mullen, 47 N. Y. 577: 1059. V. Sweeny, 5 Wash. 713: 439. V. Thorns, 150 Ind. 378: 562, 573. Baumgartner v. Hasty, 100 Ind. 575: 189. Bay V. Gage, 36 Barb. 447: 443, 643, 1070. Bayard v. Smith, 17 Wend. 88: 646, 986. Bay City, etc. R R. Co. v. Austin, 31 Mich. 390: 545, 554, 556, 846, 986, 987. Bay Co. v. Brock, 44 Mich. 45: 1134. Bay ley v. Hazard, 3 Yerg. 487: 1136. Bayly v. Chubb, 16 Gratt. 384: 606, 865. Bay Shell Road Co. v. O'Donnell, 87 Ala. 376: 455. Baxter v, Coughlin, 70 Minn. 1: 1311. V. Tripp, 13 R. L 310: 909, 1071, 1073. V. Wade,. 39 W. Va. 381: 731, 745. Beach v. Botsford, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 199: 922, 1048. Beach v. Reynolds, 64 Barb. 506: 1149. V. Van Detton, 139 Cal. 463: 134, 191, 331. V. Viles, 3 Pet. 675: 615. Beall V. Beall, 8 Ga. 310: 1060, 1343. V. Harwood, 3 Har. & J, 167: 695. Deals T. Hale, 4 How. 37: 463, 518. Beams, Matter of, 17 How. Pr. 459: 1326. Bean v. Briggs. 4 Iowa, 464: 611, 613. Bear Brothers v. Marx, 63 Tex. 298: 804. Bearcamp Riv. Co. v. Woodman, 3 Greenlf. 404: 636. Beard v. Basye, 7 B. Mon. 144: 35, 27, 617. V. Rowan, 9 Pet. 301: 654» V. State, 74 Md. 130: 573, 573, 1174. Bear Lake, etc. Co. v. Garland, 164 U. S. 1: 534, 1258. Bear Park v. Hutchinson, 7 Bing. 186: 1289. Beasley v. Ridout, 94 Md. 641: 6. Beatrice v. Edmunson, 117 Fed. 437: 613. V. Masslich, 108 Fed. 743: 339, 433, 436, 440. Beatrice Paper Co. v. Beloit Iron Works, 46 Neb. 900: 469. TABLE OF OASES CITED. XXXV Tlie references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. •SBeatty v. Burnes, 8 Cranoh, 98: 1283. V. Commonwealth, 91 Ky. 313: 532, 846. V. Parker, 141 Mass. 523: 1256. V. People, 6 Cola 538: 559, 678, 680. V. Richardson, 56 a C. 173 ■, 741, 799. Beaty v. Knowler, 4 Pet. 153: 636, 1009, 1041. -Beaumont v. Irwin, 2 Sneed, 291: 674. Beavan v. "Went, 155 IlL 593: 573. Beaver Co. v. Indexes, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 535: 369, 386. Beavers v. Myar, 68 Ark. 333: 547, 1220. V. State, 60 Ark. 124: 846. Beawfage's Case, 10 Coke, 996: 723, 1351. Bechtol V. Cobaugb, 10 S. & R. 131: 645. Beck V. St. Paul, 87 Minn. 381: 466, 503. Beoke v. Smith, 3 M. & W. 191: 730, 793, 794, 1094. Becker v. La Crosse, 99 Wis. 414: 21, 35, 1029. •Beckett v. Uniontown B. Ass'n, 88 Pa. St. 211: 1140. •Beokford v. Hood, 7 T. R. 620: 1058. ■ Beokman v. Stanley, 8 Nev. 257: 1142, Beckwith v. Racine, 7 Biss. 143: 1194. Bedard v. Hall, 44 IlL 91: 99. Bedell v. Janney, 9 111. 193: 1015. Bedford v. Shilling, 4 S. & R. 401: 21, 640, 1327. Bedier v. Fuller, 116 Mich. 126: 1328. .Bedsworth v. Bowman, 104 Mo. 44: 1297. Beebe v. Scheldt, 13 Ohio St. 406: 1051. V. Tolerton, 117 Iowa, 593: 231. Beecher v. Baldy, 7 Mich. 483: 1054 Beecher's Estate, In re, 113 Mich. 667: 1217. Beekman Street, Matter of, 20 John. 369: 1048. Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25i 1195. Beers v. Hanghton, 9 Pet. 359: 1210. V. Phoenix Glass Co., 14 Barb. 858: 1037. V. Walhizer, 43 Hun, 254: 126& Beeson v. Green Mt G. M. Co., 57 Cal. 20: 1292. Belauger v. Hersey, 90 III. 70: 1354. Belding L. & I. Co. v. Belding, 138 Mich. 79: 270, 542, 579, 583. Beley v. Naphtaly, 169 U. S. 353: 1076, 1240. Belfast V. Fogler, 71 Me. 403: 559, 753. Belknapp v. Louisville, 93 Ky. 444: 889, 896. Bell V. Allegheny Co., 149 Pa. St. 381: 528, 538. V. Barnet, 2 J. J. Marsh. 516: 879. V, Holtby, L. R. 15 Eq. 178: 696. V. Jones, 10 Md. 323: 911. V. Maish, 137 Ind. 336: 231, 339. V. Morrison, 1 Pet. 315: 615, 1017. V. New York, 105 N. Y. 139: '729. V. State, 115 Ala. 87: 268. V. State, 91 Ga. 237: 585, 653. V. Zelmer, 75 Mich. 66: 126& Bellant v. Brown, 78 Mich. 294: 860, 861, 1248. Belleville S. Bank v. Richardi, 56 Mich. 453:619. XXX VI TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-1315. Bellmeyer v. Independent Dist., etc., 44 Iowa, 564: 1035. Bellville E. R. Co. v. Gregory, 15 III 20: 258, 659. Beltzhoover v. GoUings, 101 Pa. St. 293: 1136. Beltzhoover Borough v. Beltz- hoover's Heirs, 173 Pa. St. 213: 603. Belvidere v. Warren E. E. Co., 34 N. J. L. 193: 545, 546, 555. V. Warren E. E. Co., 35 N. J. L. 584: 555. Bemis v. Becker, 1 Kan. 226: 939. V. McKenzie, 13 Fla. 553: 611. V. Leonard, 118 Mass. 503: 327, 329, 331. Bender v. Crawford, 33 Tex. 745: 1289. V. State, 53 Ind. 254: 63. Benezet Joint Stock Ass'n, In re, 17 Phila. 215: 654, 655. Benkert v. Beukert, 82 CaL 467: 1336. Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 235: 43, 46. Benners v. State, 134 Ala. 97: 294. Bennet v. Hargus, 1 Neb. 419: 545, 548. Bennett v. Auditor, 2 W. Va. 441: 931. V. Bennett, Deady, 309: 41, 613. V. Birmingham, 31 Pa, St. 15: 1009, 1010. V. Drain. Com'r, 56 Mich. 634: 1141. V. Frary, 55 Tex. 145; 1106. V. McWhorter, 2 W. Va. 441: 1038. V. North British Ins. Co., 8 Daly, 471: 880. V. State, 2 Yerg. 472: 482, 554. V. Worthington, 24 Ark. 487: 699, 929. Benning v. Smith, 108 Ga. 259:: 341. Bensley v. Brignold, 5 B. & Aid. 835: 938. V. Ellis, 39 Cal. 309: 647. V. Mountain Lake W. Co. 13 Cal. 306: 1000, 1041. Benson v. Chicago, etc. Ey. Co. 75- Minn. 163: 694, 696, 811. V. Christian, 129 Ind. 535: 191,. 278. V. St. Paul, etc. Ey. Co., 62 Minn. 198: 773. Bentley v. Manchester, etc. Ey. Cot- (1891), 3 Ch. 222: 943. V. Eotherham, L. E. 4 Ch. Dl. 588: 648, 654. Bently v. Adams, 92 Wis. 386: 525.. Benton v. Wiokwire, 54 N. Y. 226: 443, 443, 698. Benz V. St. Paul, 77 Minn. 375: 302. Benzinger v. United States, 192 U. S. 38: 995. Beresheim v. Arnd, 117 Iowa, 83: : 289, 290. Berg V. Baldwin, 31 Minn. 541: 1097. V. Berg, 105 Ky. 80: 1158, 1163L V. San Antonio St. Ey. Co., 17 Tex. Civ. App. 291; lOSa Berger v. Berger, 104 Wis. 283: 573. V. DufiE, 4 John. Ch. 368: 145. V.Jacobs, 21 Mich. 215: 1295. Berkowitz v. Lester, 131 IlL 99: 1053. Berkshire v. Miss. etc. By. Ca, 28 Mo. App. 235: 515. Berley v. Eampacher, 5 Duer, 183: 643. Berliner v. Waterloo, 14 Wis. 878: 74, 317, 866. Berluohaux v. Berluohaux, 7 La... 539: 606. TABLE OF CASES CITED. XXXVll The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Bernards Tp. v. Allen, 61 N. J. L. 328: 156. Berne v. Bank of England, 9 Ves. 347: 869. Bernier v. Becker, 37 Ohio St. 72: 635. V. Bernier, 147 U. S. 343: 732. Berry v. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 41 Md. 446: 72, 74, 78, 87, 577, 605, 867. " V. Bellows, 30 Ark. 198: 37. T. Clary, 77 Me. 482: 660, 710, 1225. V. Clements, 11 How. 398: 327. V. Clements, 9 Hi»mph. 312: 327. V. Kansas City, etc. R R. Co., 52 Kan. 759: 433. V. Railroad Co., 41 Md. 464: 331. Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 8 Hun, 16: 1266. V. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509: 1262, 1266. Best V. Gholson, 89 111. 465: 645, 1136, 1139. Bestor v. Powell, 7 111. 119: 748. Bethlehem v. Watertown, 51 Conn. 490: 637. Betsinger v. Chapman, 88 N, T. 488: 770. Bettis V. Taylor. 8 Port. 564: 959. Bettraan v. Cowley, 19 Wash. 307: 1213. Betz V. Philadelphia, 19 Phila. 452: 391. Beumer v. Wall, 86 Minn. 294: 505, 1133. Bevens v. Baxter, 33 Ark. 387: 625, 633. Beverly v, Barnitz, 55 Kan. 466: 1310. V. Wain, 57 N. J. L. 143: 209. Biagi V. Howes, 66 Cal. 469: 1018. Bibb V. Hall, 101 Ala. 79: 547. Bibb Co. L. Ass'n v. Richards, 31 Ga. 593: 95. Bick V. Wilkerson, 63 Mo. App. 31 : 1133. Biokerdike v. Chicago, 303 111. 636: 1010. Biddis V. James, 6 Binn. 331 : 619. Bidwell V. Whitaker, 1 Mich. 469: 916. Bienville Water Supply Co. v. Mo- bile, 175 U. S. 109: 1023. V. Mobile, 186 U. S. 313: 1033. Bierer v. Blurok, 9 Wash. 63: 443. Biffin v. Yorke, 5 Man. & G. 437: 705. Big Block Creek, etc. Co. v. Com- monwealth, 94 Pa. St. 450: 711, 729,'864, 884. Bigelow V. Bemis, 3 Allen, 496: 1387. V. Forrest, 9 Wall. 339: 893. V. Gregory, 73 111. 197: 1140. V. Wilson, 1 Pick. 485: 330, 338. 333, 333. Biggs V. McBride, 17 Ore. 640: 314. Billerica v. Chelmsford, 10 Mass. 394: 1014. Billinger v. Evans, 4 Wright, 337: 1207. Billings v. Baker, 28 Barb. 343: 507, 1062, 1243. Billingslea v. Baldwin, 33 Md. 85: 855. Billingsley v. Dean, 11 Ind. 331: 869. Biloxi v. Borries, 78 Miss. 657: 84a Bingham v. Birmingham, 103 Mo. 345: 739, 798, 929. V. Camden, 40 N. J. L. 156: — . V. Supervisors, 8 Minn. 441: 683. Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51: 1021. Binney v. Canal Co., 8 Pet. 201: 729. Binz v. Weber, 81 111. 288: 215, 358. XXXVUl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages; VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Binzel v. Grogan, 67 Wis. 147: 1098, 1259. Birohard v. Booth, 4 Wis. 67: 1131. Bird V. Commonwealth, 21 Gratt. 800: 613, 865. V. Jones, 37 Ark. 195: 677. V. Selley, 113 Mo. 580: 1283. V. Wasco County, 3 Ore. 282: 447, 463. Birdsall v. Carriok, 3 Nev. 154: 106, 107. V. Wheeler, 58 Conn. 429: 549. Birmingham B. & L. Ass'n v. May & T. H. Co., 99 Ala. 276: 491. Birmingham, etc. St. Ry. Co. v. Birmingham St. Ry. Co., 79 Ala. 465: 1033. Birmingham Iron Foundry v. Glen Cove Starch Co., 78 N. Y. 30: 1256. Birmingham Union Ry. Co. v. Ely- ton Land Co., 114 Ala. 70: 455. Bishop V. Barton, 3 Hun, 436: 651, 663, 708, 849. V. Globe Co., 135 Mass. 183: 38. V. Jones, 38 Tex. 294: 880. V. Middleton, 43 NeU 10: 303, 429. Bissell V. Bissell, 11 Barb. 96: 837. V. Dickerson, 64 Conn. 61: 468. V. Heath, 98 Mich. 473: 349. Bittenhaus v. Johnston, 93 Wis. 588: 432, 579, 581, 1174. Bitters v. Board, 81 Ind. 125: 228. Bittle V. Stuart, 84 Ark, 234: 577, 579, 592. Bixon V. Caledonian Ry. Co., L. R. 5 App. Cas. 837: 910. Black V. Cohen, 52 Ga. 636: 184, 331. V. Com'rs, 129 N. C. 121: 171. V. Johns, 68 Pa. St. 83:' 328. V. Trioker, 59 Pa. St. 13: 815. V. Trower, 79 Va. 123: 503. Blackburn v. State, 50 Ohio St. 438: 1174, 1185. Black Creek, etc. Co., v. Common- wealth, 94 Pa. St. 450: 885. Blaokfeather v. United States, 190 U.S. 368: 1053. Blackford v. Hurst, 26 Gratt. 306: 531, 543. Blaokman v. Dixon, 13 Ma 479: 333. V. Gordon, 3 Rich. Eq. 43, 1330. V. Henderson, 116 Iowa, 578: 1334. Blackmare v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 163 Mo. 455: 1020. Black River Imp. Co. v. Holway, 87 Wis. 584: 177, 340, 439. Black's Appeal, 83 Mich. 518, 12^1. Blackwell v. First Nat. Bank, 10 N. M. 555: 847. V. State, 45 Ark. 90: 483, 496 Blaokwell's Case, (Vern.) 53: 1147. Blackwood v. Queen, L. R. 8 App. Cas. 96:724. V. Van Vleet, 11 Mich. 353 1310. V. Van Vleet, 30 Mich. 118 909, 1073. Bladen v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. St 464: 471, 637, 1115, 1136, 1143. * Blader v. Water Comrs. 133 Mich. 366: 314, 593. Blain v. Bailey, 35 Ind. 165: 533, 636. Blair v. Cary, 9 Wis. 543: 643, 1326. V. Ridgeley, 41 Mo. 63: 38. V. State, 90 Ga. 336: 185, 208, 367. Blake v. Brackett, 47 Me. 28: 796. V. Crowningshield, 9 N. H. 304: 337. V. Hey ward, Bailey Eq. 208: 915. V. Midland Ry. Co., 10 L. & Sq. 437: 1291. TABLE OF CASES CITBD. XXXIX The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. Blake v. National Banks, 23 WalL 307: 881, 883. V. Pittsburgh, etc. E. R Co., 11 Pa. Dist. Ct. 151: 470. Blakemore v. Dolan, 50 Ind. 194: 481, 432, 435. Blakeney v. Blakeney, 6 Port 109: 1075, 1086. Blaker v. Hood, 58 Kan. 499: 191, 301. Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1: 620. V. Sprague, 2 Story, 164: 1033. V. Sprague, 3 Sumner, 279: 663, 799, 1160. V. Sprague, 3 Sumner, 539: 1243. Blanding v. Burr, 13 CaL 357: 161, 170. Blanfield v. State, 108 Tenn. 593: 504 Blankard v. Galdy, 2 Salk. 411: 28, 34, 609. Blankenburg v. Block, 300 Pa. St. 629: 401, 429. Blasdell v. State, 5 Tex. App. 263: 671. Blatz V. Eohrbaok, 42 Hun, 402: 1270. Blaylook v. Muskogee, 117 Fed. 135: 785, 786. Blemer v. People, 76 111. 265: 757, 797. Blessing v. Galveston, 42 Tex. 641 : 67, 85. Block V. State. 66 Ala. 493: 198. Blodgett, In re, 27 Hun, 12: 217. Blodgett, Matter of, 89 N, Y. 392: 201. Blood V. Fairbanks, 50 Cal. 420: 674 V. Humphrey, 17 Barb. 660: 940. Bloodgood V. Grasey, 31 Ala 575: 620, 908, 929. Bloom V. Burdick, 1 Hill. 130: 1049, 1137. V. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387: 938. Bloomer v. Stolley, 5 McLean, 158: 456. Bloomington Cem. Ass'n v. People, 170 111. 377: 1003. Bloss V. Lewis, 109 CaL 493: 409. Bloxbam v. Consumers' Electric L. & R Co., 36 Fla. 519: 781, 889. v Florida, etc. R R Co., 35 Fla. 625: 413. Blue V. Beach, 155 Ind. 131: 150. V. McDuffie, Busbee L. (N. 0.) 131: 654 Blue Jacket C. C. Co. v. Scherr, 50 W. Va. 553: 430. Bly V. National Bank, 79 Pa. St. 453: 939. V. White Deer Mt. W. Co., 197 Pa. St. 80: 1041. Bly the v. Hinckley, 127 CaL 431: 89. Boales v. Ferguson, 55 Neb. 565: 178. Board of Assessors v. Central R R Co., 48 N. J. 146: 367. Board of Com'rs v. Bailey, 133 Ind. 46: 757. V. Baker, 80 Ind. 374: 201, 258. V. Board of Com'rs, 128 Ind. 295: 693, 696, 706, 885. V. Brown, 147 Ind. 476: 8, 339. V. Chew, 44 Kan. 163: 316. V. Conner, 155 Ind. 484: 781. V. Davis, 136 Ind. 78: 1153. V. First Nat Bank, 6 Colo. App. 423: 493. V. Hall, 9 Colo. App. 538: 693, 717, 723, 723, V. Mineral Co., 9 Colo. App. 368: 700. xl TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Board of Com'rs v. Potts, 10 Ind. 286: 487, 516. V. Pueblo, etc. R. R Co., 8 Colo. App..398: 1009. V. Silvers, 23 Ind. 491: 583. V. Smith, 33 Colo. 534: 157, 1154. V. Spitler, 13 Ind. 235: 872. V. State, 9 Gill, 379: 658. Board of Councilmen v. Browner, 100 Ky. 166: 934. Board of Education v. Barlow, 49 Ga. 341 : 184, V. Blodgett, 155 111. 441: 1218, 1288. V. Board of Trustees, 96 Cal. 48: 1156. V. Cliffside Park, 63 N. J. L. 371: 303. V. Harolson, 8 Okl. 170: 464. V. Moses, 51 Neb. 288: 451, 577. V. Stollan,95 111. App. 350: 834. V. Tafoya, 6 N. M. 392: 543. Board of Election Com'rs v. State, 148 Ind. 675: 703, 745. Board of Health v. Hill, 13 C. B. (N. S.)483: 874. Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 93 U. S. 531: 1199. Board of Pub. Lands & Buildings, In re, 37 Neb. 435: 469. Board of School Directors v. Board of School Directors, 81 Wis. 438: 718. Board of State Tax Com'rs v. Board of Assessors, 134 Mich. 491: 301. Board of Supervisors v. Auditor- General, 65 Mich. 408: 398. V. Heenan, 8 Minn. 330: 73, 78, 866, 867. V. People, 35 111. 181: 358. V. People, 49 III. App. 369: 846, 848. V.Todd, 97 Md. 347: 9. Board of Trustees v. Board of Su- pervisors, 99 Cal. 571: 178. V. Cuppett, 53 Ohio St. 567: 39, 616. V. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co., 17 K L. R. 160: 537. V. Maysville, 97 Ky. 145: 266, , 1154. Board of Water Com'rs v. People, 187 111. 660: 453. Boas V. Nagle, 3 S. & R. 253: 946. Boatwright v. Faust, 4 McCord, 439: 1217, 1330. Bobel V. People, 173 111. 19: 191, 894. Bock V. Lauman, 24 Pa. St. 435: 61i; 618, 621. V. New York, 31 Misc. 54: 443. Bode V. State, 7 Gill, 838: 723. Bodge V. Hughes, 53 N. H. 614: 1263. Boechat v. Brown, 9 App. Div. 369: 538. Boehm v. Bngle, 1 Dall. 15: 38,610. v. Hertz, 183 111. 154: 300. Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige, 198: 38. Boggs V. Reed, 5 Mart. 673: 869. Bogue V. Seattle, 19 Wash. 396: 383. Bohmer v. Hafifen, 161 N. Y. 390: 185, 382, 256, 579. Boice V. Boice, 37 Minn. 371: 1310. Boise City Artesian Hot & Cold Water Co. v. Boise City, 188 Fed, 333: 785. Boismare v. His Creditors, 8 La. 315: 573. Bolles V. Outing Co., 175 U. S. 362: 646, 967, 985. BoUin V. Shiner, 13 Pa. St 305: 757. Boiling V. Le Grand, 87 Ala. 488: 135. Bolton V. King, 105 Pa. St. 78: 644, 1348. TABLE OF CASES CITED. xli The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-003; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. '-Bolton School, Ex^parte, 3 Bro. O. C. 663: 627. Bond V. Hopkins, 1 Soh. &Lef. 433: 1101. V. Munro, 28 Ga. 597: 641, 1158, 1324 V. Rosling, 1 B. & S. 371: 777. V. State, 78 Md. 523: 301. V. Turner, 33 Ore. 551: 1260. ^Bond Debt Cases, 12 S. C. 200: 68, 93. Bonds V. Greer, 56 Miss. 710: 698. •Bone Handler, Ex parte, 176 Mo. 383: 171. Bones V. Booth, 3 W. Black. 1236: 958. Bonham v. Board of Epucation, 4 Dill. 156: 689. -Bon Homme Co. v. Berndt, 13 S. D. 309: 430. V. Berndt, 15 S. D. 494: 430. Booker v. McRoberts, 1 Call, 243: 636, 1057. Bookwalter v. Conrad, 15 Mont. 464: 557. Boon V. Bowers, 30 Miss. 346: 637, 900, 901. V. Juliet, 3 111. 338: 671. Boone v. State, 13 Tex. App. 184: 171. ■Boone Co. Home Mut Ins. Co. v. Anthony, 68 Mo. App. 434: 469. V. Keck, 31 Ark. 387: 1103. :Boorman v. Juneau Co., 76 Wis. 550: 547. Booth V. Ibbotson, 1 Y. & J. 860: 887. V. Kitchen, 7 Hun, 360: 933, 939. V.' State, 4 Conn. 65: 1014. V. Williams, 3 Ga. 252: 1077. Boothroyd, In re, 15 M. & W. 1: 650. ;Booth's Will, 40 Ore. 154: 507, 513. Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519: 899. Boring v. State, 141 Ind. 640: 241, 435. Borrowdale, 39 Fed. 376: 442. Borst V. Griffin, 5 Wend. 84: 336. Bosang v. Iron Belt B. & L. Ass'n, 96 Va. 119: 290, 1197. Bosanquet v. Woodford, 5 Q. B. 310: 1117. Bosley v. Davis, 1 Q. B. D. 84: 778. V. Mathingly, 14 B. Mon, 89: 703, 705, 1071. Boston V. Cummins, 16 Ga. 102: 811, 313. Boston, etc. Co. v. Gardner, 3 Pick. 33: 1241. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., Matter of, 53 N. Y. 574: 1044. Boston, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cilley, 44 N. H. 578: 641. V. Trafton, 151 Mass. 239: 21. Boston Min. Co., In re, 51 Cal. 624: 650, 651. Boston Nat. Bank v. Atkins, 72 Vt. 33: 518. Boston Water P. Co. v. Boston, etc. E. R. Co., 23 Pick. 360: 1043. Botanico-Med. College v. Atchison, 41 Miss. 188: 630, 784. Bouknight v. Eptjng, 11 S. C. 71: 1220. Bouldin v. Lockhart, 1 Lea, 195: 92. V. Phelps, 30 Fed. Rep. 547: 868. Boulter, In re, 5 Wyo. 839: 229, 447. Boulton V. Bull, 3 H. Bl. 499: 628. Bound V. R. R. Co., 45 Wis, 543: 74, 84, 87. Bounhorst v, Allegheny Co., 163 Pa. St. 588: 539. Bourgignon, etc. Ass'n v. Common- wealth, 98 Pa. St. 54; 457, 809. Bourn v. Hart, 93 Cal. 321: 130. Bouton V. Eoyce, 10 Phila. 559: 564 Bout well V. Foster, 34 Vt 485: 938. xlii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references axe to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Bovard v. Kansas City, etc. Ey. Co., 83 Mo. App. 498: 1359. V. Kettering, 101 Pa. St. 181: 941. Bowden v. Philadelphia, eta E. R, Co., 196 Pa. St. 563: 339. Bowe V. St. Paul, 70 Minn. 341: 393. Bo wen v. Clifton, 105 Ga. 459: 10. V. Lease, 5 Hill, 331: 459, 468, 486, 469, 474, 512. V. Minneapolis, 47 Minn. 115: 1149, 1151. V. Mo. Pao. Ry. Co., 118 Mo. 541; 605, 609. V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 59 Conn. 364: 1158, 1388. V. Smith, 111 Mo. 45: 785, 909, 1390. Bowen's Will, Matter of, 34 Cal. 683: 1052. Bower v. Hope Life Ins. Co., 11 H. L. Cas. 389: 1149. Bowers v. Braddook, 172 Pa. St. 596: 503. V. Green, 1 Scam. 43: . Bowker v. Bradford, 140 Mass. 531: 1296. Bowles V. Cochran, 93 N. C. 398 : 845. V. Keator, 47 111. App. 98: 885. Bowman v. Blyth, 7 EL & Bl. 47: 471, 976. V. Cookrill, 6 Kan. 311: 194, 331, 287. V. State, 38 Tex. Crim. Rep. 14: 886. V. Wood, 41 III 203: 338, 331, 834. Bows V. Fen wick, L. R. 9 C. P. 339: 837. Bowyer v. Camden, 50 N. J. L. 87: 539. Boyce, In ro, 25 Wash. 613: 548. V. Holmes, 3 Ala. 54: 640. - V. Tabb, 18 Wall. 546: 1106. Boyce v. Wabash Ry. Co., 63 lowa,.. 70: 38. Boyd V. Alabama, 94 U. S. 64&: 905. V. Brazil Block Coal Co., 35 Ind. App. 157: 955. V. Bryant, 35 Ark. 69: 172, 174. V. Hood, 57 Pa. St. 98: 1000. V. Lowry, 53 Miss. 353: 1049. V. Milwaukee, 93 Wis,, 456: 386.- V. Randolph, 91 Ky. 473: 530, 538. V. Redd, 130 N. C. 385: 1013> 1058, 1060. V. Watt, 37 Ohio St. 259: 1272. Boyd Paving & C. Ca v. Ward, 85 Fed. 27, 360. Boyen v. Crane, 1 W. Va. 176: 120. Boyer v. Grand Rapids Fire Ins. Ca, 124 Mich. 455: 313. V. Onion, 108 111. App. 612: 1155 Boykin v. State, 50 Miss. 375: 1118^ Boyle, In re, 9 Wis. 264: 317, 345,. 635. Boyle V. Vanderhoof, 45 Minn. 31 : 191, 1261. Bozarth v. Largent, 128111.95: 572t, 10'63, 1294. Brace V. Solner, 1 Alaska, 361: 674,. 781. Braceville Coal Co, v. People, 147 111. 66: 417. Bracken v. Smith, 39 N. J. Eq. 169: 516, 521. Bracket v. Ohio, eta R. R. Co., 14 Pa. St. 341: 938. Brackett v. Brackett, 61 Ma 233: 337. V. Norton, 4 Conn. 517: 617, 618. Bradburn v. Great W. Ry. Ca, L.- R. 10, Ex. 1: 1293. Bradbury v. Wagenhorst, 54 Pa. St.. 180: 701, 704, 796, 938. TABLE OF CASES CITED. xliii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL II, pp. 605-1815. Bradford v. Barclay, 43 Ala. 375: 643, 1338. V. Floyd, 80 Mo. 307: 880. V. Jones, 1 Md. 351: 648, 651. Bradford v. Treasurer, Peck. (Tenn.) 425: 630, 699. Bradley v. Baxter, 15 Barb. 133: 145. V. Clark, 5 T. R. 301: 630. V. Com'rs, 3 Humph. 438: 608. V. Ins. Co., 3 Lans. 341: 611. V. Jamison, 46 Iowa, 68: 1050. V. Lightcap, 301 111. 511: 1315. V. Loring, 54 N. J. L. 32V: 451. V. McAtee, 7 Bush, 667: 1194. V. New York, etc. E. R. Co., 31 Conn. 305: 1044. V. Norris, 63 Minn. 156: 1383. V. Pitti^burgh, 130 Pa. St. 475: 303. V. Richmond, 6 Vt 131: 1103. V. State, 99 Ala. 177: 392, 578, 583, 593, 778. V. West, 60 Mo. 83: 99. Bradshaw v. Lawkford, 73 Md. 428: 175. V. Mayfield, 18 Tex. 31: 870. Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130: 910, 1313. Bradwell's Case, 55 111. 535: 910, 1313. „ Brady v. Daly, 175 U. S. 148; 988. V. Mayor, etc. 30 N. Y. 313: 1035. V. Moulton, 61 Minn. 185: 337, 331. V. Northwestern Ins. Co., 11 'Mich. 435: 1014, V. Page, 59 Cal. 53: 873. v.. West, 50 Miss. 68: 607. V. Wilkes Barre, 161 Pa. St. 316: 1160. Brady Street, In re, 99 Pa. St. 591: 831. d Bragg V. Clark, 50 Ala. 363; 674, 677. V. Grail, 86 Mo. App 338: 1394. V. State, 134 Ala. 165: 751, 769, 770, 1313. Brain v. Thomas, 50 L. J. Q B. Div. 663: 639. Brainard v. Bushnell, 11 Conn. 17: 330. Brake v. Collision, 132 Fed. 733: 93, 94. Bramel v. Bramel, 101 Ky. 64: 763. Bramston v. Colchester, 6 E. & B. 248: 583. Bramwell v. Penneck, 7 B. & C. 536: 818. Branagan v. Dulaney, 8 Colo. 408: 541, 668. Branch v. Burnley, 1 Call, 147: 868. V. Lewerenz, 75 Conn. 319:580. Branch Bank v. Murphy, 8 Ala. 119: 308, 1057, 1058. Brand v. Lawrenceville, 104 Ga. 486: 300. Brandling v. Barrington, 6 B. & C. 475: 1076, 1084. Brandon v. Carter, 119 Mo. 573: 498, 1052. V. Pate, 3 H. Black. 308: 993. V. Sands, 3 Ves. Jr. 514: 993. V. State, 16 Ind. 197: 331. Branham v. Lange, 16 Inn. 497: 446. V. Long, 78 Va. 352: 663. Brashears v. Telegraph Co., 45 Mo. App. 453: 973. Bratton v. Guy, 13 S. C. 43: 443. V. Johnson, 76 Wis. 430: 557. Brattleboro Sav. Bank v. Hardy Tp., 98 Fed. 534: 430. Braun v. Sauerwein, 10 Wall. 318: 456. V. State, 40 Tex. Crim. App. 336: 470, 779. xliv TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. 1, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Brawley v. Mitchell, 93 Wis. 671: 1150. Bray v. Hudson, 50 N. J. L. 83: 378. V. Wallingford, 20 Conn, 416: 1103. Breckenridge v. Commonwealth, 97 Ky. 267: 781. Breden v. State, 88 Ala. 20: 533. Bredenburg v. Bardin, 36 S. C. 197: 1235. Breene, In re, 14 Colo. 401: 191, 198, 257. Breitenbaoh v. Bush, 44 Pa. St. 813: 1005, 1207. Breitung v, Lindauer, 37 Mich. 217: 459, 466, 986, 1201. Bremer v. Freeman, 10 Moore E. C. 306: 623. Brenham v. Brenbam Water Co., 67 Tex. 543: 1023, 1034, 1029. Brennan v. Bradshaw, 53 Tex. 330: 1031. V. MoMenamy, 78 Mo. App. 133: 847. Brenner v. Kansas Mut. Life Ass'n, 6 Kan. App. 152: 814, 914 Brent v.- Chapman, 5 Cr. 358: 1211. Bresser v. Saarman, 112 Iowa, 720: 1058, 1060. Brett V. Brett, 3 Addams, 819: 650, 654. Bretz V. Mayor, etc., 3 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 478: 636. V. New York, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 358: 633. V. New York, 6 Eobt. 325: 635, 633. Brevoort v. Grace, 53 N. Y. 245: 637. Brewer v. Blougher, 14 Pet. 178: 711, 730, 926. V. Brewer, 63 Me. 62: 145. V. Huntingdon, 86 Tenn. 733: 73, 187. Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 N. Y. 110: 303, 304. V. Woolridge, 100 Ga. 305: 693, 710, 913, 915. Breyer v. State, 103 Tenn. 103: 419. Brice v. State, 3 Overt 353: 31, 609, 618. Bridge v. Branch, L. E. 1 C. P. Div. 633: 912. Bridge Co. v. Hoboben, etc.. Co., 13 N. J. Eq. 81: 1021, 1033, 1033, 1193. Bridgeman, In re, 1 Drew. & S, 169: 1149. Bridgeport v. Eailroad Co., 15 Conn. 475: 1033. Bridges v. Shallcross, 6 W. Va. 574: 928. V. Stephens, 133 Mo. 534: 781. Bridge & Structural Iron Works Union v. Sigmund, 88 III. App. 344: 468. Brieswick v. Moyer, 51 Ga.639: 185, 352. Briffitt V. State, 58 Wis. 39: 876. Brig Ann, 1 Gall. 61: 308. Brig Aurora, Cargo of, v. United States, 7 Cranch, 383: 563. Briggs V. Allen, 4 Hill, 538: 1306. V. Cottrill, 4 Strob. 86: 1169. V. Hubbard, 19 Vt. 86: 641. V. Smith, 83 N. C. 306: 506. V, St. Louis, etc. Ey. Ca, 111 Mo. 168: 420. Brigham v. Edmunds, 7 Gray, 359: 1019. Bright V. MoCullooh, 27 Ind. 223: 305, 433. Brimhall v. Van Campen, 8 Minn. 13: 611. BrinkerhoflE v. Newark, etc. Trac- tion Co., 66 N. J. L. 478: 363. Brinkley v. Swicegood, 65 N. C. 636: 544, 562. TABLE OB CASES CITED. xlv The rererences are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. Brinsfield v. Carter, 3 Ga. 150: 663, 665, 724 Brisbane v. Peabody, 3 How. Pr, 109: 1137. Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 315: 681. Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 857: 631. Bristol V. Sequeville, 5 Exch. 275: 35, 613, 630, 622. British Am. Ass'n Ca t, Bradford, 60 Kan. 82: 419. British & Am. M. Cto. v. Winoheli, 62 Ark. 160: 1331. British Farmers' etc. Ca, In re, 48 L. J. oh. 56: 705. Britt V. Robinson, L. R. 5 C. P. 513: 961, 965. Brittan v. Election Com'ra 139 Cal. 337: 13, 140. Broadbent t. State, 7 Md. 416: 1063. Broaddus y. Broaddus, 10 Bush, 299: 517, 520, 521, 759. Broadfoot v. Fayetteville, 188 N. 0. 539: 1110. Broad Street Hotel Ca v. Weaver's Administrator, 57 Ala. 36: 868. Broadway Bap. Church v. MoAtee, 8 Bush, 608: 1009. 3rocaw y. Board, etc. 73 Ind. 543: 435. Brock y. Parker, 5 Ind. 538: 643. Brookbank y. Whitehaven B. Co., ,7H.&N. 834:640. Brockelbank, In re, I* E. 23 Q. B. D. 461: 804 Brocket v. Ohio, etc. R. E, Co., 14 Pa. St. 241: 748, 757, 864, 1033. Brockway v. Patterson, 73 Mich. 123: 136& Brodbine v. Revere, 183 Mass. 598: 150. Brodnax v. Groom, 64 N. C. 344: 86. BroflFee v. Grand Rapids, 137 Mich. 89: 1159, 1167. Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311: 648, 1190, 1200, 1303. 1307. V. Newbury, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 38: 643. V. .St Croix Lumber Co., 44 Minn. 348: 33. Brook V. Blue Mound, 61 Kan. 184: 798, 955. Brookfield v. Kitchen, 163 Mo. 546: 769. Brooklyn El. R. R. Ca, Matter of, 135 N. Y. 434: 689. Brooklyn Gravel R. Ca v. Slaugh- ter, 33 Ind. 185: 1035. Brooklyn L. Ins. Ca v. Bledsoe, 52 Ala. 538: 938. Brooklyn & Rookaway Beach R. R. Co. V. Long Island R. R, Ca, 73 App. Div. 496: 1013, 1033. Brooks V. Boswell, 34 Ma 474: 94& V. Cock, 3 Ad, & E. 141: 1143. V. Com'rs., 31 Ala. 337: 660. V. Cook, 44 Mich. 617: 818, 1363, 1263. V. Hicks, 20 Tex. 666: 712, 733. V. Hyde, 37 CaL 375: 350. V. Hydorn, 76 Mich. 373: 314, 378, 593. V. Mobile Sch, Com'rs, 31 Ala. 337: 731. V. People, 14 Cola 413: 398, 970. Brookville Ins. Ca v. Records, 5 Blackf. 170: 636. Broome v. Wellington, 1 Sandf, 660: 335. Brophy v. Hyatt, 10 Cola 333: 1139. Brotherhood Ace. Ca v. Lineham, 71 N. H. 7: 745. Brothers v. Mundell, 60 Tex. 340: 784. xlvi TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Brothers v. State, 2 Cold. 201: 554 Brotherton v. Brotherton, 41 Iowa, 112: 682. Broughton v. Branch Bank, 17 Ala, 828: 555. V. Manchester Water Works Co., 3B. & Aid. 1: 949. Brower v. Bovvers, 1 Abb. App. Dec. 214: 911. Brown, Ex parte, 35 Tex. Crim. App. 443: 1314. Brown, In re, 7 Ex. 118: 804. Brown, In re, 21 Wend. 316: 778. Brown v. Balfour, 46 Minn. 68: 1076, 1240. V. Barry, 3 Ball. 865: 456, 457, 459, 562, 729, 862. V. Brown, 24 Ind. 194: 934. V. Buzan, 24 Ind. 194: 827, 927, 938. V. Challis, 23 Colo. 145: 1171. V. Chancellor, 61 Tex. 437: 468. V. Chicago, 117 111.31: 339. V. Commonwealth, 98 Ky. 653: 497. V. Commonwealth, 100 Ky. 137: 1185. V, County Com'rs, 31 Pa. St. 37: 466, 530, 668. V. Cousens, 51 Me. 301: 505. V. Denver, 7 Colo. 305: 839, 439. V. Dressier, 135 Mo. 589: 846, 851, 1038, 1062, 1294. V. Duncan, 10 B. & C. 93: 989. V. Elms, 10 Humph. 135: 873. V. Epps, 91 Va. 726: 13, 182, 133. V. Fifleld, 4 Mich. 323: 644, 1064. V. Fleischner, 4 Ore. 182: 120. V. Fowzer, 114 Pa. St. 446: 1046. V. Gates, 15 W. Va. 131: 1077, 1102. Brown v. Graham, 58 Tex. 254: 948. V. Great W. Ry. Co., 9 Q. B. D. 753: 464, 711. V. Hamlett, 8 Lea, 733: 729. V. Hart, 97 Ky. 735: 293. V. Haywood, 4 Heisk. 857: 357. V. Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146: 469, 834. V. Holland, 97 Ky. 24«: 158, 360, 885. V. Hughes, 89 Minn. 150: 1157, 1161. V. Jacobs Pharmacy Co., 145 Ga. 429: 426. V. Mayor, 63 N. Y. 239: 1230. V. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419: 672. V. McCormick, 28 Mich. 215: - 466, 496, 1070. V. Miller, 4 J. J. Marsh. 474: 636. V. Milliken. 43 Kan. 769: 427. V. Nash, 1 Wyo. 85: 73. V. Pendergast, 7 Allen, 427: 1251. V. Piper, 91 U. S. 87: 878, 877. V. Point Pleasant, 86 W. Va. 290: 185. V. Railway Co., 83 Mo. 478: 1136. V. Randolph Co. Ct., 45 W. Va. 827: 779. V. Russell, 166 Mass. 14: 424. V. State, 115 Ala. 74: 297. V. State, 5 Colo. 496: 898. V. State, 73 Ga. 38: 205, 221, 287^ 391. V. State, 79 Ga. 324: 368. V. State, 23 Md. 503: 840. V. State, 88 Tenn. 566: 1003. V. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 119: 113,. 304. V. St. Croix L. Co., 44 Minn.. 348: 620. TABLE OF OASES CITED. xlvii The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Brown v. Thompson, 14 Bush, 538; 1107. V. Tucker, 7 Colo. 30: 1050. V, Tucker, 1 West Coast Rep. 489: 1050. V. United States, 113 U. S. 568: 890. V. United States, 171 U. S. 681: 475. V. Walker, 161 U. 8. 591: 785. V. Wilcox, 14 S. & M. 127: 641, 1311. ' V. Woods, 3 Okl. 601: 720. Brown Co. v. Aberdeen, 4 Dak. 402: 677, 706, 713, 732, 813, 913. Browne v. Cuming Co., 31 Neb. 363: 500. V. Mobile, 133 Ala. 159: 578. Browning v. Jones, 4 Humph. 69: 463. V. Wheeler, 24 Wend. 258: 1348. Brown's Appeal, 72 Conn. 148: 713, 783, 846, 913. Brown's Estate, 153 Pa. St. 401: 303, 463. Brown University v. Granger, 19 R. L 704: 1004, 1008, 1070, 1194. Bruce v. Dodge Co., 30 Minn. 388: 343. V. Pittsburgh, 166 Pa, St. 153: 30a V. Schuyler, 9 111. 231: 636. V. State, 48 Neb. 570: 124. V. Wood, 1 Met 543: 610. Bruch V. Colombet, 104 CaL 347: 358, 366. Brucker v. State, 19 Wis. 539: 873. Bruen v. State, 206 111. 417: 816, 835. Bruffett V. G. W, R. R. Co., 25 111. 353: 1193. Brundage, Matter of, 31 App. Div. 348: 524. Brundy v. Mayfield, 15 Mont 201: 1030. Brunswick v. Litchfield, 2 Greenl. 28: 640. Brush V. Scribner, 11 Conn. 407: 618. V. WilkiBS, 4 Johns. Ch. 506: 619. Bryan v. Board of Education, 90 Ky. 323: 323, 264, 674. V. Bryan, 63 Ark. 79: 1231. V. Dennis, 4 Fla. 445: 845. V. Sundberg, 5 Tex. 418: 516, 518, 638. Bryant, In re, Deady, 118: 710. Bryant v. Dakota Co., 53 Neb. 755: 302, 448. V. Kelton, 1 Tex. 434: 618. V. Lefever, 4 C. P. Div. 172: 808. V. Russell, 127 Mo. 433: 730. V. Tidgewell, 133 Mass. 86: 1275. Bryson v. Johnson Co., 10 Mo. 76: 544, 1019. Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 95 Ky. 334: 517, 519. Bucher v. Commonwealth, 103 Pa. St 528: 820. V. Henderson, L. E. 3 Q.B. 335: 5r)l. Buck V. Dowley, 16 Gray, 555: 1048. V. Eureka, 97 CaL 135: 644, 1076, 1249. V. Spofford, 31 Me. 34: 759. Buckallew v. Aokerman, 8 N. J. L. 48: 46?, 481. Buckingham v. Billings, 13 Mass. 82: 1099, 1259. Buckinghouse v. Gregg, 19 Ind. 401: 872, 879. Bucklew V. Railroad Co., 64 Iowa, 603: 307. Buckley, Ex parte, 53 Ala. 43: 1158, 1227. Buckley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. St 268: 914. v. Lowry, 2 Mich. 419: 1136. xlviii TABLE OF CASKS CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1816. Bucklin v. Ford, 5 Barb. 893: 1283. Buokmaster v. MoElroy, 20 Neb. 557: 1263, 1368, 1369. Buckner v, Heal Est Bank, 5 Ark. 536: 757, 912, 958. Bucks Co. V. Gill, 5 Pa. Dist. Ct. 266: 569. Bucks Co. Prison Board, 28 Pa. Co. Ct. 65: 806. Buckwalter v. Lancaster Ca, 13 Pa. Supr. Ct. 272: 533. Bucky V. Willard, 16 Fla. 330: 581. Budd V. Hancock, 66 N. J. L. 133: 353, 368, 400. V. State, 3 Humph. 483: 343, 357, 423. Buell V. State, 73 Ind. 533: 873. Buelow, In re, 98 Fed. 86: 433, 450. Buffalo, Matter of, 68 N. Y. 167: 948, 1044, 1045. Buffalo V. Neal, 86 Hun. 76: 583. Buffalo Cem. Ass'n v. Buffalo, 118 N. Y. 61: 538, 530. Buffalo City Cem. Ass'n v. Buffalo, 46 N. Y. 506: 1003. Buffalo, etc. Co. v. N. Y. etc. E. R. Co., 10 Abb. N. C. 107: 878. Buffalo Traction Co., Matter of, 35 App. Div. 447: 303, 455. Buff ham v. Racine, 36 Wis. 449: 1103. Buford V. Bostick, 58 Tex. 63: 1050. V. Tucker, 44 Ala. 89: 873. Bugher v. Presoott, 33 Fed. 20: 353, 254 Buhl V. Kenyon, 11 Mich. 349: 1069. Builders & P. Supply Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ala. 203: 350. Bulkley v. Eckert, 3 Pa. St. 368: 1103. Bull V. Conroe, 13 Wis. 338: 843. V. Kirk, 37 S. C. 395: 673, 707. V. Read, 13 Gratt. 88: 164, 171, 172. Bull V. Rowe, 13 & C. 355: 938. Bullard v. Bell, 1 Mason, 390: 942. V. Smith, 28 Mont 387: 694, 1159. V. Ward, 89 Pa. St 358: 643. Bullock V. Fladgate, 1 Yes. & Bea. 471: 628. V. Lincoln, 2 Strange, 914: 837. Bumstead v. Govern, 47 N. J. L. 368: 868. V. Govern, 48 N. J. L. 613: 868. Bunoe v. Reed, 16 Barb. 347: 830. Bunn V. Gorgas, 41 Pa. St 441: 130a Burch V. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374: 19, 643, 1219. V. Watts, 87 Tex. 135: 1049. Burden v. Stein, 25 Ala. 455: 910. Burder v. Veley, 12 Ad. & E. 364: 999. Burdick, In re, 112 Cal. 887: Burdine v. Grand Lodge, 87 Ala. 478, 879. Burfenning v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 46 Minn. 20: 605. Burgess v. Hargrove, 64 Tex. 110: 759, 761. v.Pue, 2Gill,ll: 164. V. Salmon, 97 CT. S. 381: 330, 821, 607. Burget V. Merritt, 155 Ind. 148: 300. Burgett V. Burgett, 2 Ohio, 219: 649. Burgett's Lessee v. Burgett, 1 Ohio, 219: 644, 1076. Burgoyne v. Supervisors, 5 Cal. 9: 20, 63& Burhop V. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 357: 624, 627. Burk V. Putnam, 113 Iowa, 333: 438. Burkav. Snively,208II1.33S: 891. Burke v. Memphis, 94 Tenn. 693: 504. TABLE OF CASES CITED. xlix The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Burke v. Monroe County, 77 III 610: 223, 659, 710, 717, 7ia Burke on Petition, 101 Ky. 175: 1299. Burkhart V. Reed, 2 Idaho, 503: 81. Burkholtz v. State, 16 Lea, 71: 343, 357, 579, 602. Burlander v. Railway Ca, 26 Wis. 76: 519. Burleigh BIdg. Co. v. Merchant, etc. Co., 13 Colo. App. 455: 420. Burlington v. Burlington, etc. Ry. Co., 41 Iowa, 134: 558. V. Burlington Traction Co., 70 Vt. 491: 559. V. Penn. R. R, Co., 56 N. J. Eq. 259: 391, 397, 1336. Burlington, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bey, 83 Iowa, 312: 143. V. Thompson, 31 Kan. 180: 2a Burlington Mfg. Co. v. Board of Com'rs, 67 Minn. 327: 1257. Burn V. Carvalho, 4 Nev. & M. 893: 322. Burnet, Ex parte, 30 Ala. 461: 1033. Burnett v. Henderson, 21 Tex. 588: 871. V. Maloney, 97 Tenn. 697: 1030. V. Scully, 56 Mich. 374: 1141. V. Telegraph Co., 39 Mo. App. 599: 972. V. Turner, 87 Tenn. 124: 435. Burnham v. Acton, 4 Abb. Pr. (U. S.) 1: 633. V. Acton, 35 How. Pr. 48: 624, 635. V. Fond du Lac, 15 Wis. 193: 1103. V. Milwaukee, 98 Wis. 128: 363, 400. V. Onderdonk, 41 N. Y. 425: 568, 910, 923, 1058. V. Stevens, 83 N. H. 249: 77a V. Sumner, 50 Miss. 517: 1059. Burnham v, Webster, 5 Mass. 266: 624, 625w Burns v. Hays, 44 W. Va. 503: 53^ 1229. V. Sewell, 48 Minn. 425: 106. V. State, 104 Ga. 544: 20a 293. Burnside v. Lincoln Ca Ct., 86 Ky. 423: 229. V. Whitney, 21 N. Y. 148: 472, 644, 862, 124a Burr V. Dana, 23 CaL 1: 663, 710, 739, 1107. V. Ross, 19 Ark. 250: 71. Burrows v. Delta Trans. Co., 106 Mich. 582: 137, 830. V. Kimball, 11 Utah, 149: 1021. V. People's Gas Light & Coke Co., 75 Fed. 794: 325. Burt V. Williams, 24 Ark. 91: 1310. V. Winona, etc. R. R. Co., 31 Minn. 473: 73, 100. Burton v. Anderson, 1 Tex. 93: 619. V. School Com'rs, Meigs, 589: 357. V. Snyder, 33 Colo. 173: 363. Burton Stock Car Co. v. Treager, 187 111. 10: 404, 406. Burwell v. TuUis, 13 Minn. 572: 442. Busby V. Riley, 6 S. D. 401: 463. Busch V. Webb, 123 Fed. 655: 579. Bush V. Brainard, 1 Cow. 78: 863. V. Del. L. & W. R. R. Co., 166 N. Y. 210: 469. V. District of Columbia, 1 App. Cas. (D. C.)l: 913,915. V. Republic, 1 Tex. 455: 486. Bushey, In re, 105 Mich. 64: 469. Busse, Matter of, 80 III App. 261: 464. Bussing V. Bushnell, 6 Hill 383: 863. Butcher v. Bank of Brownsville, 2 Kan. 70: 866. V. Henderson, L. R 3 Q. B. 335: 545. TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL II, pp. 605-1315. Butler, Matter of, 58 Hun, 400: 953. Butler V. Merritt, 113 Ga. 238: 953. V. Montolair, 67 N. J. L. 436: 397. V. Palmer, 1 Hill, 334: 544, 1162, 1169, 1337. V. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402: 1194, 1195. V. Robinson, 75 Mo. 193: 627. V. Rochester, 4 Hun, 331: 910. V. Russel, 3 Cliflf. 351: 564 V. Shumway, 16 Colo. 95: 1258, 1360. V. State, 89 Ga. 831: 85, 300. V. U. S. B. &. L. Ass'n, 97 Tenc. 679: 1231, 1336. Butler's Nomination, 4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 187: 1390. Butner v. Brifenillet, 100 Ga. 743: 308, 564. Butte & B. Con. Min. Co. v. Mon- tana Ore Purchasing Co., 35 Mont. 41: 1317. Butte, etc. Min. Co. v. Mont. Ore. P. Co., 24 Mont. 125: 445, 459. V. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 25 Mont. 41: 784. Butte Hardware Co. v. Sullivan, 7 Mont. 307: 703. Buttfield V. Bidwell, 96 Fed. 328: 158. V. Shanahan, 193 U. S. 470: 134, 158. 880. Butts V. Vicksburg, etc. E. R. Co., 63 Miss. 463: 665, 674. Butz V. Muscatine, 8 "Wall. 575: 1206. Bye V. Stafford, 4 N. D. 804: 281. Byous V. Mount, 89 Tenn. 361: 1259. Byrd v. Brown, 5 Ark. 709: 1051, 1054. V. State, 57 Miss. 343: 087, 1066. Bywater v. Brandling, 7 B. & C. 643: 653, 654. C. Cache Co. v. Jensen, 21 Utah, 207: 1010. Cadogan v. Kennett, 3 Cowp. 433: 1245, 1346. Cage V. Hogg, 1 Humph. 48; 1234. eager, Matter of. 111 N. Y. 343: 1159, 1166. Caha V. United States, 153 U. S. 311: 638. Cahall V. Citizens' Mut. B. Ass'n, 61 Ala. 233: 531. Cahoon v. Iron Gate L. & L Co., 93 Va. 867: 268. Cain V. Goda, 84 Ind. 309: 814, 316. Cairo v. Coleman, 53 111. App. 680: 815, 826, 1031. Calder v. Bull, 3 DalL 386: 485, 631, 643, 1173, 1174 V. Kurby, 5 Gray, 597: 1195. Calderwood v. Est. of Calderwood, 38 Vt. 171: 754 Caldwell v. Alton, 33 111. 416: 1033. V. Barrett, 73 Ga. 604: 171, 306. V. State, 34 Ga. 18: 946. V. State, 101 Ga. 557: 341. V. Vaoolissengen, 9 Hare, 425: 25. V. Ward, 83 Mich. 13: 113, 113. Caledonia Ry. Co. v. North British Ry. Co., L. R. 6 App. Cas. 114: 704, 713, 721, 729. Calhoun v. Delhi, etc. R R Co., 28 Hun, 379: 443. V. Kellogg. 41 Ga. 231: 1310. V. Little, 106 Ga. 336: 787. V. MoLendon, 43 Ga. 405: 19, 20, 1098. Calhoun Gold Min. Co. v. Ajax G. Min. Co., 182 U. S. 499: 1314 Calkin v. Cocke, 14 How. 227: 617. Calking v. Baldwin, 4 Wend. 667: 62.5, 018. TABLE OF CASES CITED. li The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-i ; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. 'Calkins v. State, 14 Ohio St. 223: 555. Call V. Hagger, 8 Mass. 430: 1206. Calladay v. Pilklngton, 12 Mod. 513: 1020. Callaghan v. Chipman, 59 Mich. 610: 582. Callahan v. Jennings, 16 Cola 471: 243, 445, 545, 551, 1222. V. St. Louis Merchants' Bridge Terminal E. R. Co., 170 Mo. 473: 417. Callam v. District of Columbia, 16 A pp. Cas. (D. C.) 271: 516, 517. Callanan v. Judd, 23 Wis. 343: 1054. •Callaway v. Harding, 28 Gratt. 547: 673. Callen v. Junction City, 43 Kan. 627: 155. ■Callis V. "Waddy, 3 Munf. 511: 1282. -Calloway v. Laydon, 47 Iowa, 456: 1264 V. "Willie's Lessee, 3 Yerg. 1: 609. Callum V. Pottigrew, 10 Heisk. 394: 1142. Cally V. Anson, 4 Wis. 223: 1305. Call vert v. Windsor, 26 Wash. 368: 275, 530. Calvert v. Williams, 34 Md. 672: 329. Cambria Iron Co. v. Ashburn, 118 U. S. 54: ,521, 855. ■Cambrian Ey. Co.'s Scheme, In re, L. R. 3 Ch. 278: 789, 811. •Cambridge v. Boston, 130 Mass. 357: 643. V. Co. Com'rs, 86 Me. 141: 1133. -Cambron v. Omaha, etc. E. R. Co., 165 Mo. 543: 417. ■Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch. 398: 639. V. Allen, 26 N. J. L. 398: 917. V. Anderson, 6 T. R. 723: 459. V. Varney, 63 N. J. L. 325: 516, 518, 520. Camden, etc. E. E. Co. v. Briggs, 22 N. J. L. 623: 986. Cameron y. Blackman, 39 Mich. 108: 869. V, Chicago, etc. Ry. Co, 63 Minn. 384: 134, 429. V. Fay, 55 Tex. 62: 1260. V. Merchants' etc. Bank, 37 Mich. 240: 889. V. Smith, 50 Cal. 303: 505. Camp V. Tompkins, 84 Ga. 812: 341. Campau v. Detroit, 14 Mich. 276: 458. Campbell, Ex parte, L. E. 5 Ch. 703: 758. Campbell, In re, 197 Pa. St. 581: 303. Campbell v. Allison, 63 N. C. 568: 1136. V. Board of Pharmacy, 45 N. J. L. 241: 221. V. Campbell, 3 Ohio C. C. 449: 887. V. Hall, 1 Cowp. 208: 27, 34. V, Holt, 115 U. S. 020: 1289. V. Indianapolis, 155 Ind. 186: 397, 398. V. International Life, 4 Bos. 317 : 337. V. Iron Silver Min. Co., 83 Fed. 643: 1226. V. Labette Co. Com'rs, 63 Kan. 377: 339. V. People, 8 Wend. 636; 956. V. Schlesinger, 48 Hun, 428: 1270. Campbell, etc. Co. v. Nonpareil, etc. Co.,75 Va. 291: 1163. Campbell's Case, 2 Bland's Ch. 209: 627. Campbell's Eegistration, 201 Pa. St. 96: 430. Campbellsville L. Co. v. Hubbert, 112 Fed. 718: 9. lii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Canadian & Am. Mort. & T. Co. v. Blake, 34 Wash. 102: 1190, 1303. Canady v. George, 6 Rich. Eq. 103: 461. Canal & Walker Sts., Matter of, 13 N. Y. 406: 940. Canal Co. v. E. R. Co., 4 Gill & J. 1 : 649, 660, 693. T. R. R Co., 4 G. & J. 153: 1077. Canal Com'rs v. East Peoria, 179 111. 814: 517,519.- V. People, 5 Wend. 445: 610. V. Sanitary Dist, 184 III. 597: 651, 693, 723, 744, 913, 1158, 1154. V. Sanitary Dist., 191 111. 326: 468. Candee, Ex parte, 48 Ala. 886; 1054. Canfield, In re, 98 Mich. 644: 1188. Can field v. Davies, 61 N. J. L. 26: 391. V. Leadville, 7 Colo. App. 453: 468. Cannon v. Bryce, 3 B. & Aid. 179: 938. V. Hemphill, 7 Tex. 184: 188. V. Mathes, 8 Heisk. 504: 133, 187, 188. V. Williams, 14 Colo. 31: 1355. Cantini v. Tillman, 54 Fed. 969: 94, S92. Cantrell v. Conner, 51 How. Pr. 45: 1098. , v.Seaverns,168II1.165: 98,510. Canty v. Sanderford, 37 Ala. 91: 1063, 1394 Cape Girardeau v. Riley, 52 Mo. 428: 544. Caperon v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304: 445, 561. Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U. S. 1: 785. Capron v. Hitchcock, 98 Cal. 427: 468. Carbaugh v. Sanders, 13 Pa. Supr.- Ct. 361: 1150: Carberry v. People, 39 III. App. 506r 1013. Carbondale, etc. Road Co., In re, 3- Pa. Co. Ct. 460: 314, 373. Cardenas v. Miller, 106 Cal. 350: 803. Cardillo v. People, 26 Colo. 355: 30a Carey v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Iowa, 357: 23, 869. V. Giles, 9 Ga. 253: 1246. Carey-Lombard Co. v. Partridge, 10- Utah, 333: 731. Cargill ^•. Power, 1 Mich. 369: 1210. Cargo of Brig Aurora v. United' States, 7 Cranch, 382: 161, 563,- 607. Carleton v. Goodwin, 41 Ala. 153:- 19. Carlisle v. Carlisle, 3 Harr. 318: 145. V. State, 43 Ala. 523: 554. V. Stitler, 1 Pen. & W. 6: 1005. Carlson, In re, 137 Pa. St. 330: 1276.' Carmiohael v. Hays, 66 Ala. 543: 517. Carmon v. State, 18 Ind. 450: 876. Carnes v. Red River, 29 La. Ann.- 608: 1335. Carney v. Hampton, 8 T. R. Mon.- 331: 784. V. Tully, 74 IlL 375: 1354 Carolina Grocery Co. v. Burnet, 61 S. C. 205: 340, 343. Carolina Savings Bank v. Evans,^ 28 S. C. 521: 914 1046. Carothers v. Wheeler, 1 Ore. 194: 328, 333. Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 Wall. 518: 865, 866. V. Furrey, 128 Cal. 665: 300, 428. V. Herrington, 25 Wend. 870:- 1005. TABLE OF OASES CITED. liii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Carpenter v. Montgomery, 7 Blaokf. 415: 318, 314. V.Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456: 550, 631, 1174 V. People, 8 Barb. 603: 645. Carpenter's Case, 14 Pa. St. 486: 945. Carpy v. Dowdell, 129 Cal. 244; 913. Carr v. Carrollton, 8 Ohio C. C. 1: 882. V. Coke, 116 N. C. 223: 60. V. State, 127 Ind. 204: 458, 598. V. Thomas, 18 Fla. 736: 201, 855. Carrier, Matter of, 13 Banker. Rep. 208: 308. Carrier v. Chicago, etc. Ey. Co., 79 Iowa,- 80: 1016. Carroll v. Alsup, 107 Tenn. 357: 304, 430. V. Carroll, 16 How. 275, 907. V, Lessee of Olmstead, 16 Ohio, 251: 627. V. Mo. Pac. R. R. Co., 88 Mo. 239: 1293. V. State, 58 Ala. 396:674. Carrow v. Bridge Co., Phil. L. (N. C.) 118: 627. Carson v. Center, 33 Ore. 512: 31. V. Dal ton, 59 Tex. 500: 873. v. Love, 8Yerg. 215: 328. V. Mayor, 94 Ga. 617: 300. V. Railway Ca, 88 Tenn. 646: 21. V. St. Francis Levee Dist., 59 Ark. 513: 137. V. State, 69 Ala. 235: 232, 974 Carson-Rand Co. v. Stern 129 Mo. 381:711. Carter v. Balfour, 19 Ala, 814: 31, 609, 610. V. Burt, 13 Allen, 424: 486, V. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 791: 5, 10, 579. V Hav.-ley, Wright, 74: 482. Carter v. Hobbs, 93 Fed. 594: 883. V. Peak, 138 Mass. 439: 808. V. Shumway, 39 N. Y. 418: 1187. V. State, 6 Cold. 537: 1054 Carterville Coal Co. v. Abbott, 181 111. 495: 1076. V. Abbott, 81 111. App. 279: 1076. Caruthers v. Andrews, 2 Cold. 378: 357. Carver v. James, Willes, 257: 1277. V. Smith, 90 Ind. 223: 506. Carvill v. Addition, 63 Me. 459: 336. Cary Hardware Co. v. McCarty, 10 Colo. App. 200: 1355. Case v. Kelly, 133 U. S. 81: 613. V. Loftus, 43 Fed. 839: 306. V. Mayor, etc., 30 Ala. 538: 869. V. Screw, 46 Hun. 57: 875. V. Storey, L. R. 4 Ex. 319: 804 V. Wildridge, 4 Ind. 51: 701. Casement v. Fulton, 5 Moore's, R. C. 141: 777. Casey v. Burt Co. 59 Neb. 624: 1041. V. Harned, 5 Iowa, 1 : 458. Cash V. State, 10 Humph, 111: 866, 873. Casher v. Holmes, 2 B. & Ad. 592: 824 830. V. Gray, 159 Mo. 588: 1261. Cass V. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 607: 345, 348, 460, 511, 567. Cassady v. Grimmelman, 108 Iowa, 695: 1283, 1284 Cass County v. Gillett, 100 U. S. 585: 539. V. Sarpy Co., 63 Neb. 813: 444 Cassell V. Lexington, etc., T. Co., 10 Ky. L. R. 486: 243, 458, 563. Cassity v. Storms, 1 Bush. 452: 545. Castelli v. Groom, 182 B. 490: 1149. Casterton v. Vienna, 163 N. Y. 368: 528, 530, 538. Castle V. Burditt, 3 T. R. 623: 329. li\- ta:i3lb of oases cited. The refei-ences are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1015. Castle's Case, Cro. Jac. 64.4: 917. Castner v. Walrod, 83 111. 171: 505, 506, 671 Caston V. Brock, 14 S. C. 104: 688. Castrov.Greer,44W.Va. 333: 1160, 1161, 1192. Caswell V. Cook, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 637, 999. V. Worth, 5 E. & B. 849: 636. Catawba Toll B. Co. v. Flowers, 110 N. C. 381: 764. Catawissa R. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 53 Pa. St. 283: 1393. Gate V. Martin, 70 N. H. 135: 096, 707, 955. V. State, 3 Sneed, 120: 466, 483. Gates V. Knight, 3 T. R 443: 554, 778, 1052. Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. 264: 610, 631, 786. Catlett V. Young, 143 111. 74: 781. Catlin V. Hull, 21 Vt. 152: 660, 711. V. "Wheeler, 49 Wis. 507: 1052. Catril V. Union Pao. R. R. Co., 8 Idaho, 576: 414. Catron V. Co. Com'rs., 18 Colo. 553: 185, 187, 199, 203, 289. Catterlin v. Bush, 39 Ore. 496: 1159, 1168. Caulfield v. Hudson, 3 Cal. 389: 1054. V. Stevens, 38 Cal. 118: 1051. Cavanagh v. Boston, 139 Mass., 426: 1010, Cearfoss v. State, 43 Md. 406: 665, 695, 698, 709, 712, 729, 733. Cecil V. Green, 161 111. 365: 815, 836. Cecil Bank v. Barrey, 20 Md. 387: 618, 633. Cedar Rapids, etc. Ry, Co. v. Car- roll Co., 41 Iowa 153: 558. V. Elsefler, 84 Iowa 510:' 468. Cedar Rapids W. Co. v. Cedar Rapids, 118 Iowa, 234: 1333. Centerville Coal Co. v. Abbott, 81 111. App. 279: 1076. Central Bridge v. Lowell, 15 Gray, 106: 1193. Central B. U. P. R. R. Co. v. Atch- ison, etc. R. R. Co., 28 Kan. 453: 595, 601. Central City H. By. Co. v. Fort Clark H. Ry. Co., 81 111. 523: 1044. Central Iowa R. R. Ca v. Supervis- ors, 67 Iowa, 199: 401, 433, 462, 466. Central of Ga. R. R. Co. v. Lipp- man, 110 Ga. 665: 864. V. People, 5 Colo. 39: 188, 353. V. State, 104 Ga. 831: 94, 125, 194. Central Park Com'rs, Matter of, 50 N. Y. 493: 520. Central Plank Road Co. v. Hannar man, 32 Ind. 484: 231. Central R. R. Co. v. Gamble, 77 Ga. 584: 873. V. Hamilton, 71 Ga. 461: 447, 465, 855. V. Swint, 73 Ga. 651: 38. Central Transportation Co. v. Pull- man's Palace Car Co., 139 U. S. 34: 1031. Central Trust Co. v. Sheffield & B. Coal, etc. Co., 42 Fed. 106: 807. v. Sloan, 65 Iowa, 655: 367, 413. Central Union Tel. Co. v. Feliring, 146 Ind. 189: 229. Chadwiok v. Moore, 8 W. & S. 49: 1306. V. Tatem, 9 Mont. 354: 469. Chaffe V. Aaron, 63 Miss. 39: 1326. Chaffee's Appeal, 56 Mich. 344: 1047, nil. Chalfant v. Edwards, 173 Pa. St. 346: 83, 137, 138, 410. TABLE OF CASES CITED. h The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Chalfant v. Edwards, 176 Pa. St. 67: 538, 539. Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N. Y. 434: 488, 490, 513. V. Evansville, 77 Ind. 543: 551, 556. V. Iowa Telephone Ca, 119 Iowa, 619: 767. V. Western Trana Co., 44 N. Y. 305: 1343. Chambers v. Carson, 2 Whart. 9: 778. V. Diokson,"2 Serg. & R. 475: 911. V. Soliier, 1 Alaska, 371: 135. V. State, 35 Tex. 307: 457. Chamlee v. Davis, 115 Ga. 366: 86, 128, 446, 1>;03. Champion v. Kille, 15 N. J. Eq. 476: 869. Chan V. Brandt, 45 Minn. 98: 39. Chance v. Adams, 1 Lord Eaym. 77: 630, 648. Chancellor v. Elizabeth, 64 N. J. L. 503: 433. . Chancellor of Oxford, The Case of, 10 Coke, 57: 628. Chandler v. Hanna, 73 Ala. 390: 473, 1056, 1057. V. Nash, 5 Mich. 400: 1051, 1054. V. Nilett, 3 Saund. 130: 1378, 1383. Chaney v. State, 31 Ala. 342: 643, 1338. Chapin v, Crusen, 31 Wis. 209: 674. V. Curtenius, 15 111. 427: 1096. V. Persse & Brooks Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461: 959, 1055, 1354. Chapman, In re (1896), 1 Ch. 333: 1160. Chapman, In re, 166 U. S. 661: 955. Chapman v. Foster, 6 Allen, 136: 941. Chapman v. McGrath, 163 Mo. 393: 1261. V. Miller, 138 Mass. 269: 710. V. Milvian, 5 Excli. 61: 490. V. State, 16 Tex. App. 76: 798. V. Woodruff, 34 Ga. 98: 830. Chapoton v. Detroit, 38 Mich. 630: 463. Chappell V. United States, 81 Fed. 764: 794 847, 854. Chaproa v. Cassaday, 3 Humph. 661:610. Chard v. Holt, 1.36 N. Y. 30: 563. Charles Baumbaoh Co. v. Singer, 86 Wis. 339: 1^35. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420: 548, 643, 861, 1023, 1023, 1034. Charless v. Lamberson, 1 Iowa, 435: 312, 325, 1098, 1358. Charles St. Ave. Co. v, Merryman, 10 Md. 536: 715. Charleston v. Johnston, 170 III 336: 788. Charleston & Soutbside B. Co. v. Kanawha Co. Ct., 41 W. Va. 658: 134. Charlestown v. County Com'rs, 3 Met. 203: 1039, 1044. Charlotte v. Chouteau, 33 Mo. 194: 018, 633. V. Shepard, 132 N. C. 602: 93, 95. Charter v. Greame, 13 Q. B. 216: 1117. Chartered Mercantile Bank, etc. v. Wilson, L. R. 3 Ex. D. 108: 809. Chase v. Insurance Ca, 9 Allen, 311 : 611. Chealy v. Brewer, 7 Mass. 259: 1077. Cheatham v, Brien, 3 Head, 553: 1116. Cheek v. Commonwealth, 100 Ky. 1: 766. Ivi TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108: 41, 613, 866. Chegaray v. Mayor, etc., 13 N. Y. 220: 819. Cheltenham Tp. Road, 140 Pa. St 136: 408. Chenango Bridge Co. v. Bingham- ton Bridge Co., 27 N. Y. 87: 548. Cherry Overseers v. Marion Over- seers, 96 Pa, St. 528: 1136. Chesapeake & O. Canal Co. v. Rail- road Co., 4 Gill & J. 1:709. Chesapeake & P. Tel. Co. v. Man- ning, 186 U. a 238: 674, 926. Chesney v. MoClintock, 61 Kan. 94: 86, 87, 339. Chesnut v. Elliott, 61 Miss. 569: 1132. V. Shane, 16 Ohio, 599: 888, 889, 901, 1229. Chester v. First Nat. Bank, 9 Pa. Supr. Ct. 517: 1314. V. Pennell, 169 Pa. St. 300: 464, 123a Chester & Cheraw R. R. Co. v. Marshall, 40 S. O. 59: 1161, 1383, 1284. Chester Glass Ca v. Dewey, 16 Mass. 102: 1037. Chew V. Calvert, 1 Walk. (Miss.) 54: 34 , Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 536: 466, 1070. Chicago V. Chicago, 307 IlL 37: 1003, 1004. V. Hanseddy, 103 IlL App. 1: 510. V. Hasley, 35 111. 595: 1103. V. Vulcan Iron Works, 93 111. 232: 335. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Avooa, 99 Iowa, 556: 410, 1033. v.Bozarth, 91111. App. 68: 1348. V. Chapman, 133 111. 96: 920. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Chicago, 121 111. 176: 1041. V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 112 111. 589: 1043. V. Doyle, 60 Miss. 977: 37. V. Dunn, 58 IlL 360: 644. V. Eaton, 59 Neb. 698: 847, V. Forest Co., 95 Wis, 80: 407. V. Glover, 159 Ind. 166: 135. V. Guthrie, 193 III. 579: 132a V. Hartshorn, 30 Fed. Rep. 541: 558. V. Iowa, 9411. S. 155: 411. V.Jones, 149 IlL 361: 580. V. Lane, 130 IIL 116: 846. V. McGlinn, 114 U. S. 543: 34. V. Ottumwa, 113 Iowa, 300: 999, 1013. V. People, 67 IlL 11: 968. V. Smith, 78 111. 96: 645. V. Smythe, 103 Fed. 376: 86, 88. V. State, 153 Ind. 134: 300, 846, 1064. V. Sturgis, 44 Mich. 538: 1030. V. Wiltse, 116 111. 449: 1041. V. Wolfe, 61 Neb. 503: 113. V. Zernecke, 59 Neb. 689: 847. Chicago Lumber Co. v. Dillon, 13 Colo. App. 196: 1358. Chicago Packing Co. v. Chicago, 88 IlL 331: 1195. Chicago Pub. Stock Exchange v. McClaughry, 148 111. 373: 1154. Chicago Theological Seminary v. Illinois, 188 U.S. 662: 1004, 1008, 1070. V. People, 189 IlL 439: 1003. Chicago Title & T. Co. v. O'Marr, 18 Mont. 568: 557. Chicago Union Traction Co. v. Chi- cago, 199 111. 484: 815, 827. Chicot V. Davies, 40 Ark. 200: 95. Chidsey v. Scranton, 70 Miss. 449: 567. ' TABLE OF OASES CITED. Ivii The references are to the pages: Tol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-1315, •Childs V. Hill, 20 Tex, Civ. App. 162: 1191. V. Shower, 18 Iowa, 261: 458, 593, 601. V. Smith, 55 Barb. 45: 920, 1140. V. State, 97 Ala. 49: 455, 1117. 'Chiles V. Drake, 2 Met. (Ky.) 150: 199, V. Smith's Heirs, 13 B. Men. 460: 329, 333. V, State, 2 Tex. App.' 37: 918, ■Chipman v. Wayne Co, Auditors, 127 Mich. 490: 301. -Chippewa Falls v. Hopkins, 109 Wis. 611: 573. -Chisholm v. Northern Transporta- tion Co., 61 Barb. 363: 1058, V, Shields, 21 Ohio C. C. 231: 707, 779. V. Weisse, 3 Okl. 611: 784 -Chmelir v. Sawyer, 42 Neb. 863: 1268. Choate v. Buffalo, 39 App. Dlv. 379: 455. Choctaw, O. & G. R. R. Co. v. Alex- ander, 7 Okl. 579: 619, 651, 703. OhoUar Mining Co v. Wilson, 66 Cal. .574: 1140. -Chouteau v. Allen, 70 Mo. 290: 939. V. Mo. Pao. Ry. Co., 123 Mo. 375: 933. V. Pierre, 9 Mo. 3: 606, 868. Christie v. Bayonne,64 N. J, L. 181: 362. V. Life Indemnity & Invest. Co., 82 Iowa, 360: 221, 416. V. Umwin, 8 Perry & Davison, 298: 1048. -Christopherson v. Lotinga, 15 C. B. (U. S.) 809: 1097. V. Lotinga, 33 L. J. C. P. 123: 793. ►Christy v. Board of Suprs., 39 Cal. 3: 583. Christy v. Pridgeon, 4 Wall. 196: 614. Church, Matter of, 28 Hun, 476: 608. Church V. Crocker, 3 Mass. 17: 853, 910, V. Detroit, 64 Mich. 571 : 253. v. Hubbart, 2 Cranoh, 187: 618, 622, 869. T. Rhodes, 6 How. Pr. 281 : 463, 551, 558. V. Stadler, 16 Ind. 463: 671. Churchill v. Crease, 5 Bing. 177: 532, 660. V. Georgia R. & B. Co., 108 Ga, 265; 749. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U. S. 457: 650, 743, 880, 881, 924. Cicero v. McCarthy, 173 IlL 279: 788. Cicero, etc. Ca v. Craighead, 28 Ind, 374: 880, Cincinnati v, Conover, 55 Ohio St. 82: 514, 848, 999, 1013. V. Rosohe Bros., 50 Ohio St. 103: 397. V. Steinkamp, 9 Ohio C. C. 178: 391. Cincinnati College v. State, 19 Ohio, 110: 1003, Cincinnati, etc, R, R. Co. v. Carth- age, 36 Ohio St. 631: 119a V. Com'rs, 1 Ohio St. 77: 145, 148, 170. V. Hedges, 63 Ohio St. 339: 1163. V. Thieband, 114 Fed, 918: 417, Citizen's Bank v. Parker, 193 U, S, 73: 960, 1007, Citizens' Gas L. Co. v. Alden, 44 R. J. L. 648: 635. Citizens' Gas & Min. Co. v. Elwood, 114 Ind. 333: 1034, 1039. Citizens' Life Ins. Co. v. Commis- sioner, 128 Mich, 85: 769. Iviii TABLE OF CASES CITED The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Graham, 147 Clark Mo. 250: 585. V. Citizens' Sav. Bank v. Auditor General, 123 Mich. 511: 239. V. V. Green, 173 N. Y. 215: 9. Citizens' State Bank v. Smout, 63 V. Neb. 223: 1294. Citizens' St. E. R. Co. v. Haugh, 143 V. Ind. 254: 231. V. City V. MoMichael, 12 Pa. Dist. Ct. V. 403: 128. V. Railroad Co., 35 La. Ann. V. 679: 1227. V. V. Schellinger, 15 Phila. 50: 70S, V. 713. V. City Bank v. Huie, 1 Rob. (La.) 23C; 659, 781. V. City Council v. Adams, 51 Ala. 449: V. 831. V. V. Baptist Church, 4 Strob. 806: V. 457. V. Birdsong, 136 Ala. 633: 194, V. 197, 455. V, V. National B. & L. Ass'u, 108 Ala. 336: 185, 467, 527. V. Plank R. Co, 31 Ala. 76: 1033. V. V. Port Royal, etc., 74 Ga. 658: V. 353, 261. V. Wright, 73 Ala. 411: 345. V. City Ry. Co. v. Citizens' St. R. R. V. Co., 166 U.S. 557: 1160,1161. V. Clanton v. Barnes, 50 Ala. 360: 619. Clare v. State, 68 Ind. 17: 435. V. V. State, 5 Iowa, 509: 59, 881. V. Clarence Ey. Co. v. Great North of V. Eng. etc. Ey. Co., 13 M. & W; 706: V. 949. V. Clarion Bank v. Gruber, 87 Pa. St. V. 468: 637. Clarion Borough's Appeal, 189 Pa. V. St. 79: 470. V. Clark V. Brown, 18 Wend. 313: 1057. V. V. Bynum, 3 MoCord, 398: 654, V. 655. V. Clark, 10 N. H. 391 : 1320.. County Com'rs, 54 Kan, 634: 304. Crane, 5 Mich. 151: 1137, 1139. , Davenport, 14 Iowa, 495: 1033. , Dewey, 5 Johns. 251: 1306. Dotter, 54 Pa. St. 215; 895. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L. 565: 1150, 1152. Ellis, 3 Blackf. 8: 589. Ewing, 87 III. 344: 830. , Farrington, 11 Wis. 306: 1037. Finley, 98 Tex. 171: 8, 200^ 279, 370, 398, 447. Gaskarth, 8 Taunt. 481: 817. .Hague. 3 E. & E. 281: 837. Hardiman, 3Leigh,347: 138U Holmes, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 890: 933, 1048. , Huey, 13 Ind. App. 224: 1255. , Janesville, 10 Wis. 136: 318,. 821, 346, 634, 635, 632, 864, 886, , Kent, 80 111. App. 138: 736. Koplin, 6 Pa. Supr. Ct. 463: 464. Lamoreux,70 Wis. 508: 1145. Lanoy, 178 Mass. 460: 1311. Martin, 3 Grant's Cas. 393' 1810. Mayor, 39 Md. 283: 698. . MoCann, 18 Hun, 18: 505. Middleton, 19 Mo. 53: 988, Mowyer, 5 Mich. 463: 889. , Railroad Co., 81 Me. 477: 70i. Richardson, 15 N. J, L, 347. 1383. Robinson, 88 111. 498: 1148. Schatz, 34 Minn. 300; US'* Smith, 13 Pet. 195; 613. United States, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 395: 553, 1164. TABLE OF CASES CITED. lix The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. It, pp. 605-1315. Clark V. Utica, 18 Barb. 451: 747, 751. V. Washington, 13 Wheat. 40: 1009. V. Wilkie, 4 Strob. 259: 1036. Clark, Dodge & Ca v. Davenport, 14 Iowa, 494: 1009. Clarke v. Bradlaugh, L. R. 7 Q. B. Div. 69: 788. V. Brookfield,^ 81 Mo. 503: 949. V. Darr, 156 Ind. 693: 364. V. Gibbons, 83 N. Y. 107: 505. V. Irwin, 5Nev. 134; 340. V. Pratt, 30 Ala. 470: S3. V. Rochester, 38 N. Y. 605: 159, 170. V. State, 38 Miss. 361: 473, 1186. Clark's Appeal, 58 Conn. 307: 675. Clark's Appeal, 100 Mich. 448: 1361. Clark's Estate, 195 Pa. St. 530: 437. Clark's Run, etc. T. Co. v. Common- wealth, 96 Ky. 535: 889, 896. Clark's Succession, 11 La. Ann. 134: 665. Clarkson v. R. R. Co., 13 N. Y. 304: 645. Claw V. Chapman, 135 Mo. 101: 1394. Clawson v, Eichbaum, 3 Grant's Cas. 180: 320. -V. Pimrose, 4 Del. Ch. 643: 39 608. V. United States, 114 U. S. 477: 1053. Clay V. Central R. & B. Co., 84 Ga. 845: 339, 757. V. Iseminger, 187 Pa. St. 108: 1387. v.Mayr,144Mo.376: 1159,1101, 1164, 1395. Clay County v. Society for Savings, 104 U. S. 579: 463. Clay Co. Suprs. v. Chickasaw Co. Com'rs, 64 Miss. 534: 530. e Clay don v. Green, L. R. 3 C. P. 531: 691. Clayton's Case, 5 Coke, 1: 339. Clearfield Co. v. Cameron Tp., 135 Pa. St. 86: 303. Cleary v. Hoobler, 107 111. 97: 1158. Clem v. State, 33 Ind. 418: 357. Clements v. Anderson, 46 Miss. 598: 846. V. Smith, 3 E. & E. 338: 1097. Clementson v. Mason, L. R. 10 C. P. 309: 709, 733. v. Williams, 8 Cranch, 73: 1016. Clemmensen v. Peterson, 35 Ore. 47: 186, 367. Cleveland, Petition of. In re, 53 N. J. L. 188: 174, 360. Cleveland v. Spartenburg, 54 S. 0. 83: 177. Cleveland, etc. R. R. Co. v. Eire, 27 Pa. St. 380: 1033. V. People, 205 111. 583: 1010. V. Rowan, 66 Pa. St. 393: 1393. V. Speer, 56 Pa. St. 335: 1032. V. Wells, 65 Ohio St. 813: 555, 964. Cline V. Greenwood, 10 Ore. 230: 927. Clinton v. Draper, 14 Ind. 395: 303. V. Englebrecht, 13 Wall 434: '895. V. Henry Co., 115 Mo. 557: 1004, 1311. V.Phillips, 7 T. B. Mon. 117: 1136. V. Walliker, 98 Iowa, 655: 1330, 1332, 1287. Clinton Ave., Matter of, 57 App. Div. 166: 303. Clinton Water Com'rs v. Dwight, 101 N. Y. 9: 204 Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall 114: 993. Ix TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Clossoa V. Trenton, 48 N. J. L. 438: 37a Clough V. Curtis, 3 Idaho, 523: 81. Clow V. Chapman, 135 Mo. 101: 1295. V. Harper, L. R. 3 Ex, Div. 198: 893. Clu£E V. Insurance Co., 18 Allen, 308: 611. Goad V. Cowhick, 9.Wyo. 816: 786. Coalheavers' Case, 1 Leach 0. C. 64: 933. Coates V. Mackey, 56 Md. 416: 866. V. Muse, 1 Brook. 539: 614. Coats V. Barrett, 49 111. App. 275: 957. V. Hill, 41 Ark. 149: 463, 483, 511, 567. Coatsworth v. Barr, 11 Mich. 199: 754 Cobb V. Bred, 40 Minn. 479: 369, 886, 433. V. Vary, 130 Ala. 263: 455. Coburn v. Dodd, 14 Ind. 347: 605, 866. V. Harvey, 18 Wis. 147: 609. Coociola T.Wood-Dickerson Supply Co., 186 Ala. 533: 713, 738, 934, 1355, 1356. Cochran v. Baker, 00 Miss. 282: 1333. V. Harvey, 88 Ga.- 852: 771, 1259. V. Library Co., 6 Phila. 493: 649, 650. V. State, 36 Tex. Crim. App. 115: 973. V. Taylor, 13 Ohio St. 883: 559. Cochrane v. King Co., 13 Wash. 518: 519, 564. Cock V. Bunn, 6 John. 836: 838, 331, 336. Cockrell v. Gailey, 26 Ala. 470: 33. Cody V. Murphy, 89 Cal. 523: 408. Coe V. Caledonia, etc. R. R. Co., 27 Minn. 197: 327. V. Lawrence, 1 E. & B. 516: 969. V. Schultz, 47 Barb. 64: 148. CofBeld V. State, 44 Neb. 417: 784. Coffin V. Rich, 45 Me. 507: 545, 561, 695, 699, 729, 1071. V. State, 7 Ind. 157: 643. Coflfman v. Daveny, 2 How. (Miss.) 854: 1136. Coghill V. State, 87 Ind. Ill: 482. Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195: 648, 649. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264: 39, 887. Cohn v. Neeves, 40 Wis. 393: 646, 979, 1019. V. People, 149 111. 486: 230, 651. Cohoes Co. V. Goss, 18 Barb. 137: 1137. Colbran v. Barnes, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 244: 711. Colburn v. Swett, 1 Met. 233: 932. Colby v. Dennis, 86 Me. 9: 549, 558. V. Knapp, 13 N. H. 175: 110. Colcord V. Conroy, 40 Fla. 97: 1397. Colden v. Eldred, 15 Joha 220: 1057. Cole V. Anne, 40 Minn. 80: 1050. V. Bentley, 26 111. App. 260: 784. V. Chicago, etc. B. R. Co., 47 Mo. App. 624: 780, 1812. V. Circuit Judge, 106 Mich. 692: 789, 790. V. Commonwealth, 101 Ky. 151: 1310. V. Coulton, 3 E. & E. 695: 484. V. Groves, 134 Mass. 471: 986. V. Hall, 103 111, 30: 318. V. Humphries, 78 Miss. 168: 909. V. Muscatine, 14 Iowa, 296: 917, 1310. V. Perry, 6 Cow. 584: 1131. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Ixi The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Cole V. Perry, 8 Cow. 214: 645. V. Skrainka, 105 Mo. 303: 717, 733. V. Supervisors, 11 Iowa, 553: 494. V. Thayer, 8 Cow. 249: 639. V. White Ca, 32 Ark. 45: 931. Colehan v. Cook, Willes, 395: 653, 656. Coleman v. Ballandi, 22 Minn, 144: 1200. V. Davidson Academy, Cooke, (Tenn.)358: 853. V. Davis, 13 Colo. 98: 1127. V. Dobbins, 8 Ind. 156: 609, 883. V. Holmes, 44 Ala. 124: 1016. v. Newby, 7 Kan. 88: 140, 148. Cole Mfg. Ca v. Falls, 90 Tenn. 466: 134, 333, 303, 937. V. Falls, 93 Tenn. 607: 443. Colgate V. Penn. Co., 103 N. Y. 137: 645. CoUey V. London, etc. Co., L. B. 5 Ex.Div. 377:639. Collier v. Early, 54 Ind. 559: 1370, 1371, 1373. V. Worth, L. R. 1 Exch. 464: 956. Collier & C, L. Co. v. Henderson, 18 Colo. 359: 115. Collin V. Knoblock, 35 La. Ann. 363: 701. Collins V. Bingham Bros., 33 Ohio C. C. 533: 458. V. Carman, 5 Md. 503: 911, 915, 1073. V. Chase, 71 Me. 434: 463, 466. V. East Tenn. eto. R. R. Co., 9 Heisk. 841: 1200,' 1317. V. Henderson, 11 Bush, 74: 305. V. Mi Hen, 57 Ohio St. 389: 779, 780. V. Russell, 107 Ga. 433: 378, 446, 566. Collins V. State, 97 Ga. 433: 737. V. Warren, 63 Tex. 311: 561. T. Welch, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 37: 665, 750. V. Wilhot, 35 Mo. App. 585: 781. Colorado v. Com'rs., 78 Me. 533:577. Colorado Cemetery v. Arapahoe Co., 30 Cola. 507: 899. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v, Len- hart, 6 Colo. App. 511: 988. Colorado Milling & EL Co. v. Mit- chell, 36 Colo. 284: 230. Colorado Springs L. S. Co. v. God- ding, 20 Colo. 71: 706. Colquhoun v. Heddon, L. R. 35 Q. B. D. 129, 953. Colt V. Eves. 13 Conn. 343: 1117. Columbia T. Co. v. Haywood, 10 Wend. 433: 338, 330, 331. Columbia W. P. Co. v. Columbia Elec. St. Ry. Co., 173 U. S. 475: 749. Columbia Wire Co. v. Boyoe, 104 Fed. 173: 436, 440. Columbus Ins. Co. v. Walsh, 18 Mo. 339: 938. Columbus Southern Ry. Co. v. Wright, 89 Ga. 574: 300, 428. Colwell V. Chamberlin, 43 N. J. L. 387: 431, 433, 581. v. May, etc. Co., 19 N. J, Eq. 345: 927. Combe v. Pitt, 3 Burn 1423: 319. Comer v. Folsom, 13 Minn. 319: 643. V. State, 103 Ga. 69: 230, 585, 783, 857, 858. Comfort V. Kittle, 81 Iowa, 179: 797, 803. Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 8 S. &M. 9:464,473,513,668. V. Eastern Banking Co., 51 Neb. 766: 1159. V. Foster, 5 La. Ann. 516: 664, 710, 713, 733, 1103. Ixii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1815, Commeroial Bank v. Ives, 2 Hill, 355: 333. V. Markham, 3 La. Ann. 698: 1327. V. Sandford, 108 Fed. 98: 1010. V. Sparrow, 3 Denio. 97: 605, 867. Commercial B. & L. Ass'n v. Mac- kenzie, 85 Md. 182: 694, 730, 885. Commissioner of Sinking Fund v. Grainger, 98 Ky. 319: 505. Commissioners, In re, 49 N. J. L. 488: 350. Commissioners v. Andrews, 18 Ohio St. 64: 1028. y. Ballard, 69 N. C. 18: 937. V. Deboe, 43 IlL App. 35: 463. V. Harrison, L. R. 7; H. L. 9: 892. V. Higginbotham, 17 Kan. 75: 97. V, Keith, 3 Pa. St. 318: 674. V. Mighels, 7 Ohio St. 109, 1083. V. Northern Bank, 1 Met. (Ky.) 174: 547. V. Eosohe,50 Ohio St. 103: 407, 1171. V. Silvers, 33 Ind. 491: 927. V. State, 12 Ohio 0. C. 300: 434 V. State, 50 Ohio St. 653: 424. Commissioners of Highways v. Jackson, 165 111. 17: 846. Commissioners of Lunatic Asy- lums, In re, 8 Irish Hep. Eq. series, 366: 788. Commissioners of Public Schools v. County Com'rs., 30 Md. 449: 1150. Commissioners of Sedgwick Co. v. Bailey, 13 Kan. 607: 187. Common Council, Ex parte, 3 Cow. 358: 1187. Common Council v. Schmid, 138 Mich. 379: 113, 31.5, 336. Commonwealth v. Addams, 95 Ky. 588: 156. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 58: 659, 709. V. Allegheny Co., 168 Pa. St. 303: 491, 880. V. Allegheny Co. Com'rs, 40 Pa. St. 348: 488. V. Anderson, 178 Pa. St. 171: 404. V. Angle, 3 Pa. Dist. Ct 637' 538. V. Ayers, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. 353: 583. V. Ayei-s, 17 Pa. Supr. Ct. 352, 257. V. Bailey, 13 Allen, 541: 545, 910. V. Barnett, 199 Pa. St. 161: 111. V. Barney, 34 Ky. L. R. 3353: 230, 585, 651, 652, 694, 696, 736, 846, 851. V. Basham, 101 Ky. 170: 468. V. Baum, 28 Pa, Co. Ct. 333: 303. V. Beatty, 15 Pa. Supr. Ct. 5: 330. V. Beatty, 1 Watts, 382: 551. V. Bennett, 108 Mass. 27: 171, 67a V. Blaokley, 198 Pa. St 372: 394, 535. V. Bradley, 16 Gray, 341: 643, 1236. V. Breed, 4 Piclr. 460: 637. V. Brown, 167 Mass. 144: 1188. V. Brown, 91 Va. 763: 186, 191, 305, 332, 338, 343, 348. V. Cain, 14 Bush, 535: 527, 554. V. Cambridge, 30 Pick. 267: 659, 910. V. Carey, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 293: 407. V. Charity Hospital, 198 Pa. St. 270: 233, 250. V. Churchill, 3 Met. 118: 493, 663, 564, 610. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Ixiii The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Commonwealth v. Clark, 8 Pa. Supr. Ct. 141: 207. V. Clark, 14 Pa. Supr. Ct. 435: 4ia V, Commissioners, etc., 37 Pa. St. 237: 1053. V. Conyngham, 66 Pa, St 99: 660, 712, 719, 942. T. Cooley, 10 Pick. 37: 481, 517. V. Coombs, 2 Mass. 489: 1040, 1044. V. Cooper, 12 Pa. Dist Ct. 199: 210. V. Costley, 118 Mass. 1: 888. V. Cotton, 14 Phila. 667: 528. V. Council of Montrose, 52 Pa. St. 391: 711. V. Crowley, 1 Ashm. 179: 5ia V, Cullen, 13 Pa. St. 133: 1193. V. Curry, 4 Pa. Supr. Ct. 356: 293, 685, 1064, 1065. V. Darlington, 8 Pa. Dist Ct 237: 256. V. Davidson, 4 Pa. Dist Ct 172: 1020. V. DeCamp, 177 Pa. St 112: 466, 467, 469. V. Denworth, 145 Pa. St 172: 360. V. Depuy, 148 Pa. St 201: 200, 230, 288. V. Dickert 195 Pa. St 234: 272. V. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412: 1182. V. Drain, 99 Ky. 162: 422. v. Duane, 1 Binn. 601: 20, 660, 709. V. Duff 87 Ky. 586: 557. V. Duflf, 7 Pa. Dist Ct 370: 749. V. Edwards, 't Gray, 1: 67a v. Equitable Life Ins. Soa, 100 Ky. 341: 645, 986. V. Erie, etc. R. R, Co., 27 Pa. St 389: 1022. V. Farley, 19 Phila. 561: 306. Commonwealth v. Farmers' Bank, 97 Ky. 590: 1194. V. Fisher, 17 Mass. 46: 9«9, 962. V. Fowler, 18 Phila. 578: 45a V. Frantz, 135 Pa. St 889: 257. V. Gaines, 2 Va. Cas. 172: 649, 93a V. Gardner, 11 Gray, 438: 481, 482, 485. V. Getohell, 16 Pick. 452: 556. V. Gilligan, 195 Pa. St 504: 233, 410. V. Giltinan, 64 Pa. St 100: 755, 96a V. Godshaw, 93 Ky. 435: 301, 464. V. Gouger, 21 Pa. Supr. Ct 217: 965. V. Grand Cent K & L. Ass'n, 97 Ky. 325: 783. V. Graves, 155 Mass. 163: 1185. V. Green, 17 Mass. 515: 35. V. Green, 58 Pa. St 326: 204, 207, 384. V. Grier, 153 Pa. St 176: 539. V. Griffin, 105 Mass. 185: 756, 8.50. V. Grinstead, 108 Ky. 59; 523. V. Guthrie, 203 Pa. St 209: 410. V. Hall, 97 Mass. 570: 1182, 1185, 1227. V. Hall, 128 Mass. 410: 716, 1297. V. Hanley, 15 Pa. Supr. Ct 271: 303, 383, 390. V. Hardin Co., 99 Ky. 188: 66. V. Harris, 13 Allen, 534: 797. V. Hartnett, 3 Gray, 450: 930. V. Hazen, 207 Pa, St 52: 265. V. Hazen, 20 Pa. Supr. Ct 487: 265. V. Hewitt 2 H. & M. 181: 1159. V. Hitchens, 200 Pa. St 508: 410. V. Hitchings, 5 Gray, 482: 577, 595, 927. Ixiv TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol, I, pp. 1-603; VoL II, pp. 605-1315. Commonwealth v. Holliday, 98 Ky. 616: 334, 914. V. Holstead, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 335: 447. V. Homer, 153 Mass. 343: 1180. V. Howell, 195 Pa. St. 519: 233, 410. V. Hudson, 11 Gray, 64: 1053. V. Huffman, 6 Pa. Supr. Ct. 311 : 470. V. Humphries, 7 Mass. 343: 634. V. Huntley, 156 Mass. 836: 514. V, 111. Cent. R. E. Co., 194 Ky. 366: 573. V. Intoxicating Liquors, 108 Mass. 19: 733. V. Johnson, 43 Pa. St; 448: 19. V. Jones, 4 Pa. Supr. Ct. 363: 230, 418. ' V. Junker, 7 Pa. Dist. Ct. 135: 141. V. Kelley, 177 Mass. 331: 633, 689, 690. V. Kelliher, 13 Allen, 480: 483, 517. V. Keniston, 5 Pick. 420: 645, 963, 970. V. Kenneson, 143 Mass. 418: 436. V. Keystone Ben. Ass'n, 171 Pa. St. 465: 308. V. Kimball, 21 Pick. 873: 481, 553, 556. V. Kimball, 24 Pick. 366: 929, 974. V. Knapp, 9 Pick. 496: 473, 863. V. Knowlton, 3 Mass. 534: 38, 29, 31, 609, 610. V. Leach, 1 Mass. 60: 28. V. Leech, 24 Pa. St. 55: 563. V. Leech, 44 Pa. St. 333: 1029. V. Lloyd, 178 Pa. St. 308: 303, 470, 569. V. Lloyd, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. 6: 303, 569. Commonwealth v. Lock wood, 109 Mass. 333: 888. V. Logan, 12 Gray, 136: 643. V. Loring, 8 Pick. 370: 664, 966, 981. V. Louisville & N. R E. Co., 20 Ky. L. Rep. 491: 148. V. Lyter, 163 Pa. St. 50: 423. V. Macferron, 152 Pa. St. 344: 385, 539. V. Mann, 168 Pa. St. 290: 491, 890. V, Marshall, 69 Pa. St. 332: 796. V. Marshall, 11 Pick. 350: 481, 553, 554, 556, 678. V. Martin, 17 Mass. 359: 645, 853, 970, 984 V. Martin, 107 Pa. St. 185: 59, 201, 214, 251, 256. V. Mason, 82 Ky. 256: 517, 520, 531. V. McCarthy, 18Phila. 646: 404, 406. V. McConnell, 35 Ky. L. E. 52: 301. V, McDonald, 25 Wash. 133: 331. V. McDonnell, 3 Pa. Dist. Ct 767: 530. V. MoDonough, 13 Allen, 581: 481, 556, 1187. V. McKenney, 14 Gray, 1: 485. V. McWilliams, H Pa. St. 61: 145. V. Meeser, 44 Pa. St. 341: 1029. V. Middletown, 3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 639: 530. V. Miller, 5 Dana, 330: 893, 899. V. Mintz, 19 Pa. Supr. Ct. 283: 303, 383, 390. V. Moir, 199 Pa. St. 534: 136, 137, 139, 233, 384, 388, 579. V. Monongahela Nav. Co., 66 Pa. St. 81: 807. TABLE OF OASES CITED. Ixv The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1815. Commonwealth v. Montross, 8 Pa. Supr. Ct. 337: 257. V. Moore, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. 163: 231. Moorhead, 7 Pa. Co. Ct 513: 253. V. Morgan, 178 Pa. St. 198: 303. V. Morningstar, 144 Pa. St. 103: 303. V. Mott, 31 Pick. 493: 556. V. Muier, 180 Pa, St. 47: 303. V. Munson, 137 Mass. 459: 913. V. Newcomb, 109 Ky. 18: 547, 1331. V. Norton, 16 Pa. Supr. Ct. 433: 436. V. Paine, 307 Pa. St. 45: 890. V. Painter, 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 393: 1117, 1123. V. Painter, 10 Pa. St. 314: 171. V. Parker, 2 Pick. 550: 886. V. Pattee, 12 Cush. 501: 554. V. Patten, 88 Pa. St. 358: 397, 398, 401, 408, 403. V. Peokham, 3 Gray, 514: 876. V. Pegram, 1 Leigh, 569: 484. V. Perryman, 3 Leigh, 717: 983. V. Petranich, 183 Mass. 217: 597. V. Phillips, 11 Pick. 28: 1181. V. Plaisted, 148 Mass. 375: 150. V, Pointer, 5 Bush, 301: 679. V. Pulaski Co., 92 Ky. 197: 468. V. Railroad Companies, 95 Ky. 60: 510, 543, 893. V. Railway Co., 162 Pa. St. 614: 303, 464. V. Rainey, 4 W. & S. 186: 778. V. Reiter, 78 Pa. St. 161: 932. V. Reynolds, 89 Ky. L. R. 147: 718. V. Reynolds, 137 Pa. St. 389: 360, 361, 385. V. Roberts, 155 Mass, 281: 749, 776. Commonwealth v. Rothschild, 11 Pa. Dist. Ct 683: 764. V. Roxbury, 9 Gray, 451: 1031, 1039, 1046. V. Samuels, 163 Pa. St 283: 278, V. Schneipp, 166 Pa. St 401: 464 V. Selby, 87 Ky. 594: 557. V. Sellers, 130 Pa. St 33: 303, 430. V. Severn, 164 Pa. St 463: 186, 378. V. Shelton, 99 Ky. 120: 66. V. Sherman, 85 Ky. 686: 555. V. Shires, 195 Pa. St 515: 332, 410. V. Shopp, 1 Woodw. Dec. 133: 688, 689. V. Slack, 19 Pick. 304: 664 V. Sllfer, 53 Pa. St 71: 648, 650, 651. V, Snelling, 4 Binn, 379: 963. V. Snowden, 1 Brewst 318: 869. V. Springfield, 7 Mass, 13: 634 V. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa, St. 119: 551, 683. V. Stevens, 10 Pick. 347: 1044 V. Sullivan, 150 Mass. 315: 557. V. Summer ville, 304 Pa. St 300: 534, 673. V. Sylvester, 13 Allen, 347: 1019. V. Taylor, 101 Ky. 335: 438. V. Taylor, 159 Pa. St 451: 500, 525. V. Tewksbury, 11 Met 55: 1014 V. Turner, 1 Cush. 493: 1033, V. Vetterlein, 21 Pa, Supr, Ct 587: 470. V. Warwick, 4 Pa. Dist Ct 601: 1065. V. Warwick, 173 Pa. St 140: 6, 9, 684, 1065. V. Watts, 84 Ky. 537: 460, 517. Ixvi TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Commonwealth v. Weir, 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 425: 387. V. Weir, 165 Pa. St. 284: 464. V. Welch, 3 Dana, 330: 554, 555, 1819. V. Weller, 14 Bush, 318: 171. V. Wilkinson, 139 Pa. St. 298: 1297. V. Woolbert, 6 Binn. 292: llSt V. Worcester, 8 Pick. 478: 636. V. Wunch, 167 Pa. St 186: 538. V. Wyatt, 6 Rand. 694; 484. V. Wyman, 12 Cusb. 237: 485. V. Wyman, 137 Pa. St. 508: 303. Company of Cutlers v. Buslin, Skinner, 363: 556. Compton V. Plerson, 28 N. J. Eq. 229: 1062, 1294. Comstock V. Beohtel, 63 Wis. 656: 1098, 1359. V. Judge, 39 Mich. 195: 432. V. Tracy, 46 Fed. 163: 70. Comstock Mill & Min. Co. v. Allen, 21 Nev. 325: 176. Condon v, Maloney, 108 Tenn. 82: 134, 248, 400, 404, 405, 406, 424. Cone V. Bowles, 1 Salk. 205: 1306. V. Nimooks, 78 Minn. 849: 703. Conery v. New Orleans W. W. Ca 41 La. Ann. 910: 301. Congdon v. Butte Consol. Ey. Co., 17 Mont. 481: 499. V. Cook, 55 Minn. 1: 918. Conger v. Barker, 11 Ohio St. 1: 778. V. Weaver, 6 Cal. 548: 871. Conkey v. Hart, 14 N. Y. 23: 1210. Conklin v. Hutchinson, 65 Kan. 582: 595. Conkling v. Parker, 10 Ohio St. 28: 1056. Conley v. Columbus, etc. R. E. Co., 44 Tex. 579: 627. V. Commonwealth, 98 Ky. 125: 185, 191, 511. Conley v. Sims, 71 Ga. 161: 939. V. State, 85 Ga. 348: 653. V. "Supervisors, 8 W. Va. 416: 529. Conlin v. Supervisors, 99 Cal. 17: 180. V. Supervisors, 114 Cal, 404: 488. Conn V. Board of Com'rs, 151 Ind. 517: 730, 846, 848. Connecticutt, etc. Ins. Ca v. Al- bert, 39 Mo. 181: 651. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Wood, 115 Mich. 444: 891. Connecting Ey. Co. v. Union Ey. Co., 108 III. 265: 1043. Connell v. Lewis, Walk. (Miss.) 351, 1049. V, Western Union Tel. Co., 108 Mo. 459: 31, 958. 965. Conner, Ex parte, 51 Ga. 571: 861. Conner v. Mayor, etc. 5 N. Y. 285: 205, 345. v. Paris, 87 Tex. 38: 1012. Connolly v. People, 43 111. App. 36: 1377. V. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540: 426, 577, 580, 597, 599. Connor, Ex parte, 51 Ga. 571: 245. Connor v. Green Pond, etc. R. E Co., 83 S. C. 427: 258. Connors v. Carp Eiv. Iron. Co., 54 Mich. 168: 463, 511. V. Grey, 33 Wis. 518: 1053. ConoUy v. Riley, 35 Md. 403: 611. Conover v. Wright, 6 N. J. Eq. 613: 1888. Conqueror, The, 166 U. S. 110: 857. Conrad v. Ciowdson, 75 111. App. 614: 693,734,844,1076,1341. V. De Montcourt, 138 Mo. 311: 31. V. Nell, 34 Mich. 375: 444 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Ixvii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. -Conrad v. Smith, 6 N. D, 337: 1262. Consequa v. Willings, 1 Pet. C. C, 225:618,868. Conservators of Elv. Thames v. Hall, L. R. 3 C. P. 415: 529. -Consolidated Coal Co. v. Gruber, 91 III. App. 15: 846. Consolidated, etc. Co. v. Cashow, 41 Md. 59; 620, 623. Consolidation of School Districts, In re, 23 Colo. 499: 276, 427. Constantine v. Constantino, 6 Ves. 100: 461. V. Van Winkle, 6 Hill, 177: 636, 654, 1058, 1230, 1231. •Constitution Pub. Co. v. De Laugh- ter, 95 Ga. 17: 778, 857. Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Ear- less, 131 Ind. 440: 853. 356. -Continental Imp. Co. v. Phelps, 47 Mich. 299: 257, 889. Continental Ins. Co. v. Riggen, 31 Ore. 336: 518. Converse v. Burrows, 2 Minn. 229: 644, 1305. V. United States, 31 How. 463: 710, 844. Conwell V. Hagerstown Canal Co., 2 Ind. 588: 638, 917. "Cook V. Clark, 10 Bing. 31: 1343. V. Cockins, 117 CaL 140: 1160, 1161 V. Commissioners, 6 McLean, 113: 927. V. Fisher, 100 Iowa, 27: 1290. V. Gray, 6 Ind. 335: 330. V. Marshall Co., 119 Iowa, 384j 191, 198, 396. V. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580: 465, 1062, 1394. ^. Moflfat, 5 How. 395: 631. V. Moore, 95 N. C. 1: 327. -V. Mutual Ins. Co., 53 Ala. 37: 640. Cook V. Oliver, 1 Woods, 437: 37. V. Port of Portland, 30 Ore. 580: 134. V. Sexton, 79 N. C. 305: 642. V. State, 110 Ala. 40: 689. V. Stats, 26 Ind. App. 378: 126, 141. V. State, 90 Tenn. 407: 386, 388. V. Tower, 1 Taunt. 372: 1149. V. United States, 138 U. S. 157: 1181. V. Winchester, 80 Mich. 581: 1314. Cook Co. V. Chicago, 167 IlL 109: 463. V. Gilbert, 146 111. 268: 465, 467, 527. Cook County Nat Bank v. United States, 107 U. S. 445: 516, 519. Cooley V. Granville, 10 Cush. 56: 1033. Coolidge V. Pierce Co., 28 Wash. 95: 1230, 1233. V. Williams, 4 Mass. 140: 1013, 1055. Coomber v. Berks, L. E. 9 Q. B. Div. 33: 649. Coombs Commission Co. v. Block, 130 Mo. 668: 404, 406. Cooper, Matter of, 15 John. 532: 1305. V. Curtis, 30 Me. 488: 313, 313. V. Holmes. 71 Md. 20: 527. V. Reaney, 5 Minn. 528; 611. V. Springer, 65 N. J. L. 594: 303, 585. V. Wait, 106 Ky. 628: 535. V. Yoakum, 91 Tex. 391: 759, 781. Co-Operative S. & L Ass'n v. Fa- wick, 11 S. D. 589: 466, 468, 493, 511, 525. Cooperrider v. State, 46 Neb. 84: 186, 225, 44& Ixviii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL II, pp, 605-1315. Ooosa R. R. Co. v. Barclay, 30 Ala. 130: 18, 1217, 1220, 1337. Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Caro- lina, 144 U. S. 550: 1031. Cope V. Cope, 137 U. S. 682: 43, 137, 466, 569, 1059, 1060. V. Doherty, 2 De G. & J. 614: 663, 709. v. Rowlands, 2 M. & W. 149: 938. V. Thames Haven, etc. Co., 8 Ex. 841: 1140. Copeland, Ex parte, 2 De G. M. & G, 914: 853. Copeland v. Pirie, 26 Wash. 481: 432. V. Sheridan, 153 Ind. 107: 437. V. St. Joseph, 136 Mo. 417: 155, 375, 390, 596. Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314: 655. Copland v. Davies, L. R. 5 H. L. Cas. 358: 654, 657. V. Pirie, 26 Wash. 481: 450. V. Powell, 1 Bing. 309; 830. Copley V. Sanford, 3 La. Ann. 335: 869. Corbet v. Bradley, 7 Nev. 106: 1119, 1123." Corbett v. Nutt, 10 Wall. 464: 1096. Cordell v. State, S3 Ind. 1: 443, 506. Core V. James, L. R. 7 Q. B. 135; 979, 1108. Corliss V. Corliss, 8 Vt. 378: 1134. Cornelius v. Haltman, 44 Neb. 441: 1268. Cornell v. Conine-Eaton L. Co., 9 Colo. App. 235: 770. V. Coyne, 193 U. S. 418: 649. V. Moulton, 3 Denio, 13: 327. Corning v. Greene, 23 Barb. 33: 170. V. McCullough, 1 N. Y. 47: 1198. Cornwall v. Todd, 38 Conn. 443: 1000. Corporation v. Scott, 1 Caines, 544: 103a Corporation Commission v. Sea- board Air Line System, 137 N. C. •283: 624. Corscadden v. Haswell, 88 App. Div. 158: 239. Cortesy v. Territory, 7 N. M. 89: 779. Cortis V. Kent Water Works Co., T B. & C. 314: 666, 1097. Corwin ,v. Merritt, 3 Barh 841:. 1059, 1137. Cory V. Carter, 48 Ind. 827: 343. Cosh-Murray Co. v. Futtich, 1ft Wash. 449: 493, 523. Costa Rica v. Erlanger, L. R. 3 Ch. . Div. 69: 1225. Costello V. Palmer, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 310: 461. V. Wyoming, 49 Ohio St. 202:r 354, 396. Cota V. Ross, 66 Me. 161: 930. Cotting V. K. C. Stock Yards Co.,- 82 Fed. 839: 89. Cotton V. Brien, 6 Rob. (La.) 115: 683. V. James, Mood. & Mai. 278:: 809. V. Leon Co., 6 Fla. 610: 170. V. State, 63 Ark. 585: 538. Cotton Planter, Ship, 1 Paine, 23: 310. Cottrell V. State, 9 Neb. 128: 97. Couch V. Jeffries, 4 Burr. 2460: 1170. V. MoKee, 6 Ark. 484: 1158. Council Bluffs v. Waterman, 86 Iowa, 688: 501. Countess of Rothes v. Kirkcaldy W. W., L. R. 7 App. Cas. 703: 699, 816, 917, 918, 933. County Board v. Short, 77 111. Appi . 448: 706. County Com'rs v. Aspen Min. & C. Co., 3 Colo. App 333: 307, 236. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Ixix The references are to the pages: Yol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. County Corn's v. Commissioners, 51 Md. 465: 345. V. Franklin R. R, Co., 34 Md. 163: 185. V. Hellen, 73 Md. 603: 190, 388. V. Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196: 133, 199, 381. V. Meekins, 50 Md. 39: 185. County Ct. v. Schwarz, 13 Colo. 291: 731, 775. County Line Case, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 713: 777. County Seat Linn Co., 15 Kan. 500: 758. Course v. Stead, 4 DalL 23: 613: 866. Courtauld v. Legh, L. R. 4 Ex. 126: 758., Court of Insolvency v. Melden, 69 Vt. 510: 788. Coutieri v. Mayor, 44 N. J. L. 58: 201. V. Nevsr Brunswick, 44 N, J. L, 58: 203, 308, 311, 377. Cove V. Nimocks, 78 Minn. 249: 699. Covert V. Munson, 93 Mich. 603: 1139. Covington v. East St. Louis, 78 III. 548: 527. V. Frank, 77 Miss. 606: 675,677. v. Kentucky, 173 U. S. 331: 40, 614, 1195. V. McNickle, 18 B, Mon.262: 654, 666, 732, 1102. V. State, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 325: 973. v. Voskotter, 80 Ky. 219: 365, 345, 624. Covington Drawbridge v. Shep- herd, 20 How. 237: 618, 626, 866. Cowan V. East Tenn. etc. R. R. Co., 2 Tenn. Cas. 103: 141. V. Jones, 79 Mo. App. 223: 1306. Cowan V. Prowse, 93 Ky. 156: 929. Cowert, Ex parte, 93 Ala. 94: 114, 236, 453, 583. Cowley V. Rushville, 60 Ind. 327: 435. Cox v. Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co., 174 Mo. 588: 348. v. Kyle, 75 Miss. 667: 1058, 1060. V. Miller, 54 Tex. 16: 1296. V. N. W. Lumber Co., 82 Wis. 141: 524. V. Robinson, 2 Stew. & P. 96: 619. V. State, 8 Tex. App. 254: 632. V. Truitt, 57 N. J. L. 635: 437. Coxe V. Robbins, 4 Halst. 384: 636. V. State, 144 N. Y. 396: 304, 427. Coxe's Ex'r v. Martin, 44 Pa. St 332: 1207. Coxson V. Doland, 2 Daly, 66: 759,- 778, 795, 813. Coy V. Coy, 15 Minn. 119: 914. Crabb V. State, 88 Ga. 584: 201, 292, 341. Crafiford v. Supervisors, 87 Va. 110: 770. Crafts V. Clark, 38 Iowa, 236, 611. V. Ray, 33 R. L 179: 137. Cragin V. Lamkin, 7 Allen, 395: 620, 632. Craig V. Dunn, 47 Minn. 59; 1222. V. First Presb. Ch. 88 Pa. St 43: 232. V. Herzman, 9 N. D. 140: 1257. V, Medical Examiners, 13 Mont 203: 427. Crake v. Crake, 18 Ind. 156, 611. _ V. Powell, 3 E. & B. 310: 1149. Cram v. Cram, 116 N. C. 288: 692. Crane v. Ailing, 2 Green (N. J.), 593: 1251. V. Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 496: 469. Ixx TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Yol, I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Crane v. Hardy, 1 Mich. 56: 611. V. McGinnis, 1 Gill. & J. 463: 19. V. Keeder, 22 Mich. 332: 527, 531, 661. Cranor v. School District, 151 Mo. 119: 1161, 1283, 1284, 1286. Crary v. Port Arthur C. & D. Co., 93 Tex. 275: 731, 733, 765, 885. Cravens v. Adair Co. Ct., 16 Ky. L. E. 71: 527. Crawford v. Ross, 126 Mich. 634: 199, 386. V. Spooner, 6 Moore's P. C. 9: 1109. V. Tyson, 46 Ala. 299: 845. Crawford Co. v. Hathaway, 60 Neb. 754: 595. V. Hathaway, 61 Neb. 317: 595. Crawfordsville, etc. T, Co. v. Fletcher, 104 Ind. 97: 23. 710, 884. Crawhill's Trust, In re, 8 De G. Macn. & G. 480: 761. Creighton, In re, 12 NeK 280: 1052. Creighton v. Pragg, 31 CaL 115: 547. Cresoe v. Laidley, 2 Binn. 279: 1113. Crespigny t. Wittenoom, 4 T. E. 790: 649, 654, 730. Cressey v. Parks, 75 Me. 387: 331, 336. V. Tatora, 9 Ore. 542: 610. Creston W. W. Co. v. McGrath, 89 Iowa, 502: 1040. Creswell v. Green, 14 East. 537: 335, 386. Crigler v. Alexander, 83 Gratt. 674: 1160, 1163. Crisman v. Johnson, 23 Colo. 264: 1137. Crisp V. Bunbury, 8 Bing. 394: 554, 1052. Crispin v. Doglioni, 3 S. & T. 96: 37. Criswell v. Mont. Cent. Ey, Co., 17 Mont. 189: 744, 798. Crittenden v. Wilson, 2 Cow. 165 627, 636. Crocker v. Crane, 31 Wend, 211 693, 739. V. Huntzioker, 113 Wis. 181 557. Croly V. Sacramento, 119 CaL 339 10. Cromelien v. Brink, 29 Pa. St 532 328, 333. Cromwell v. McLean, 133 N. Y. 474 1336. Crone v. State, 49 Ind. 538: 660. Crookall v. Matthews, 61 N. J. L. 849: 895, 539. Crooke V. Brookling, 3 Vern. 107; 761. Crookston v. County Com'rs, 79 Minn. 283: 194, 203, 367. Croomer v. State, 40 Tex. Crini. App. 673: 694, 886. Crosby v. Bennett, 7 Met. 17: 917. V. Brown, 60 Barb. 548: 999. V. Hawthorn, 25 Ala. 231: 963, 982. V. Huston, 1 Tex 237: 1105. V. Patch, 18 Cal. 438: 568, 932. Crosier v. Tomlinson, 3 Mod. 71: 1378, 1282. Cross V. Harrison, 16 How. 196: 310. V. McMacken, 17 Mich. 511: 1049. V. Pinckneyville Mill Co., 17 111. 54: 1140. Grossman v. Grossman, 33 Ala. 486: 1236. V. Kincaid, 31 Ore. 445: 1313. Crosswell v. Crane, 7 Barb. 191: ^778. Crov-att V. Mason, 101 Ga. 346: 385, 388. TABLE OF OASES CITED. Ixxi The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Croven v. Atlantic, eto. E, E. Ca, 150 N. Y. 325: 309. Crowder v. Stewart, L. E. 16 Ch. Div. 370: 654. V. Sullivan, 138 Ind. 486: 1024. Crow Dog, Ex parte, 109 U. S. 556: 463, 529, 530, 545. Crowther v. Fidelity Ins. T. & S. D. Co., 85 Fed. 41: 334, 1190, 1308. Croxall V. Shererd, 5 Wall. 368: 636, 1046. Crozer v. People, 306 111. 464: 731. Crozier v. Hodges, 3 La. 357: 611. Cruger v. Criiger, 5 Barb. 385: 747. V. Dougherty, 43 N. Y. 107: 1009, 1143: Cucullu V. Louisiana Ins. Ca, 6 Mart (U. S.) 613: 618. Culbreth v. Downing, 131 N. O. 305: 1383, 1284, 1387. Cull V. Austin, L. R. 7 C. P. 334: 747, 793. Cullen V. Glendora Water Co., 113 Cal. 503: 415, 583, 593. Cullerton v. Mead, 33 CaL 95: 644^ 1350. Culver V. People, 161 III. 89: 788, 789, 790. V. Third Nat Bank, 64 111. 528: 517. V. Woodruff Ca, 5 Dill. 393: 1337. Cumberland Ca v. Boyd, 113 Pa. St 53: 883. Cumberland, eta Canal v. Hitch- ings, 57 Me. 146: 986. Cumberland TeL & Tel. Ca v. United Elea Ry. Ca, 93 Tenn. 493: 510. Cumming v. Fryer, Dudley (Ga.) 182: 990, 1346. Cummings v. Akron Cement Co., 6 Blatoh. 509: 689. V. Chandler, 36 M& 453: 553. Cummings v. Chicago, 144 IlL 563: 885, 389. V. Coleman, 7 Rich. Eq. 509: 753. V. Everett, 83 Me. 360: 778, 846, 848, 851, 857, 885. V. Hayes, 100 IlL App. 347: 1035. V. Hyatt 54 Neb. 85: 765. V. Missouri, 4 Wall. 877: 1174, 1178. V. Montague, IIG Ga. 457: 32, 618. Cummins v. Garretson, 15 Ark. 135: 1061. v. State, 18 Tex. App. 131: 83, 619. Cundell v. Dawson, 4 C. B. 37C: 938. Cunningham v. Cunningham, 80 Minn. 180: 1314. V. Griffin, 107 Ga. 690: 300. V. Hanney, 13 111. App. 437: 1062, 1294. V. Mahan, 113 Mass. 58: 336. V. State, 8 Speers, 346: 723. Curlewis v. Mornington, 7 El. & B. 383: 1378, 1379. Curran v. Owens, 15 W. Va. 208: 544. V. Shattuck, 24 Cal. 437: 1040, 1041. Currie v. Sa Paa Ca, 31 Ore. 566: 72, 86, 87. Currier v. Marietta, eto. R. R. Co., 11 Ohio St 338: 1031. Curtis v. Embery, L. R 7 Ex. 369: 778. V. Gill, 34 Conn. 49: 479, 638. V. Leavitt 17 Barb. 809: 919. V. Leavitt 15 N. Y. 1: 471, 545, 577. V. March, 4 Jur. (N. S.) 1112: 876. V. Martin, 3 How. 106: 754. V. McCuUough, 3 Nev. 303: 924. Ixxii TABLE OF CASKS CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Curtis V. Renneker, 34 S. C. 468: 1160. V. Stovin, L. E. 23 Q. B. D. 513: 914, 955. Curtwright v. Crow, 44 Mo. App. 563: 568, 847. Cashing v. Worrick, 9 Gray, 383: 678, 688, 811. Cusic V. Douglas, 3 Kan. 133: 1300. Custer V. Yellowstone Co., 6 Mon. 39: 931. Custin V. Viroqua, 67 Wis. 314: 439, 441, 710, 797. Cutcher v. Crawford, 105 Ga. 180: 81, 138, 139. Cutler V. Russellville, 40 Ark. 105: 1139. V. Supervisors, 56 Miss. 115: 1381. Cutlip V. Sheriff, 3 W. Va. 588: 335. Cutter V. Caruthers, 48 Cal. 178: 880. Cutting V. Kansas City Stock Yards Co., 83 Fed. 839: 215. V. Taylor, 3 S, D. 11: 1161. Cutts V. Hardee, 38 Ga. 350: 18, 937, 1300, 1310. D. Dabney v. Dabney, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 440: 1154, 1333. Daggett V. State, 4 Conn. 60: 819. Daggs V. Orient Ins. Co., 136 Mo. 383: 429, 1326. Dahl V. Tibbals, 5 Wash. 259: 464. Dahnke v. People, 168 111. 103: 515, 533, 745, 955. Dailey v.PelterCo., 203 Pa. St. 593: 375. Daines v. Heath, 3 C. B. 941: 999. Dakins v. Wagner, 3 Dow. P. C. 535: 330. Dalby v. Wolf, 14 Iowa, 238: 172. Dale V. Atchison, etc. E. R Co., 57 Kan. 601: 24,988. V. Irwin, 78 111. 170: 1143. Daley v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. App. 101: 765. Dallas V. Dallas Consol. Elec. St. Ry. Co., 95 Tex. 368: 1150. D'AUex V. Jones, 2 Jur. (U. S.) 979: 937, 938. Dalrymple v. Dalrymple, 2 Hogg. Consist. R. 81: 619. Dalton, In re, 61 Kan. 257: 417. Daltonv. Murphy, 30 Miss. 59: 1136. Daly V. Jones, 8 Wheat. 535: 495, 616. V. State, 13 Lea, 228: 343, 357. Dame's Appeal, 63 Pa. St 417: 793. Dane v. Mc Arthur, 57 Ala. 454: 71, 94. Dane County v. Reindahl, 104 Wis. 303: 519, 520, 880. Danforth v. Groton Water Co., 178 Mass. 472: 1168, 1218, 1289. V. Smith, 23 Vt. 247: 549. V. Woodward, 10 Pick. 423: 1099, 1259. Daniel V. Day) 51 Ala 431: 1280. ,-. State, 114 Ga. 533: 176, 306. Daniels v. Clegg, 28 Mich. 32: 784. V. Moses, 12 S. C. 130: 1219. V. Racine, 98 Wis. 649: 1225. y. State, 150 Ind. 348: 956. Danks v. Quaokenbush, 3 Denio, 594: 1200. V. Quaokenbush, IN.Y. 79: 641, 645. Dano V. R. R. Co., 37 Ark. 584: 722. Dan vers v. Boston, 10 Pick. 513: 1014. Danville v. Danville W. W. Co., 180 111. 235: 300. V. Fiscal Ct, 31 Ky. L. R. 196: 707, 846. V. Hatcher, 101 Va. 533: 579. TABLE OF OASES CITED. Ixxiii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-003: Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. 'Danville v. Pace, 25 Gratt. 1: 1218. Danville State Hospital v. Belle- forte, 163 Pa. St. 175: 1311. -Darby v. Heagerty, 2 Idaho, 282: 1059. V. Wilmington, 76 N. C. 133: 592. D'Aroy v. Mut. Life Ina Co., 108 Tenn. 567: 549. ■Daroy v. Ruflfel, 3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 75: 711. V. San Jose, 104 Cal. 642: 371. Darling, Ex parte, 16 Nev. 98: 19. ^Darling v. Boesch, 67 Iowa, 702: 108. V. Rodgers, 7 Kan. 592: 422. " Darrastaetter v. Maloney, 45 Mich. 621:788,1048. Darrah v. McKlm, 2 Hun, 337: 577. Darrow v. People, 8 Colo. 417: 368. Dart V. Bagley, 110 Mo. 42: 649, 651. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518: 1035, 1192, 1193. ]Dasli V. Van Kleeck, 7 John. 477: 3, 19, 635, 640, 683, 1070, 1159, 1162, 1217. iDashiell v. Baltimore, 45 Md. 615: 551, 561. i-Dastervigues v. United States, 118 Fed. 119: 151. V. United States, 123 Fed. 30: 157. ;Daubman v. Smith, 47 N. J.L. 200: 203, 204, 205, 231, 246, 252. :Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 7: 299, .Davenport v. Barnes, 2 N. J. L. 211; 644, 1076. v. Hannibal, 120 Mo. 150: 703, 744, 1015. V. Kleinschmidt, 6 Mont. 503: 1023, 1039. V. E. R. Co., 37 Iowa, 634: 313. -Davey v. Burlington, etc. R. R. Co., 81 Iowa, 553: 659. Davey v. Janesville, 111 Wis. 628: 608. V. Rufifel, 3 Pa. Dist. Ct.75:914. V. Ruffel, 162 Pa. St. 443: 239, 847. David V. Mtna, Ins. Co., 9 Iowa, 45: 946. V. Levy, 119 Ala. 241: 499, 1149, 1152. V. Southwestern R. R. Co., 41 Ga. 223: 1292. Davidson v. Allen, 36 Miss. 419: 899, 905. V. Carson, 1 Wash. Ter. 307: 844. V. Clayland,,l H. & J. 546: 649. V. Hannon, 67 Conn. 312: 1258. V. Kuhn, 1 Disney, 405: 1131. V. Moorman, 3 Heisk. 575: 111. V. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97: 1217. V. Sharpe, 6 Ired. 14: 631. V. Von Detten, 139 Cal. 467: 191, 231. Davies, Matter of, 168 N. Y. 89: 524. Da vies v. Creighton, 33 Gratt. 696: 466. V. Harvey, L. R. 9 Q. B. 433: 483. V. Los Angeles, 86 CaL 37: 359. Davies-Henderson L. Co. v. Gotts- chaik, 81 Cal. 641: 1170. Daviess v. Fairbairn, 3 How. 636: 480, 516, 529, 688. Davis, Ex parte, 21 Fed. 396: 498. Davis, In re, 68 Kan. 368: 6, 10. Davis V. Bank of Fulton, 31 Ga. 69: 262. V. Bowling, 19 Mo. 651 : 869. V. Branch Bank, 13 Ala. 463: 1227. V. Carew, 1 Rich. 275: 518. V. Clark, 106 Pa. St. 377: 401, 402. Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1315. Davis V. Commonwealth, 17 Gratt. 617: 863. V. Curling, 8 Q. B. 286: 716. V. Davis, 37 Neb. 859: 464 V. Delpit, 25 Miss.' 445: 687, 1066. V. Dougherty Co., 116 Ga. 491: 815, 955, V. Dunlevy, 11 Colo. App. 344: 971. V. Fames, 26 Tex. 296: 1046. V. Gaines, 48 Arlr. 870: 1009. V. Gray, 16 Wall. 203: 1193, 1193. V. Hart, 123 Cal. 384: 703, 710, 721. V. H. B. Claflin Co., 63 Ark. 157: 1262. V. Humphrey, 23 Iowa, 137: 1098, 1258. V. Jacquin, 5 Harr. & J. 100: 27. V. Land, 88 Mo. 436: 1260. V. Lumpkin, 57 Miss. 506: 1169. V. Mason, 1 Pet. 503: 616. V. Menasha, 31 Wis. 491: 19. V. Minor, 1 How. (Miss.) 183, 547, 1311, 1317, 1318. V. Post, 125 Cal. 310: 463. V. Randall, 97 Me. 36: 703. V. Rogers, 14 Ind. 484: 611. V. Siegel, Cooper & Co., 80 111. App. 278: 1258. V. Stan dish, 36 Hun, 608: 1365, 1268, 1370. V. State, 51 Neb. 301: 141, 185, 189, 195, 311, 250, 353, 357, 431, 581. V. State Bank, 7 Ind. 316: 1229, 1231. V. Van Arsdale, 59 Miss. 367: 1230, 1232. V. Watson, 89 Mo. App. 15: 1394. V. Whidden, 117 CaL 618: 100, 323, 463, 540. Davis V. Wood, 7 Mo. 165: 117. V. WooInough,9Iowa, 104: 276i, 401, 429. Davis Coal Co. v. PoUand, 158 Indi 607: 419. Davison v. Brown, 93 Wis. 85: 1233. T. Farmer, 6 Exch. 343: 490^ 513. V. Gill, 1 East, 64: 638. V. Johonnot, 7 Met 388: 627. Davock V. Moore, 105 Mich. 120:- 113. Davys v. Douglas, 4 H. & N. 18(k 804. Daw V. Metropolitan Board, 13 CL.- B. (N. S.) 161: 474, 638. Dawson v. Black, 148 IlL 484: 1154.. V, Dawson, 33 Mo. App. 169% 748, 759. V. Hovan, 51 Barb. 459: 5ia V. Matthews, 105 Ala. 485: 1306i V. Peter, 119 Mioh. 374: 1324. Dawson Co. v. Clark, 58 Neb. 756:- 466, 528, 847. Dawson's Appeal, 15 Pa. St. 480:: 1136. Day, In re, 181 111. 73: 671, 1158s 1161. Day V. Madden, 9 Colo. App. 464:. 1263. V. McGinnis, 1 Heisk. 310: 308^ 313. T. Morristown, 63 N. J. L. 571 ^ 761. V. Munson, 14 Ohio St. 488: 899^ Dayton v. Mclntyre, 5 How. Pr. 117: 328. Dayton Coal & Iron Co. v. Barton,. 103 Tenn. 604: 133, 137. Dean, Ex parte, 3 Cow. 605; 332. Dean v. Borchsenius, 30 Wis. 236: 684, 887. V. Charlton, 37 Wis. 533: 999^- 1001. TABLE OF OASES CITED. IxXV The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1815, Dean v. King, 13 Ired. L. 20: 312. V. Metropolitan El. R. E. Ca, 119 N. Y. 540: 1058. V. Spartanburg Co., 59 S. C. 110: 343,428. V. State, 100 Ala. 102: 299. Dean and Chapter of York v. Kid- dleburgh, 2 Y. & J. 196: 1086, 1363. Dean v. Willamette Bridge Co., 22 Ore. 167: 134. Dean of Ely v. Bliss, 2 De G. M. & G. 471: 1066, 1067. Dean of York, Matter of, 2 Q. B. 34: 881. Dearborn v. Brookline, 97 Mass. 466: 812. V. Patton, 3 Ore. 420: 561. Dear Bros. v. Marx, 83 Tex. 298: 711. Dearing v. York, etc. E. E. Co., 31 Me. 172: 927. Deatherage v. Eohrer, 78 III, App. 248: 573, 708. Debardelaben v. State, 99 Tenn. 649: 426. DeBegnis v. Armistead, 10 Bing. 107: 938. Debenture Corporation v. Warren, 9 Wash. 313: 470. Debevoise v. N. Y. etc. R. E. Co., 98 N. Y. 377: 23, 27. De Both V. Rich Hill C. & M. Co., 141 Ma 497: 300, 231. De Bow V. People, 1 Denio, 9: 63, 123, 605, 607, 866, 867. Debuam v. Chilty, 131 N. C. 657: 84, 85, 92, 93. De Camp v. Eveland, 19 Barb. 81: 608, 926. De Cells v. United States, 13 Ct. CI. 117: 884, 869. De Chastellux v. Fairohild, 15 Pa. St. 18: 19, 1217, 1233. f Deck V. Gherke, 6 Cal, 666: 1054 De Cordova v. Galveston, 4 Tex. 470: 641. Deddriok v. Wood, 15 Pa. St. 9: 650, 654. Deerfield v. Arms, 30 Pick. 480: 1248. Deffebaok v. Hawke, 115 TJ. & 392: 855. Deffendorf v. Defiendorf, 42 App. Div. 166: 1226. De Giacomo, In re, 12 Blatcht 391: 1181. De Graff v. St. Paul; etc. E. R. Co., 23 Minn. 144: 1192. De Gravelle v. Iberia, etc. Dr. Dist., 104 La. 703: 491. De Grofl v. Went, 164 IlL 485: 444, 673. De Groot v. United States, 5 WalL 419; 457. De Hart v. Atlantic City, 63 N. J. L. 586: 174. V. Atlantic City, 63 N. J. L. 223: 174, 362. De Hay v. Berkley Ca Com'rs, 66 S. C. 227: 429. Deitch v. Staub, 115 Fed. 309: 671. Dejarnette v. Haynes, 23 Miss. 600: 177. De Kay v. Darrah, 14 N. J. L. 288: 1283. De Lancey v. Piepgras, 138 N. Y. 26: 1031. Delano v. Jopling, 1 Litt. 417: 606, 868. Delaplane v. Crenshaw, 15 Gratt. 451: 870,884 V. Burson, 61 Pa. St. 369: 10;5. Delaware, etc. R R. Ca v. Markley, 45 N. J. Eq. 139; 413. Delaware & H. C. Co., Matter of, 60 Hun, 204: 1233. L Delk V. Zorn, 48 S. C. 149: 66& IxXVi TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315, Dells V. Kennedy, 49 Wis. 555: 592. Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 665: 1106. De Lorme v. Pease, 19 Ga. 220: 947. Deming v. Foster, 42 N. H. 165: 946. V. MoClaughry, 113 Fed. 639: 892. Den V. Eobinson, 5 N. J. L. 689: 547. Dendy v. Gamble, 64 Ga. 528: 1098. Denham v. Holeman, 26 Ga. 182: 1279. Denman v. Broderick, 111 Cal. 96: 371. Denn v. Diamond, 4 B. & C. 343: 998. V. Reid, 10 Pet. 534: 699, 701, 1076. Dennlck v. Central E. R Co., 108 U. S. 11: 38, 617. Denning v, Corwin, 11 Wend. 647: 1048. V. Smith, 3 John. Ch.331: 1137. V. Yount, 62 Kan. 217: 557. V. Yount, 9 Kan. App. 708: 557. Dennis v. Moses, 18 Wash. 587: 464, 694, 711. Dennison v. Allen, 106 Mich. 395: 445, 534. Denniston's Appeal, 8 Pa. Supr. Ct. 212: 470. Denny v. Bennett, 188 U. S. 439: 1197. V. Mattoon, 2 Allen, 361: 19. V. McCown, 34 Ore. 47: 550, 776. Dent V. Ross, 53 Miss. 188: 1049, 1055. V. West Virginia, 139 U. S. 114: 437. Denton v. Reading, 32 La. Ann. 607: 695, 699. Dentzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 138: 550, 1229. Denver v. Spokane Falls, 7 Wash. 326: 394. Denver Circle R. R. Co. v. Nestor, 10 Colo. 403: 446. Denver & R. G. R. R. Co. v. United States, 9 N. M. 389: 634. Department of Pub. Parks, In re, 86 N. Y. 437: 218, 221, 228. Depas V. Riez, 2 La. Ann. 30: 734 De Pass v. Bidwell, 134 Fed. 615: 1174. De Pauvir v. New Albany, 32 Ind. 204: 636. Deposit V. Vail, 5 Hun. 310: 577. Dequasei v. Harris, 16 W. Va. 345 1050, 1061. Dequindre v. Williams, 31 Ind. 444 640, 643. Derr v. Lubey, 1 MoArthur, 187 1102. De Russey v. Davis, 13 La. Ann. 468 1033. Desban v. Pickett, 16 La. Ann. 350 466. De Sentamanat v. Soule, 38 La. Ann. 609: 799. Des Moines v. Gilchrist, 67 lov^a, 310: 1046, 1140. Desmond v. Dunn, 55 Cal. 243: 403. Desnoyer v. McDonald, 4 Minn. 515: 611. De, Sobry v. De Laistre, 3 H. & J. 191; 633, 869. Deters v. Reniok, 37 Mo. 597: 537. Detroit v. ChaflCee, 70 Mich. 80: 1020. V. Chapin, 108 Mich. 136: 104, 545. V. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Ca, 184U. 8.368:193, 300,259, 1198. V. Plank Road Co., 43 Mich. 140: 1193. V. Putnam, 45 Mioh. 363, 1020. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Ixxvii The references are.to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Detroit v. Wayne Giro. Judge, 113 Mich. 317: 331. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. v. De- troit, 110 Mich. 384: 1024. V. Detroit Ry. Co., 171 U. S. 48: 1024, 1038. Detroit Home School v. Detroit, 76 Mich. 531: 1008. De Vaucene, In re, 31 How. Pr. 337: 311, 333, 345, 356, 581. De-Veaux v. De Veaux, 1 Strob. Eq. S83: 748, 958. Deven v. York City, 156 Pa. St. 359: 674, 814. Dever v. Corn well, 10 N. D. 123: 338. Devers v. York City, 150 Pa. St. 208: 1230, 1333. Devine v. Board of Com'rs, 84 111. 590: 40, 403, 40a Devoy v. Mayor, 35 Barb. 364: 458. V. Mayor, 36 N. Y. 449: 458. De Vries v. Conklin, 22 Mich. 255: 1063. Dew V. Cunningham, 38 Ala. 471: 94 De Walt V. Bartley, 146 Pa. St. 529: 303. De war's Estate, 10 Mont. 436: 429. Dewart v. Purdy, 29 Pa. St. 113: 641. Dewees v. Colorado Co., 32 Tex. 570: 871. Deweese v. Smith, 106 Fed. 438: 893. Dewey v. Des Moines, 101 Iowa, 416: 542. V. Goodenough, 56 Barb. 54:964, 1059, 1061. V. Gray, 3 Cal. 374: 908. V. United States, 178 U. S. 510: 137, 696, 746. Dewhurst v. Allegheny, 95 Pa. St. 437: 581. V. Feilden, 7 M. & G. 183: 809, 921. De Winton v. Mayor, 36 Beav. 533: 515, 663. V. Mayor, 38 L. J. Ch. 600: 669. De Witt V. Smith, 63 Mo. 363: 1255. De Wolf V. Raband, 1 Pet. 479: 614, 615. Dexter v. Cranstou, 41 Mich. 448: 331, 335. V. Shepard, 117 Mass. 480: 334. V. Sprague, 32 R. I. 324: 770. Dexter & L. P. R. Co. v. Allen, 16 Barb. 15: 516. Deyrand'a Succession, 9 Rob. (La.) 357: 1158. D'Getti V. Sheldon, 27 Neb. 839: 1003. Diamond Glue Co. v. TJ. S. Glue Co., 187 U.S. 611: 1194 Diana Shooting Club v. Lamereux, 114 Wis. 44: 191, 333, 253. Diana, The, 4 Moore P. C. 11: 1005. Dibrell v, Dandridge, 51 Miss. 55: 1049, 1056. Dickenson v. Breeden, 30 111. 379: 606. V. Fletcher, L. R. 9 C. P. 8: 777, 970. Dickerson v. Central R. B. Co., 7 Pa. Dist Ct. 104: 1288. Dickey v. Hurlburt, 5 Cal 343: 20. Dickhaut v. State, 85 Md. 451: 1297. Dickins v. N. Y. Cent R. R. Co., 23 N. Y. 159: 1391. Dickinson v. Northeastern Ry. Co., 3 H. & C. 735: 1391. V. Rohn, 98 111. App. 245: 1260. V. State, 38 Tex. Crim. App. 472: 518. V. Van Wormer, 39 Mich. 141: 1057. Dick's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 589: 538, 809, 1052, 1248. Dickson v. Chicago, eta R. R. Co., 77111.331: 739,797. Ixxviii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to tie pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 005-1315. Diedriok v. Eiohley, 3 Hill, 271: 1348. Diesing v, Reilly, 77 Mo. App. 450: 336. Dietrich, In re, 33 Wash. 471: 447, 450. Diez, In re, 56 Barb. 591: 611, 618. Diggle V. London, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Ex. 442: 1140. Dikeman v. Dikeman, 11 Paige, 484: 1210. Dillard, Ex parte, 68 Ala. 594: 337. Dillard v. Alexander, 9 Heisk, 719: 87. V. Noel, 3 Ark 449: 1053. Dillon V. Bicknell,116 CaL 111: 516, 517, 530. V, Dougherty, 3 Grant's Cas. 99: 1317. V. Linder, 36 Wis. 344: 558. Dingley v. Moor, Cro. Eliz, 750: 456. Dinkins v. Gottselig, 90 Mo. App. 639: 847. Dinsmon v. State, 61 Neb. 418: 9. Dismukes v. Stokes, 41 Miss. 431: 550. Disora v. Phillips, 10 H. L. Cas. 624: 632. Distilled Spirits, 11 Dall. 356, 30 L. Ed. 167: 463. District of Columbia v. Hutton, 143 U. S. 18: 463, 519, 573, 847, 954. V. Reutter, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 337: 498, 883. V. Sisters of Visitation, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 300: 503, 1004. V. Washington Market, 108 U. S. 243: 883. District Township v. Dubuque, 7 Iowa, 362: 638. V. French, 40 Iowa, 601: 1016. Divet V. Richland Co., 8 N. D. 65: 388. Divine v. Harvie, 7 T. B. Mon. 443: 937. Dixon V. Nichols, 39 111. 372: 876. V. Roe, 159 Ind. 492: 201, 356, 417, 583. V. Thatcher, 14 Ark. 141: 619. Doan V. Boley, S8 Mo. 449: 117. Doane v. Omaha, 58 Neb. 815: 1154. Dobbins v. First Nat. Bank, 113 111. 558: 680,1336. V. Northampton, 50 N. J. L. 496: 378. Dobbs V. Grand Junction W. W., L, R. 9 Q. B. D. 158: 463. Dobson, Matter of, 146 N. T. 357: 584. Dobson V. State, 69 Ark. 376: 135, 955. Dockstader v. Sammons, 4 Hill, 546: 1306. Dodd V. State, 18 Ind. 56: 651. Dodge, Ex parte, 7 Cow. 147: 335. Dodge V. Chicago, 301 111. 68: 955. V.Gardiner, 31 N. Y. 339: 864, 885. V. Gridley, 10 Ohio, 178: 853. V. Nevada Nat. Bank, 109 Fed. 736: 1160, 1165. V. Platte Co., 16 Hun, 285: 1317. V. Williams, 46 Wis. 93: 39, 609. V. Woolsey, 18 How. 331: 631, 1317. Doe V. Avaline, 8 Ind. 6: 1015. V. Chum, 1 Blackf. 336: 1047. V. Considine, 6 Wall. 458: 723, 744, 798. V. Eslava, 11 Ala. 1038: 606, 618. V. Evans, 1 Cr. & M. 450: 1117. V. Harvey, 4 B. & C. 610: 747. V. Nay lor, 3 Blackf. 32: 562. V. Snaith, 8 Bing. 146: 998. V. Waterton, 3 R & Aid. 149: 1100. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Ixxix Tlie references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Doggett V. Catterns, 17 0. B. (N. S.) 669: 836. V. Walter, 15 Fla. 355: 893. Doherty v. AUman, L. B. 3 App. Cas. 709: 933. V. Ransome Co., 5 N. D. 1: 146. Dolan, Exparte, 138 Cal. 460: 465. Dolan V. Thomas, 13 Allen, 431: 485. Bolder v. Huntingfield, 11 Ves. 283: 869. Dole V. Wilson, 16 Minn. 535: 867. Dolese v. Pierce, 134 111. 140: 243. Dollman v. Moore, 70 Miss. 367: 771, 1863. Domick v. Michael, 4 Sandf. 874: 778. Don V. Lippmaun, 6 CL & Fin. 1, 1811. Donaldson v. Beckett, 8 Bro. P. C. 139: 1058. Donley v. Pittsburgh, 147 Pa. St. 348: 303. Donlon v. Jewett, 88 Cal. 530: 808. Donnell v. State, 48 Miss. 679: 13, 38, 39. Donner v. Palmer, 23 Cal. 40: 642. Donnersberger v. Preudergast, 128 111. 329: 203, 234, 373. Donohue v. Ladd, 31 Minn. 244: 797. Dooley v. Moore, 20 Cal. 14; 1136. Doolubdass v. BamloU, 7 Moore, P. C. 239: 642. Doores v. Varnon,94 Ky. 507: 1134. Dorland v. Burlingame, 78 Mich. 183: 1149, 1153. Dormidy v. Sharon Boiler Works, 137 Fed. 485: 614. Dorr V. Gibboney, 3 Hughes, 383: 37. Dorrance v. Dorranceton, 181 Pa. St. 164: 303. Dorris v. Erwin, 101 Pa. St. 239: 1083, 1394. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 87 Md. 64: 343. Dorsey's Appeal, 73 Pa. St 198: 186, 193, 301, 303, 351, 354, 581. Dougherty v. Austin, 94 Cal. 601: 156, 409. V. Bethune, 7 Ga. 90: 658. Doughty V. Hope, 3 Denio, 594: 1059, 1061, 1143. V. Hope, 1 N. Y. 79: 645, 1047, 1061. Douglas V. Douglas, 5 Hun, 140: 581, 778. Douglas Co. V. Hayes, 53 Neb. 191: 438, 451. Douglass V. Chosen Freeholders, 38 N. J. L. 813: 697, 701, 703, 704, 705. V. Eyre, Gilpin, 148: 756, 799. V. Pike Ca, 101 U. S. 677: 640, 906, 907, 1196. V. Placerville, 18 Cal. 643: 1033. Douglass' Petition, 46 N. Y. 48: 1148. Douglass' Petition, In re, 58 Barb. 174: 1115. Dousman v. O'Malley, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 450: 337, 330. Dover v. Grey, 63 N. J. L. 647: 592. Dover Gas L. Co. v. Dover, 7 De G. M. & G. 545: 1344. Dow V. Beidelman, 49 Ark. 325: 413. V. Electric Co., 68 N. H. 59: 549. V. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158: 37. Dowdell V. State, 58 Ind. 333: 481, 488. Dowdy V. Wamble, 110 Mo. 280: 885. Dowling V. Lancashire Ins. Co., 93 Wis. 63: 154. V. Salliotte, 83 Mich. 131: 469. V. Smith, 9 Md. 242: 308. V. State, 5 Sm. & M. 664: 1188. Ixxx TABLE OF CASES CITED, The references are to the pages: Tol. I, pp. l-«08; Vol. IE, pp. 605-1318. Downer v. Rugar, 31 Wend. 178: 1046. Downey v. Hendrie, 46 Mich. 498: 879. V. People, 205 III 230: 42a Downing v. Baldwin, 1 S. & R. 398: 1252. V, Lindsay, 3 Pa. St. 383: 1379. V. Milton vale, 36 Kan. 740: 869. V. Oskaloosa,86Iowa, 853: 1154. Downs V. Commissioners, 8 Penn. (Del.) 133: 605. V. Huntington, 35 Conn, 588: 551, 559. 680. Dowty T. Pitwood, 38 Mont 113: 543. Doyle V. Baughman, 34 IlL App. 614: 1330, 1332. V. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 535: 936. V. Doyle, 50 Ohio St. 330: 847, 851, 914, 933, 936. V. Howard, 16 Mich. 261: 1047. V. Mizner, 41 Mich. 549: 327, 331. Dozier v. Ellis, 38 Miss. 730: 1015, 1283. Drain Com'r v. Baxter, 57 Mich. 137: 893. Drake v. Andrews, 3 Mich. 203: 336. V. Drake, 4 Dev. 110: 800. V. Flewellen, 33 Ala. 106: 637. V. Glover, 30 Ala. 383: 869. V. Jordan, 73 Iowa, 707: 1184. V. State, 5 Tex. App. 649: 918. V. Wilkie, 30 Hun, 537: 1210. Draper v. Falley, 33 Ind. 465: 431, 433, 433, 435. Drawbaugh's Appeal, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 336: 703, 747. Drayton v. Grimke, 1 Bailey's Eq. 393: 1241. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393: 43, 44, 159. Drennan v. People, 10 Mich. 169: 1067. Drennen v. Banks, 80 Md. 810: 135, 794. Drew V. Dequindre, 3 Doug. (Mich.) 98: 1049. V. Tifft, 79 Minn. 175: 436, 444. V. "Wakefield, 54 Me. 391: 610. V. West Orange, 64 N. J. I* 481:272,381. Drew County v. Bennett, 43 Ark. 364: 481. Dreyfus v. Lanergan, 73 Mo. App. 336: 13. Driggs V. State, 52 Ohio St. 37: 434. Driscoll V. Commonwealth, 93 Ky. 393: 1163. Drummer v. Cox, 165 IlL 648: 1010. Drummond v. Drummond, L. R. 2 Ch. 45: 835. Drury v. Connell, 177 111. 43: 1314 Duane's Case, 1 Binn. 601: 554. Duanesburgh v. Jenkins, 46 Barb. 394: 1141. V. Jenkins, 57 N. Y. 191: 1325, 1228, 1330. Du Bignon v. Brunswick, 106 Ga. 317i 1167, 1323. Dubois V. Hepburn, 10 Pet. 1: 1096. V. McLean, 4 McLean, 486: 640. Dubuque, District Tp. of, v. Du- buque, 7 Iowa, 262: 917, 920. Dubuque, etc. R. R Ca v. Litch- field, 23 How. 66: 1026. Dubuque R. R. Co. v. Des Moines R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 329. Duckstad v. Board of Co. Com'rs., 69 Minn. 302: 1310. Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 N, Y. 9: 638, 645, 917, 1056, 1057, 1058. V. Reynolds, 1 Kan. 285: 915. V. Steele, 71 Ala. 433: 778. V. Western Union Tel. Co., 54 Ma App. 391: 973. TABLE OF OASES CITED. IxXXi The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-60S; Vol n, pp. 605-1315. Dudley, Corporation of, In re, L. R. 8 Q. B. Div. 93: 94& Duecker v. Goeres, 104 Wis. 29; 1146. Duff V. Fisher, 15 CaL 375: 899. V. Karr, 91 Mo. App. 16: 777, 885, 964 Duflfy V. New Orleans, 49 La. Ann. 114: 359, 399, 888, 893. V. Ogden, 64 Pa. St. 340: 328. Dugan V. Bridge Co., 27 Pa. St. 303: 670, 1033. V. Gittings, 3 Gill, 138: 463, 466, 517, 845. Dugan Cut Stone Co. v. Gray, 144 Mo. 497: 1255. Duggan V. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co., 43 111. App. 536: 577. Dugger T. Ins. Co., 95 Tenn. 345: 135, 416. Duke V. O'Bryan, 100 Ky. 710: 475. Dulany v. Tilghnian, 6 G. & J. 461: 1239. Dulany's Lessee v. Tilghman, 6 G. & J. 461: 550, 636. Dull V. People, 4 Denio, 91: 683, 963. Duluth V. Duluth St. Ry. Co., 60 Minn. 178: 803. V. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435: 84. Duluth B. Co. V. Koon, 81 Minn. 486: 854, 367, 370, 433. Dumford, In re, 7 Kan. App. 89: 6, 12. Dunbar v. Boston & P. R. R. Cft, 181 Mass. 383: 1318, 1389. V. Roxburghe, 3 CI. & F. 335: 888, 895. Duncan, In re, 139 U. S. 449: 99, 137. Duncan v. Cobb, 33 Minn. 460- 1287. V. Drakeley, 10 Ohio, 47: 1056. V. State, 7 Humph. 148: 683. Dunoombe v. Felt, 81 Mich. 332: 1052. V. Prindle, 13 Iowa, 1: 59, 608, 658, 867. Duneltn, The, I* R. 9 P, D. 171: 755. Dunham v. Anders, 128 N. C. 207: 55a V. Linderman, 10 Okl. 570: 787. V. Sage, 52 N. Y. 329: 505. V. Wright, 53 Pa. St. 167: 1142. Dunlap, Ex parte, 71 Ala. 93: 731, Dunlap V. Crawford, 2 McCord, Eq. 171: 684. V. Wagner, 85 Ind. 539: 1267, 1373. Dunmore Borough's Appeal, 53 Pa. St. 374: 1191 Dunn V. Dewey, 75 Minn. 153: 1317. V. Great Falls, 13 Mont. 58: 586. V. Stevens, 63 Minn. 380: 1190, 1305. Dunne v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 131 Mo. 1: 346, 370, 404, 406. Dunnenbaum v.- Scbram, 59 Tex. 381: 1347. Dunton v. Hume, 15 App. Div. 133 302. Dunwell v. Bidwell, 8 Minn. 18 1357. Du Page Co. v. Jenks, 65 111. 375 1048. Duquesne Savings Bank's Appeal 96 Pa. St. 398: 914. Duramus v. Harrison, 36 Ala. 326 773. Durand v. Gage, 76 Mich. 634: 1117, 1123. Durbin v. People, 54 III. App. 101 : 770. Durham v. Inhabitants, 4 Greenl. 140: 19. V. Lewiston, 4 Me. 140: 343. V. Linderman, 10 Okl. 570: 707. Ixxxii TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Durham v. Richmond &; D. B. B. Ca, 108 N. C. 399: 637. V. State, 89 Tenn. 723: 470. Durkee v. JanesviUp, 26 Wis. 697: 208. Durkin v. Kingston Coal Co., 171 Pa. St. 193: 418. Duryee v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 477: 577, 578. Button V. Howell, Show. P. C. 32: 28. Duval V. Hunt, 34 Fla. 85: 784, 785. V. Malone, 14 Gratt. 23: 1160. D welly V. D welly, 46 Me. 377: 472, 644, 863. Dwight V. Richardson, 13 Sm. & M. 325: 611, 621. Dwyer v. Parker, 115 CaL 544: 408, 580, 597. V. Smelter City State Benk, 30 Colo. 315: 786. Dyerv. Belfast, 88 Me. 140: 1158, 1168, 1320, 1288. V. Best, L. R. 1 Ex. 152: 888. V. Covington, 28 Pa. St. 186: 528. V. Ellington, 126 N. C. 941: 555. V. Last, 51 III. 179: 873. V. Smith, 13 Conn. 384: 618,630, 633. V. State, Meigs, 337: 308, 563. Dyker Meadow L. & I. Co. v. Cook, 8 App. Div. 164: 248. Dyson v. Sheley, 11 Mich. 527: 1054. V. West, 1 Har. & J. 567: 1050, 1061. E. K A. Chatfield Co. v. New Haven, 110 Fed. 788: 11, 158. Eagan v. Rochester, 68 Hun, 331: 518. V. State, 53 Ind. 163: 876. Eager's Petition, 58 Barb. 557: 1238. Eakin v. Eaub, 12 S. & R 363: 640. Earhart v. State, 67 Miss. 325: 736, 797, 801. Earle v. Board of Education, 55 Cal. 489: 403, 432. Earl of Ailsbury v. tattison, 1 Doug. 28: 845, 853. Earl of Shrewsbury v. Scott, 6 C. B. (N.,S.)1: 637. Earl of Waterford's Peerage, 6 CL & F. 173: 888. Early v. Doe, 16 How. 615: 334. Earthman v. Jones, 3 Yerg. 484: •1048. Easley v. Whipple, 57 Wis. 485: 912. Eastern B. & L. Ass'n v. William- son, 189 U. S. 122: 613, 623. East Haven v. Hemingway, 7 Conn. 186: 1039. East India Interest, 8 Bing. 196: 961, 965. East Jordan L. Co. v. East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201: 306. Eastman v. McAlpin, 1 Ga. 157: 649. V. McCartin, 70 N. H. 33: 1237. East St. Louis v. Underwood, 105 111. 308: 1213. East Tenn. etc. Ry. Co. v, Mahoney, 89 Tenn. 311: 733, 743. East Union Tp. v. Ryan, 86 Pa. St. 459: 1045. Eastwood V. Miller, L. E. 9 Q. B. 440: 837. Eatonv. Bennett, ION. D. 346: 1138. v. Brown, 97 Cal. 371: 427. V. Burke, 66 N. H. 306: 462, 500. V. Green, 22 Pick. 526: 9ia V. Guarantee Co., 11 N. D. 79: 191, 240. V. Supervisors, 40 Wis. 668:' 1387. TABLE OF OASES CITED. Ixxxiii The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-C03; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. "Eaton V. Walker, 76 Mich. 579: 234, 352, 363. Eau Claire National Bank v. Ben- son, 106 Wis. 634: 906. V. Maoauley. 101 Wis. 304: 1308. Ebbs V. Boulnois, L. E. 10 Ch. 479: 715. Eby's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 311, 813. Eck V. Hoffman, 55 Cal. 503, 1361. Eckart v. State, 5 W. Va. 515; 592, 601. Eokerd v. Perry Co. 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 284: 500. vEcklofl V. District of Columbia, 4 Maokay, 572: 513. 'Eddy V. Courtright, 91 Mich. 204: 1363. V. Kincaid, 38 Ore., 537: 7. Eden v. People, 161 111. 296: 419. Edenburgh R. R. v. Wanohope, 8 CL & F. 710: 636. Edge V. Commonwealth, 7 Pa. St. 275: 933. Edgecomb v. His Creditors, 19 Nev. 149: 816. Edgerv. Co. Com'rs, 70 Ind. 331: 881, 882. Edgerly v. Bush, 81 N. T. 199: 617. ^Edinburgh, etc. E. R Co. v. Lin- lithgow, 3 Maoq. H. L. Cas. 704: 658. ■ Edmonds v. Herbrandson, 3 N. D. 270: 339, 370, 397, 597, 598. V. Lawley, 6 M. & W. 285: 641, 1170, 1236. Edmundson v. Wragg, 104 Pa, St. 500, 333, 336. 'Edson V. Hayden, 20 Wis. 682: 831. Edward v. Trevellick, 4 E. & R 59: 979, 1108. Edwards v. Cleveland Dryer Ca 83 III. App. 643: 988. V. Darby, 13 Wheat. 306: 890. V. Davis, 16 John. 281: 645. Edwards v. Denver & B. G. R. B. Co. 13 Colo. 59: 199, 433, 510, 739, 797, 916. V. Dick. 4 B. & Aid. 213: 711. V. Gaulding, 88 Miss. 118: 861, 862, 1059. V. Grand Junction R. R. Co., 10 Eng. Ch. 85: 638. V.Hall, 30 Ark. 31; 1118. V. Jaggers, 19 Ind. 407: 1194. V. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595: 1190, 1304, 1311. V. Morton, 93 Tex. 152: 694, 695, 711, 743. V. Police Jury, 39 La. Ann. 855: 249. V. Williamson, 70 Ala, 145: 643, 937. Edworthy v. Iowa L. & S. Ass'n, 114 Iowa, 320: 1224. Egerton v. Third Municipality, 1 La. Ann. 435: 687, 724, 1103. Egnew V. Cochrane, 2 Head, 320: 31, 609, 618, 874, 886. Egypt Street, 2 Grant's Cas. 455: 463. Ehrsam, Matter of, 37 App. Div. 272: 758, 773. Eichholtz V. Martin, 53 Kan. 486: 136, 339, 410. Eilers v. Wood, 64 Wis. 422: 862. Eingartner v. Illinois Steel Co., 103 Wis. 373: 1218, 1289. Einstein v. Sawhill, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 10: 758. Eiskine v. Nelson Co., 4 N. D. 66: 1151. Ek v. St. Paul Permanent Loan Co., 84 Minn. 245: 191, 269. Eld V. Gorham, 20 Conn. 8: 50, 97. Elder v. Bemis, 2 Met. 599: 933. V. Bradley, 2 Sneed, 252: 329. V. State, 96 Ind. 162: 356 Ixxxiv TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 605-1316. Electric L. & P. Co. v. San Berna- dino, 100 Cal. 348: 774 Electro-M. etc. Co. v. Van Auken, 9 Colo. 204: 666, 1103. Elfelt V. Stillwater St. Ey. Co., 53 Minn. 68: 773. Elgin Hydraulic Co. v. Elgin, 194 IIL 476: 815, 1070. Eliot V. Himrod, 108 Pa. St. 569: 759, 777, 1005. Elizabethtown, etc. R. R Co. v. Elizabethtown, 13 Bush, 333: 466, 511, 567. Ellet V. Campbell, 18 Colo. 510: 884. Ellicott Machine Co. v. Speed, 73 Md. 33: 301. Ellingham v. Mount, 43 N. J. L. 470: 945. Elliott V. Brazil Block Coal Co., 35 Ind. App. 592: 846, 855. V. Chapman. 15 Cal. 383: 1136. V. Detroit, 121 Mich. 611: 176. V. Lochnane, 1 Kan. 135: 543. V. Oliver, 32 Ore. 44: 135. V. State, 91 Ga. 694: 201, 256, 581, 591. V. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137: 754, 958. Elliot's Ex'r v. Lyell, 3 Call, 268: 1160. Ellis, Ex parte, 11 Cal. 333: 665, 704, 729. Ellis V. Com'rs, 3 Gray, 378: 624. V. Frazier, 38 Ore. 462: 426. V. Hutchinson, 70 Mich. 154: 252.' V. Maxson, 19 Mich. 186: 610, 611. V. Miller, 136 Ala. 185: 300. V. Murray, 28 Miss. 139: 811, 832. V. Northern Pac. R. R. Ca, 77 Wis. 114: 1333. V. Owens, 10 M. & W. 531: 893. Ellis V. Paige, 1 Pick. 43: 515, 51T;. 530. V. Park, 8 Tex. 205: 880. V. People, 159 111. 387: 1127,. 1144 V. Whitlook, 10 Mo. 781: 991, . 1246. V. Wiley, 17 Tex. 134: 619, Ellis Co. V. Thompson, 95 Tex. 23: 694, 707, 711, 886. Ellison V. Mobile, etc. E. R. Co., 36 ■ Miss. 572: 659, 708. Elmendorf v. Carmachael, 8 Litt 472: 627. V. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 153: 615,- 620, 865. Elmensdorf v. New York, 35 Wend. 693: 1140. Elm wood V. Marcy, 93 U. S. 289: : 614. Elrod T. Gilliland, 27 Ga. 467: 463. Elsea V. Pryor, 87 Mo. App. 157: 1288. Elsworth V. Cole, 2 M. & W. 31: . 655. Elting V. Hickman, 172 Mo. 237: 302, 429. Elton V. Geissert, 10 Phila, 330: 661. V. O'Connor, 6 N. D. 1: 1197. Elwood V. Flannigan, 104 U. S. 563: 613. Ely V. Holton, 15 N. Y. 595: 443, 443, 460, 642. V. James, 133 Mass. 36: 618, 622. V. Thompson, 8 A. K. Marsh. - 70: 457, 462. Emanuel v. Constable, 3 Russ. 436: 653. Embry v. State, 109 Ga. 101: 341. Emerick v. Harris, 1 Bin. 416: 57$. - Emerson v. Atwater, 7 Mich. 23: - TABLE OF CASES CITED. Ixxxv The references are to the pages: Vol. I ,pp. 1-603: Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Emerson v. Clayton, 33 111. 493: 505. V, Commonwealth, 108 Pa. St. Ill: 111?. Emery v. Berry, 28 N. H. 486: 619, 6S0. Emigrant Industrial S. Bank, In re, 75 N. Y. 388: 1141. Emmons v. Lewiston, 133 111. 880: 749, 771. Emory v. Addis, 71 IlL 273: 1265, 1268, 1269. Empire State Savings Bank v. Beard, 81 Hun, 184: 557. Employers' L. Co. v. Commissioner of Ins., 64 Mich. 614: 889. Emporia v. Norton, 13 Kan. 569: 430. V. Norton, 16 Kan. 236: 446. V. Randolph, 56 Kan. 117: 155. Emsworth Borough, Matter of, 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 39: 447, 448, 518. Enfield Tool Bridge Co. v. Hartford, etc. R. R. Co., 17 Conn. 40: 1194. Engleking v. Von Wamel, 26 Tex. 469: 747. Englehardt v. State, 88 Ala. 100: 1158. Engleken v. Hilger, 43 Iowa, 563: 1267. V. Webber, 47 Iowa, 558: 1278. English V. Beard, 51 Ind. 489: 1263, 1263, 1267. V. Danville, 150 111. 93: 453. V. Oliver, 28 Ark. 317: 85, 608. V. State, 31 Fla. 340: 578, 580, 757. V. State, 7 Tex. App. 171: 332. English & S. A. M. Co. v. Hardy, 93 Tex. 289: 339, 340, 437, 593. Enloe V. Reike, 56 Ala, 500: 511. Ennis v. Crump, 6 Tex. 34: 778. V. Shiley, 47 Iowa, 553: 1373. V. Smith, 14 How. 400: 616, 618, 632. Enos V. Buckley, 94 111. 458: 505. V. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68: 307. Ensign v. Basse, 107 N. Y. 329: 287. Enterprise, Schooner, 1 Paine, 32: 959. 962, 970, Enterprize v. Smith, 63 Kan. 815: 371, 749. Entick V. Carrington, 19 How. St Tr. 1039: 1084. Epperson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 90 Mo. App. 433: 444. Epps T. Epps, 17 111. App. 196: 674, 675. Equitable G. & T. Co. v. Donahoe, 3 Penn. (Del.) 191: 354, 458, 593. Equitable L. Ins. Co. v. Gleason, 56 Iowa, 48: 1184. Erb v. Grimes, 94 Md. 93: 326. Erhard v. Clearfield Coal Co., 5 Pa. Dist. Ct. 611: 464, 685, 1065. Erickson v. Cass Co., 11 N. D. 494: 227, 236. Erie V. Brady, 150 Pa. St. 462: 176. v. Knapp, 29 Pa. St. 173: llOi Erie, etc. R. E. Co. v. Casey, 1 Grant's Cas. 274: 19. Erkman v. Carnes, 101 Tenn. 186: 1059, 1060. Erlinger v. Boneau, 51 111. 94: 172L Ernst V. Morgan, 39 N. J. Eq. 391: 378. Ernst Bros. v. HoUis, 89 Ala. 638: 1206. Erskine v. Nelson -Co., 4 N. D. 66: 926, 1150, 1330. V. Steele Co., 87 Fed. 630: 1330. 1238. Esoondido High Sch. Dist. v. Es- condido Sem., 130 Cal. 128: 42a Eshleman's Appeal, 74 Pa. St. 43: 760. Eskridge v. Ditmars, 51 Ala. 245: 1225. V. Emporia, 63 Kan. 368: 155. Ixxxvi TABLE OF CASES CITED, The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. C05-1315. Eskridge v. McGruder, 45 Miss. 394: 845. Estep V. Hutchman, 14 S. & R. 435: 627. Esterbrook Mfg. Co. v. Ahem, 30 N, J. Eq. 341: 880. Esterley's Appeal, 54 Pa. St. 193: 863. Etowah Mill. Co. v. Crenshaw, 116 Ga. 406: 651. Etter V. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 2 Tes. App. 48: 518. Eudora v. Darling, 54 Kan. 654: 301. Eureka v. Davis, 21 Kan. 580: 204, 218. V. Diaz, 89 Cal. 467: 699, 747, 1298, 1302, 1303. Eureka Case, 4 Sawyer, 302: 663. Eustis V. Kidder, 26 Me. 97: 1117. Evans V. Browne, 30 Ind. 514: 63. V. Denver, 26 Colo. 193: 1171. V. Jones, 9 Bing. 311: 1093. V. Lumber Ca, 21 Ohio C. C. 80: 323. V. Memphis, etc. R. R Co., 56 Ala. 246: 201, 255. Y. Montgomery, 4 W. & S. 218: 18, 1200. V. Myers, 25 Pa, St. 114: 888. V. Phillippi, 117 Pa. St. 236: 433. V. Pratt, 3 M. & G. 767: 1341. V. Stevens, 4 T. R. 459: 747, 818. V. Tillman, 38 S. C. 338: 707. V. Williams, 3 Drew & Sm. 334: 1160, 1234. V. Willistown, 168 Pa. St. 578: 287. V. Witmer, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 613: .423. Evans-Snider-Buel Co. v. McFad- den, lOoFed. 393: 1190,1213, 1385, 1203. Evansville v. Bayard, 39 Ind. 450: 473, 533. Evansville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Barbee, 59 Ind, 592: 324. V. Barbee, 74 Ind. 169: 313. Evanturel v. Evanturel, L. R. 3 P. C. 462: 893. Everding v. McGinn, 33 Ore. 15: 784. Everett v. Morrison, 69 Hun, 146: 21. v. State, 33Fla. 661: 123. V. Wells, 3 Man. &Gr. 269: 793. V. Wells, 3 Scott, N. R. 531: 916. Evergreens, Matter of, 47 N. J. L. 216: 512. Everham v. Hulit, 45 N. J. L. 53: 447. Ever-sole v. Chase, 127 Ind, 297: 435, 436. Ewart V. Williams, 3 Drew. 31: 881. Ewell V. Daggo, 108 U. a 143: 550, 1197. Ewer V. Jones, 3 Salk. 415: 1058. Ewing V. Ainger, 96 Mich. 587: 1208. V. Ainger, 97 Mich. 381: 1298. V. Burnet, 11 Pet. 41:688. V. Ewing, 24 Ind. 470: 9fl0. V. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64: 231. V. Van Wagenen, 6 Wash. 39, 547, 1281. Ewing's Case, 5 Gratt. 701: 643, 1181, 1227. Excelsior M'fg Co. v, Keyser, 62 Miss. 155: 1335. Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Em- bury, 67 Barb. 261: 473, 513. Eyre v. Harmon, 93 Cal. 580: 744, 991. V. Jacob, 14 Gratt. 433: 938. Eyston v. Studd, 2 Plowd. 465: 693, 794, 1077, 1081. Ezekiel v. Dixon, 3 Ga. 151: 69i3. 609, 712. TABLE OF CASKS CITED. Ixxxvii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. M03; Vol. n, pp- 60B-1315. F. Face V. Ionia, 90 Mich. 104: 774 Fackler v. Fackler, 14 Mo. 431: 1279. Fagan v. Boyle Ice Machine Co., 65 Tex. 324: 1256. Fahenstook v. Peoria, 171 111. 454: 1328. Fahey v. State, 27 Tex. App. 146: 323. Fair v. Buss, 117 Iowa, 164: 1330, 1237. Fairchild v. Gwynne, 14 Abb. Pr. 121:308, 312,331,884. V. Gwynne, 16 Abb. Pr. 31: 1239. V. Masonic Hall Ass'n, 71 Mo. 536: 798. V. United States, 91 Fed. 397: 553, 1169. Fairfield v. Gallatin Co., 100 U. S. 47, 906. V. Ratoliflf, 20 Iowa, 396: 1010. Fairmont v. Meyer, 83 Minn. 456: 1031. Faivre v. Mandercbeid, 117 Iowa, 724: 1274 Falconer v. Campbell, 2 McLean, 195: 101. V. Robinson, 46 Ala. 340: 204 446. Falk, Ex parte, 42 Ohio St. 638: 339, 345, 420. Falkner v. Dovland, 54 N. J. L. 409: 284 Fall Brook Coal Ca v. Lynch, 47 How Pr. 520: 625. Fallon, Ex parte, 5 T. R. 283: 327, 329. Fant V. Gibbs, 54 Miss. 396: 598.. Farbish v. County Com'rs, 93 Me. 117: 788. Fargo V. Ross, 11 N. D. 369: 442. Farley v. Bonham, 2 J. & H. 177: 881. V. De Waters, 3 Daly, 193: 463, 487, 490. V. Dowe, 45 Ala. 334: 1301. Farmer v. People, 77 111. 333: 549, 681, 1276. V. Shaw, 93 Tex. 438: 847. Farmers' Bank v. Hale, 59 N. Y. 63: 541, 668, 674 687, 734 V. Winslow, 3 Minn. 86: 1254 Farmers' Co-op. Creamery Co. v. Iowa State Ins. Co., 113 Iowa, 608: 1160, 1191. Farmers', etc. Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R Co., 39 Fed. 143: 926. Farmer's Heirs v. Fletcher, 17 La. Ann. 143: 899. Farmers' Ind. Ditch Co. v. Agricul- tural D. Co., 32 Colo. 513: 235. Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Highsmith, 44 Iowa, 330: 221, 276. Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Oregon, etc, R. M. Co., 34 Fed. 407: 223. Farmers' & M. Ins. Co. v. Dobney, 63 Neb. 313: 420. V. Dobney, 189 U. S. 301: 420. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank V. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29: 967, 989, 990. . Farmers' Turnpike v. Coventry, 10 John. 389: 636. Farm Invest. Ca v. Carpenter, 9 Wyo. 110: 304 Farnsworth v. Lime Rook R. R. Co., 83 Me. 440: 429. V. Lisbon, 63 Me. 451: 145. V. Vance, 3 Cold. 108: 1309. Farnum v. Blackstone Canal Corp., 1 Sumn. 46: 916. Farquharson v. Teargin, 24 Wash. 549: 139. Farr v. Brackett, 30 Vt. 344: 516. V. Briggs, 73 Vt. 335: 988. Ixxxviii TABLE OF OASES CITED. • Ths references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Farrar v. Bates, 55 Tex. 193: 873. Farrell v. Pingree, 5 Utah, 443; 1160, 1163. V. State, 54 N. J. L. 431: 444. V. Trustees, 85 Cal. 408: 156, 437. Parrell Foundry v. Dart, 36 Conn. 376: 703, 704, 1110. Farrelly v. Cole, 60 Kan. 356: 113. Farrington v. Rennie, 3 Caines, 220: 1306. Fan-is v. Henderson, 1 Okl. 384: 43. V. Houston, 78 Ala. 250: 1169. V. Sipes, 99 Tenn. 398: 1361. Farson v. Board of Com'rs, 97 Ky. 119: 468. V. South Brook, 54 Minn. 117: 243. Farwell v. Cohen, 138 111. 316: 644, 1076. V. Des Moines B. & M. Co., 97 Iowa, 386: 511, 1003, 1004, 1005. Faulbs V. People, 39 Mich. 300: 1276. Fa vers v. Glass, 23 Ala. 621: 750. Favorite v. Booher, 17 Ohio St. 548: 1015, 1283. Fayette County v. Faires, 44 Tex. 514: 463, 516. Fayetteville B. & L. Ass'n v. Bow- lin, 63 Ark. 573: 1158, 1191. Fears v. Riley, 148 Mo. 49: 887. Featherstouh v. Compton, 8 La. Ann. 285: 1337. Fee V. Brown, 17 Colo. 510: 1076. Feek v. Township Board, 83 Mioh. 393: 301, Feemster v. Ringo, 5 T. B. Mon. 336: 880. Feibleman v. State, 98 Ind. 531: 433. Feldman v. Morrison, 1 III. App. 460: 918. Felix V. Wallace Co. Com'rs, 62 Kan. 832: 6, 9. Fell V. State, 43 Md. 71: 164, 171. Fellowes v. Clay, 4 Q. B. 856: 881. Fellows V. Allen, 60 N. H. 439: 1397. V. Scranton, 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 554: 814. V. Walker. 39 Fed. 651: 377. Felt V. Felt, 19 Wis. 193: 531, 661, 919. Felton V. West, 103 Cal. 266: 710. Felts V. Delaware, etc. R. R. Co., 170 Pa. St. 433: 530, 535. V. Delaware, etc. R. R. Co., 178 Pa. St. 290: 530. V. Delaware, etc. R. R. Co., 195 Pa, St. 31: 530,535. Fenelon's Petition, 7 Pa St. 173: 551, 553, 1169. Fennell v. Ridler, 5 B. & C. 406: 938. Fenner v. Luzerne Co., 167 Pa. St. 633: 518. Fen ton v. Blair, 11 Utah, 78: 950. V. Livingstone, 3 Macq. H. L. 497; 35. V. State, 100 Ind. 598: 876. V. Yule, 27 Neb. 758: 177, 434, 436. Fenwiok v. Schmolz, L. R 3 C. P. 313: 816, 825, 884. Ferch v. Victoria Elevator Co., 79 Minn. 416, 646, 987. Ferdinand v. State, 39 Ala. 706: 872. Ferdon, Ex parte, 35 Ore. 171: 518. Ferguson, Ex parte, L. R. 6 Q. B. 291: IOCS. Ferguson v. Pittsburgh, 159 Pa. St. 435: 46a v. Ross, 136 N. Y. 459: 358, 359, 366, 399. V. Sandford, 59 Hun, 207: 399. Fergusson v. Norman, 5 Bing. N. C. 76: 939. Fermoy Peerage Claim, 5 H L. Cas. 747: 886, 895. TABLE OF OASES CITED. Ixxxix The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Ferris v. Higley, 20 Wall. 375: 895, 1051. Ferry v. Campbell, 110 Iowa, 290: 437, 1212. Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659: 1035, 1195. Fesler v. Boynton, 145 Ind. 71: 458, 566, 593. Fessenden v. Hill, 6 Mich. 242: 644, 1049, 1064. Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Free- man, 109 Fed. 847: 415. Fidelity & Dep. Co. v. Common- wealth, 104 Ky. 579: 468. . Fidelity Ins., etc. Co. v. Nelson, 30 Wash. 340: 23. ■ Fidelity Ins., Trust & Safe Dep. Co. ,v. Norfolk & W. R. R. Co., 90 Fed. 175: 1059, 1060. V. Shenandoah V. R. R. Co., 86 Va. 1: 253, 256. '^Fidelity L. & T. Co. v. Douglas, 104 Iowa, 532: 710, 773. ■ Fidelity Mut. L. Ass'n v. Mettler, 185 U. S. 308: 420. _ Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gill Car Co., 25 Fed. Rep. 737: 1053. ■Fidelity Trust & Safety Dep. Co. v. Morganfield, 96 Ky. 563: 1130. Fidler v. Hershey, 90 Pa. St. 363: 1248. ..Field V. Clark, 143 U. S. 649: 68, 73, , 170, 579, 581. V. Gooding, 106 Mass. 310: 650. V. Hall, 16 Tex Civ. App. 233: 1145. V. People, 2 Scam. 79: 683. V. Silo, 44 N. J. L. 355: 367. Fielding v. Morley Corp; (1899), 1 Ch. 1: 649. .Field's Heirs v. Goldsby, 28 Ala. 218: 900. .'Fifieldjv. Marinette Co., 62 Wis. 532: 1132. Files V. Fuller, 44 Ark. 273: 457, 678, 681. Fillmore v. Van Horn, 129 Mich. 52: 72, 78, 88, 651. Finch V. Birmingham Canal Co., 5 B. & C. 820: 1241. Finders v. Bodle, 58 Neb. 57: 178, 1334. Finlayson v. Peterson, 5 N. D. 587: 328, 1065. Finlen v. Heinze, 28 Mont. 548: 785. Finn v. Haynes, 37 Mich. 63: 640. Finnegan v. Morenberg, 52 Minn. 239: 1038. Finney v. Aokerman, 21 Wis. 268: 641. V. Guy, 189 U. S. 335: 613, 623. Finnigan v. State, 54 Kan. 430: 315. Fire Department v. Bacon, 2 Abb. App. 127: 633. Fireman's Ben. Ass'n v. Lounsbury, 21 111. 511: 258. First M; E. Church v. Fadden, 8 N. D. 163: 1326. First Nat. Bank v. Bell Silver, etc. Co. 8 Mont. 32: 784. V. Chapman, 9 Ohio C. C. 79: 39, 616. V. Cooke, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. 278: 470. V. Covington, 103 Fed. 523: 1219. V. Holland, 99 Va. 495: 707. V. Lamb, 50 N. Y. 95: 668. V. Ludvegsen, 8 Wyo. 230: 703, 711. V. Neill, 13 Mont, 377: 1139. V. Yankton, 101 U. S. 129: 41, 44. First School Dist. v. Ufford, 52 Conn. 44: 644. Fischer v. Simon, 95 Tex. 234: 325, 777, 783. Fish V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 83 Minn. 9: 1226. xc TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 60S-1315. Fish V. Stookdale, 111 Mich. 46: 256. Fisher v. Baldridge, 91 Tenn. 418: 498. V. Bidwell, 37 Conn. 363: 1059. V. Connard, 100 Pa. St. 63: 793, 794, 811, 813. V. Donovan, 57 Neb. 361: 633. V. Green, 143 111.80: 1158. V. Harnden, 1 Paine, 55: 464. V. Horicon I. Co., 10 Wis. 355. 899. V. McGin, 1 Gray, 1: 583. V. N. Y. etc. R. E. Co., 46 N. Y. 644: 555. V. Simon, 95 Tex. 384: 445. v.Wineman, 125 Mich. 643: 141. Fishkill V. F. & B. Co., 23 Barb. 634: 18-1, 186, 202, 203, 322, 581. Fishwiok v. Sewell, 4 H. & J. 399: 1281. Fisk V. Henarie, 143 U. S. 459: 464, . 470, 781. V. Varnell, 39 Tex. 73: 1046. Fitch V. Applegate, 24 Wash. 25: 416. Fite V. Black, 85 Ga. 413: 434. Fitzgerald, Matter of, 2 Caines, 318: 1059. Fitzgerald v. Champneys, 3 Johns. &H. 31: 530. V. Champneys, 30 L. J. Ch. 783: 530. V. Kewis, 164 Mass. 495: 444. V.Phelps & B. Windmill Co., 43 W. Va. 570: 354, 358, 398, 606. V. Quann, 109 N. Y. 441: 573, 863, 1058. V. Rees, 67 Miss. 473: 694, 707, 885. V. St. Paul, 29 Minn. 336: 905. Fitzpatrick v. Board of Trustees, 87 Ky. 133: 1237. Fitzpatrick v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co.,. 139 111. 348: 781. V. Gebhart, 7 Kan. 85: 695, 698, 704. V. Simonson Mfg. Co., 86 Minn; 140: 1170. Flagg, Ex parte, 38 Tex. Crim. Rep.. 573: 367. Flagg V. Locke, 74 Vt. 320: 122,'5. Flaherty v. Thomas, 13 Allen, 428:. 481, 483. Flanagan v. Plainfleld, 44 N. J. L. 118: 601. Flanders v. Merrimack, 48 Wis. 567: 545. Flanigen v. Washington Ins. Co., '" Pa. St. 306: 606, 619. Flannagan v. Hynes, 75 Conn. 581 :. 1290. Flatan v. State, 56 Tex. 94: 1118. Fiat Rock V. Rust, 18 Ind. App. 282: 464. Fleckten v. Lamberton, 69 Minn, 187: 302. Fleischner v. Chadwick, 5 Ore. 152: 447, 577, 581. Fletcher v. Lord Sondes, 3 Bing- 580: 963. V. Peck, 6 Cranoh, 87: 925, 1174, 1192, 1193. V. Prather, 102 Cal. 413: 431, 436. V. State, 54 Ind. 463: 291. Flint V. Gauer, 66 Iowa, 696: 1373. V. Luhrs, 66 Minn. 57: 1258. Flint, etc. P. R. Co. v. WoodhuII,. 25 Mich. 99: 5, 701, 925. Flint River Steamboat Co. v. Fos- ter, 5Ga. 194: 911: 1013. Flock v. Smith, 65 N. J. L. 224: 381.. Florence Gas, Elec. L. & P. Co. v. Hanby. 101 Ala. 15: 547, 1160. Florida Central & P. R. R. Co. v.. Mooney, 40 Fla. 17: 784, 785. • TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. XCl Flory v; Wilson, 83 Ind. 391: 1136. Flourney v. Lewis, 8 Tenn. Cas. 45: 430. Flower, Matter of, 55 Hun, 158: 1230, 1332. Flower v. Witkovsky, 69 Mich. 371: 1263.- Floyd V. Johnson, 3 Litt. 109: 876. V. Perrin, 30 S. 0. 1: 191, 233, 359. V. Ricks, 14 Ark. 286: 875. Flynn v. Abbott, 16 Cal. SUS: 651. V. Coakley, 164 HI. 470: 298. V. Lemieux, 46 Mian. 458: 1318, 1388. V. Little Falls Elec. & Water Co., 74 Minn. 180: 389, 396, 1031. V. Little Falls E. & W. Co., 77 Minn. 445: 373. Fogg V. Holcomb, 64 Iowa, 631: 550, 873. Foby V. Bourg, 10 La. Ann. 139: 929. V. Fletcher, 28 L. J. Ex. 103: 961. V. Hoboken, 61 N. J. L. 478: 379, 388, 390. V. Royal Arcanum, 78 Hun, 223: 1159. Foley-Beau Lumber Co. v. Saw- yer, 76 Minn. 118: 931, 934. Foliamb's Case, 5 Coke, 116: 944. Folkers v. Powers, 43 Mich. 283 1009. Folliott V. Ogden, 1 H. Black. 135 35. Folmer's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 133 670. Folsom V. Asper, 25 Utah, 299 1205, 1361. Folsom"s Petition, 8 T. & C. 55 1141. FoUz V. Hoge. 54 Cal. 28: 1066. Fontaine v. Houston, 58 Ind. 316: 1050. Foot V. Stevens, 17 Wend. 488: 1048. Foote V. Vanzandt, 34 Miss. 40: 646, 964. Forbe v. Foot, 8 MoCord, 331 : 1279. Forbes v. Board of Health, 37 Fla. 189: 534. V. Smith, 11 Ex. 161: 1278, 1280. Ford V. Booker, 53 Ind. 395: 435. V. Clement, 68 Minn. 484: 1261. V. Delta & P. L. Co., 164 U. S. 663: 689, 1004. V. Durie, 8 Wash. 87: 789. V. Farmer, 9 Humph. 153: 608. V. Ford, 143 Mass. 577: 799. V. Johnson, 34 Barb. 364: 1099. V. North Des Moines, 80 Iowa, 626: 158, V. Springer Land Ass'n, 8 N. M. 37: 1255. Ford's Petition, 6 Lans. 93: 1141. Fordyce v. Bridges, 1 H. L. Cas. 1: 697, 699. V. Goodman, 20 Ohio St. 1: 73, 74, 762. Fore V. Williams, 35 Miss. 533: 670. Fork Ridge Baptist Cem. Ass'n v. Redd, 10 S. E. 405; 1041. Forqueran v. Donnally, 7 W. Va. 114:463,853. Forrester v. Boston, etc. Min. Co., 31 Mont. 544: 573, 931, 1060. V. Kearney Nat. Bank, 49 Neb. 655: 784. Forry v. Ridge, 56 Mo. App. 615 889, 897. Forshey v. Railroad Co,, 16 Tex. 516 1064, 1348. Forster v. Forster, 129 Masa 559 1334. zcu TABLE OF OASES CITED, The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-1315. Forsyth v. Marbury, E. M. Charlt. 333: 640, Forsythe v. Warren, 62 111. 68: 339, 831, 334. Fort V. Burch, 6 Barb. 60: 858, 910, 1073. V. Cummins, 90 Hun, 481: 134, 303. V. State, 93 Ga. 8: 1109, 1110. Ft. Dodge Elec. L. & P. Co. v. Ft. Dodge, 115 Iowa, 568: 1158. Fortier v. Moore, 67 N. H. 460: 1267. Fort Pitt B. & L, Ass'n v. Model Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 159 Pa. St. 308: 475. Fort Plain Bridge Co. v. Smith, 30 N. Y. 44: 548. Fort Stk Union Depot Co. v. Morton, 83 Mich. 265: 199, 360. V. Railroad Com'r, 118 Mich, 340: 231, 334. Fortune v. St. Louis, 23 Mo. 239: 1103. Fosdick V. Perrysburg, 14 Ohio St. 472: 313, 530, 531, 778, 880, 883. Foster v, Blount, 18 Ala. 687: 666, 814, 833, 836, 1010. V. Byrne, 76 Iowa, 295: 1190. V. CoUner, 107 Pa. St. 805: 710. V. Commonwealth, 8 W. & S. 77: 756, 797. V. Illinski, 3 IlL App. 345: 1049. V. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253: 631. V. Oxford, etc. E. E. Co., 13 C. B. 300: 939. V. Pritchard, 2 H. & N. 151: 674. V. Rhoads, 19 John, 191: 965, 1047. V. State, 99 Ga. 56: 339. V. Taylor, 3 Overt. 190: 619. Foster's Case, 11 Co. 566; 661, 671, 917. Fouke V. Fleming, 13 Md. 393: 611. Fourth Judicial District, In re, 4 Wyo. 133: 186, 193, 335. Fourth Nat. Bank v. Franoklyn, 130 U. S, 747: 747, 865, 866. Fowle V. Alexandria, 3 Pet, 898: 1009. V. Kirkland, 18 Pick. 299: 558. Fowler v. Columbia Co., 18 Pa. Ca Ct. 653: 443. V. Lamson, 146 III. 473: 630. V. Lewis, 36 W. Va. 113: 1160, 1191. V, Padget, 7 T. R 509: 756, 797, 976, 977. V. Peirce, 2 Cal. 165: 60, 104. V. Pirkins, 77111. 271: 463. V. Scully, 72 Pa. St. 456: 922, 938. V. Smith, 2 Cal. 89: 34 V. Stoneum, 11 Tex. 478: 610. V. Tuttle, 34 N. H. 9: 811. V. Wood, 78 Hun, 304: 735, 751. Fox V. AUensville, 46 Ind. 81: 334. V. Hale & N. S. Min. Co., 97 CaL 353: 713, 743. V. Kendall, 97 111. 73: 171, 313. V. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51: 5,6, V. New Orleans, 13 La. Ann. 154: 644,1076. V. Phelps, 30 Wend. 447: 933. V. Sloo, 10 La. Ann. 11: 644, 1076. Fox's Appeal. 113 Pa. St. 337: 1000. Foxworthy v. Hastings, 28 Neb, 772; 370. Fragl6yv.Phelan,126CaL383: 438. Fraim v. Lancaster Co., 171 Pa. St ' 436: 533, 654. Frame v. Thormann, 103 Wis. 653: 21. France v. State, 57 Ohio St 1: 10, 11. V. United States, 164 U, S. 676: 965. TABLE OF CASES CITED. XCIU The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-6^8; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Francklyn v. Long Island City, 33 Hun, 451: 1332. Frank v. San Francisco, 21 Cal. 668: 641. Frankel v. Creditors, 20 Nev. 49: 786. Franklin v. Franklin, 1 Md. Ch. 342: 64:i, 1076. V. Hancock, 204 Pa. St. 110: 303. V. Hancock, 18 Pa. Supr. Ct. 398: 303. V. Schermerhorn. 8 Hun, 113: 1366. V. Westfall, 27 Kan. 614: 585. V. Wiggins, 110 Iowa, 703: 317. Franklin Ca v. Layman, 145 111. 138: 730. V. Layman, 43 111. App. 163: 730. V. MoRaven, 67 Ark. 562: 1020. Franklin Glass Co. v. White, 14 Mass. 286: 1136. Frantz v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 525: 503. Frary v. Allen, 91 Mich. 666: 301. Fraser v. Willey, 2 Fla. 116: 1121. Frasier v. Ey. Ca, 88 Tenn. 188: 359. V. Tompkins, 80 Hun, 168: 1220. Frazer, Ex parte, 54 Cal. 94: 577. Frazier v. Alexander, 75 Cal. 147: 484. V, Draper, 51 Mo. App. 163: 337. V. Ry. Co., 88 Tenn. 138: 191, 200, 488. V. Warfleld, 13 Md. 279: 888. ^'recking v. RoUand, 53 N. Y. 422: 941. Fredericks v. Howie, 1 H. & C. 381: 666. •i<'rederiok Street, 1 Pa. Dist. Ct. 283: 464. i'red Miller Brewing Co. v. Ins. Co., Ill Iowa, 590: 28, 620. Free v. Burgoyne, 5 B. & C. 400: 649. Freeholders v. Stevenson, 46 N. J. L. 173: 378. Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 405: 1213. Freeman v. People, 4Denio, 9: 634. Freestone, Ex parte, 25 L. J. M. C. 121: 804, Freiberg v. Singer, 90 Wis. 608: 1235, 1262. Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 282: 585. Freman v. Marshall, 137 CaL 159: 846. Freme v. Clement, L. E. 18 Ch. Div. 499: 721. V. Clement, 44 L. T. (N. S.) 399: 713. Fremont v. United States, 17 How, 542: 606, 617. French v. Commonwealth, 78 Pa. St. 339: 1194. V. Cowan, 4 New Eng. Rep. 682: 894 V. French, 84 Iowa, 655: 770. Y. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. 544: 330. Frend v. Dennett, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 576: 1140. Frick V. Los Angeles, 115 Cal. 512: 774. Friedman v. Sullivan, 48 Ark. 218: 673. Friedmann v. McGowan, 1 Penn. (Del.) 436: 1158, 1287. Friend v. Dunks, 37 Mich. 25: 1262, 1264, 1265. Frink v. Pond, 46 N. H 125: 930. Frobock v. Pattee, 38 Me. 103: 646, 991. Frost V. Cherry, 122 Pa. St. 417: 422. v. Pfeiffier, 26 Colo. 338: 325. V. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46: 467, 468. XCIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-60S; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Frostburg Min. Ca v. Cumberland, etc. R. R. Co., 81 Md. 28: 469. Frothingham v. March, 1 Mass. 247: 334. Fry V. Bennett, 16 How. Pr. 403: 1018. V. Booth, 19 Ohio St. 35: 1120. Frye v. Partridge, 83 111. 267: 401. Fryeburg Canal v. Frye, 5 Me. 88: 634, 686. Fuellhart v. Blood, 31 Pa. Co. Ct. 601: 885. Fuhrman v. Jones, 68 Wis. 497: 1145. Fuller V. Fuller, 83 Ky. 345: 763. V. Rood, 3 Hill, 258: 644. V. United States, 48 Fed. 654: 1160. Fuller's Will, In re, 79 111, 99: 1297. FuUerton v. Bank of T7. S., 1 Pet. 604: 946. V. Spring, 3 Wis. 667: 443, 445. FuUington v. Williams, 98 Ga. 807: 78, 82, 83, 86, 176, 566, 888, 893. Fulton V. District of Columbia, 2 App. Cas.(D. C.)431: 517. Fultz V. Fox, 9 B. Mon. 499: 1158. Funk V. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 61 Minn. 435: 417, 773. Fuqua v. Mullen, 13 Bush, 467: 253, 254, 581. Furbish v. County Com'rs, 93 Me. 117: 1153, 1154. Furman v. Nichol, 3 Cold. 433: 463, 518. V. Nichol, 8 Wall. 44: 463. Furnivall v. Coombes, 5 M. & G. 736: 669. G. Gabbert v. Jefferson R. R. Co., 11 Ind. 365: 205, 338. Gabriel v. Mullen, 111 Mo. 119: 1397. Gackenbach v. Lehigh Co., 166 Pa. St. 448: 303. Gage V. Chicago, 301 111. 93: 693, 713, 724, 741, 798, 803. V. Nichols, 135 111. 128: 1158, 1165. Gaines v. Coates, 51 Miss. 335: 1021, 1033. V. Faris, 39 Miss. 403: 947, 1133. V. Horrigan, 4 Lea, 608: 73, 78. V. Williams, 146 111. 450: 199, 398. Gainesville v. Simmons, 96 Ga. 477: 578. Gale V. Laurie, 5 B. & C. 156: 1003.. V. Mead, 3 Denio, 160: 1119. V. Mead, 4 Hill, 109: 563, 563. Galena v. Amy, 5 Wall 705: 468, 1151. Gallagher v. MacLean, 193 Pa. St. 583: 447. V. Neal, 3P. & W. 183: 968. Gallatian v. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 361 : 639, 941, 1048. Gallaway v. Maries, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 375: 837. Gallia Co. v. Holoomb, 7 Ohio, 233^ 1033. Galloway v. Henderson, 136 Ala. 315: 1037. Galpin v. Abbott, 6 Mich. 17: 644, 1064, 1141. Galusha v. Cobleigh, 13 N. H. 79: 1379. V. Wendt, 114 Iowa, 597: 1158, 1161, 1166. Galveston v. Menard, S3 Tex. 349: 1040. Galveston, etc. R R. Co. v. Dun- lavy, 56 Tex. 356; 1137. V. Galveston, 96 Tex. 530: 458. V. Gross. 47 Tex. 428: 926, 938. V. Kutac, 73 Tex. 643: 1393. V. Le Gierse, 51 Tex. 189: 1391. TABLE OF CASES CITED. XCV The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Galveston, eta R. E. Co. v. Lynch, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 336: 831. V. State, 81 Tex. 573: 335, 703, 891. Galway Presentments, Ex parte, 9 W. R. C. L. 114 (Q. B.): 533. Gambart v. Ball, 14 C. B, (N. S.) 306: 956. Gamble v. Beattie, 4 How. Pr. 41: 443. Gannett, Matter of, 11 Utah, 383: 466, 468, 514, 847. Gans v. Carter, 77 Md. 1: 801, 469. V. Switzer, 9 Mont. 408: 988. Ganssly v. Perkins, 30 Mich. 493: 1363, 1264, 1365. Gantz V. Toles, 40 Mich. 735: 334. Garaty v. Du Bose, 5 S. C. 493: 1098. Garby v. Harris, 7 Exch. 591: 714. Gardenhire v. McCoombs, 1 Sneed, 83: 1335, Gardner v. Cole, 31 Iowa, 205: 609. v. Collector, 6 Wall. 499: 70, 83, 101, 308, 320, 543, 606, 607, 608, 866, 867, 884. V. Collins 3 Pet. 58: 631, 699. V.Day, 95 Me. 558: 1268. V. Eberhart, 82 111. 816: 873. V. Heyer, 3 Paige, 11 : 1391. V. Lewis, 7 Gill, 377: 25, 623. V. Lucas, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 582: 641, 1226. V. New York, etc. E. R. Co., 17 R: I 790: 36, 988. V. Resumption M. &. 8. Co., 4 Colo. App. 271: 1158. Qarforth v. Fearon, 1 H. Bl. 337: 1105. Qargorave v. Every, 1 Lutw. C. P. 260: 1378. Garland, Ex parte, 4 Wall. 333: 1174, 1178. Garland v. Carlisle, 2 Cr. & M. 89: 887. Garland v. Hickey,75 Wis. 178: 558. V. Hot Spring Co., 68 Ark. 83: 883. V. Irrigation Co.. 9 Utah, 350: 1358. Garneau v. Port Blakely Mill Co., 8 Wash. 467: 1190, 1219, 1258. Garner v. Johnson, 33 Ala. 494: 327. Garrett v. Mayor, 47 La. Ann. 618: 527. Garrigus v. Board of Com'rs, 39 Ind. 66: 651. v. Com'rs, 157 Ind. 103: 306, 464. Garrison v. Cheeny, 1 Wash. T. 489: 1335. V. Hill, 81 Md. 551: 135, 339, 1161, 1288. V. New York, 21 Wall. 203: 1213. Garvey v. People, 6 Cal. 554: 1187. Garvin v. State, 13 Lea. 163: 203, 306, 211, 328, 651. V. Wells, 8 Iowa, 286: 869. Gas Co. V. Parkersburg, 30 W. Va. 435, 1034, 1039. T. Wheeling, 8 W. Va. 330, 660. Gaskin v. Anderson, 55 Barb. 359: 858. V. Meek, 42 N. Y. 186: 188, 366, 633. Gassenheimer v. Dist. of Columbia, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 108, 473, 498. Gassert v. Bogk, 7 Mont. 585: 557. Gassett v. State, 3 Tenn. Ch. 561: 306. Gaston v. Larakin, 115 Mo. 20: 788, 789, 790, 791. V. Merriam, 33 Minn. 371: 523, 778. V. Stott, 5 Ore. 48: 1122. Gas & Water Ca v. Downingtown, 198 Pa. St. 255: 330. Gates V. Johnson Co., 86 Tex. 144: 871. XCVl TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Gates V. MoDaniel, 3 Port. 356: 947. V. Salmon, 35 Cal. 576: 659,709, 733. V. Shugrue, 35 Minn. 392: 463. Gatty V. Fry, L. E. S Ex. Div. 365: 914 Gauen v. Moredock, Dr. Dist., 131 111. 446: 774, 855. Gaul V. Brown, 53 Me. 496: 545, 555. Gauntlet, The, L. R., 3 Adm. 381: 106a Gauntlett, The, L. E. 4 P. C. 191: 970. Gayles, Ex parte, 108 Ala. 514: 397. Gayles' Heirs v. Williams, 7 La. 163: 463, 845. Gaylord v. Hubbard, 56 Ohio St. 35: 354, 391. GazoUo V. McCann, 63 Mo. App. 414: 535. Gearhart V. Dixon, 1 Pa. St. 234: 983. Geddes v. Brown, 5 Phila. 180: 907. Gedney v. Tewksbury, 3 Mass. 307: 917. Gee V. Thompson, 11 La. Ann. 657: 668. Geebriok v. State, 5 Iowa, 491: 145, 163. Geer v. Ouray Co. Com'rs, 97 Fed. 435: 350, 455. Gehrkev.Gehrke, 190111.166: 1806. Geiger v. Brown, 4 McCord, 433: 1381. V. Kobilka, 36 Wash. 171: 757. Geisen v. Heidrioh, 104 111. 537: 505. Gelpoke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175: 614, 615. General v. Forster, 10 Ves. 338: 896. General Appro. Bill, In re, 16 Colo. 539: 73. General Fire Extinguisher Co. v. Chaplin, 183 Mass. 375: 1054, 1854. General Trust Co. v. Citizens' St. Ey. Co., 80 Fed. 318: 397. Genkinger v. Commonwealth, 33 Pa. St. 99: 555. Gentile v. State, 11 Ind. 334: 314 V. State, 39 Ind. 409: 314, 339, 951. George v. Board of Education, 33 Ga. 344: 754, 793. V. Lillard, 106 Ky. 830: 511, 846. Georgia v. Atkins, 1 Abb. (TJ. S.) 23: 708, 748. Georgia Southern & Fla. R. E, Co. V. George, 93 Ga. 760: 468. German Am. Bank v. Carondelet Eeal Est. Co., 150 Mo. 570: 909, 914 Germania Sav. Bank v. Darlington, 50 S. C. 337: 586. V. Suspension Bridge, 159 N. Y. 362: 1159. German Savings Bank v. Suspen- sion Bridge, 159 N. Y. 363: 1320. German S. & L. Ass'n v. Ramisb, 138 Cal. 130; 846. Gerry v. Stoneham, 1 Allen, 319: 643. Geter v. Com'rs, 1 Bay, 354: 1048. Gholston V. Gholston, 54 Ga. 285: 1169. Giambonini, Ex parte, 117 Cal. 573: 371. Gibbons v. Brittenum, 56 Miss. 232: 480, 490, 513, 518, 541, 660, 668. V. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1: 39, 673, 674 Gibbs V. Aldermen, 99 Ky. 490: 10. V. Morgan, 39 N. J. Eq. 136: 378. V. Southern, 116 Mo. 304: 464 Giblin v. Jordan, 6 Cal. 416: 903. Gibson v. Ackerman, 70 IlL App 399: 523. V. Belcher, 1 Bush, 145: 253, 581, TABLE OF OASES OITED. XOVll The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 805-1316. Gibson v. Commonwealth, 87 Pa. St. 253: 644. V. Hibbard, 13 Mich. 215: 550, 1198. V. Jenney, 15 Mass. 205: 472, 862, 914. V. Marquis, 29 Ala. 668: 1063, 1294. V. Midland Ey. Co., 15 Am. & Eng. R. E. Cas. 507: 1291. V. Preston, L. E. 5 Q. B. 219: 636. V. State, 16 Fla. 291: 231, 453. V. State, 38 Ga. 571: 645, 968. Giddings v. Cox, 31 Vt. 607: 516. Gieseke v. San Joaquin, 109 Cal. 489: 260. Gifford V. N. J. R. E. Co., 2 Stodd. 172: 186. Gihon, Matter of, 48 App. Div. 598: 857, 884. Gilbank v. Stephenson, 30 Wis. 157: 519. Gilbert v. Ackerman, 159 N. Y. 118: 1283, 1384, 1385, 1287. V. Columbia T. Co., 3 Johns. Cas. 107: 1805. V. Cook Co., 44 111. App. 69: 537. V. Dutruit, 91 Wis. 661: 703, 703, 744, 981. V. Flint, etc. E. R. Co., 51 Mich. 488: 873. V. Georgia E. E. & B. Ca, 104 Ga. 412: 434, 441. V. Moline Water Power Co., 19 Iowa, 319: 873. V. Morgan, 18 D. C. Eep. (7 Maokey), 296: 468. V. Morgan, 98 111. App. 281: 693, 706, 733. Gilbert-Arnold L. Co. v. Superior, 91 Wis. 853: 595. Gilbert's Assignment, In re, 94 Wis. 108: 534 Gilchrist v. Strong, 167 Pa. St. 638: 535. Gildewell v. Martin, 51 Ark. 559: 925. Gilflllan v. Hobart, 35 Minn. 185: 1154. Gilhooly v. Elizabeth, 66 N. J. L. 484: 156, 437. Gilkey v. Cook, 60 Wis. 133: 313, 939, 1075. Gill V. Patton, 118 Iowa, 88: 1010, 1013, 1233. Gilleland v. Schuyler, 9 Kan, 569: 457, 531, 678, 681. Gillespie V. Allison, 115 N. C. 543: 1323. V. White, 16 John. 117: 338, 331. Gilliland v. Baptist Church, 83 S. C. 164: 84, 94, 95. V. Citadel Sq. Baptist Church, 33 S. C. 164: 674. V. Sellers, 3 Ohio St. 223: 872. Gillitt V. McCarthy, 34 Minn. 318: 215, 218, 231. Gillook V. People, 171 IlL 307: 835, 834, 835. Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall 713: 631. V. Tucker, 128 N. Y. 190: 19, 1219. Gilmer v. Lime Point, 19 CaL 47: 645, 1040, 1041. Gilmore v. Shuter, 2 Lev. 337: 1160. V. State, 125 Ala. 59: 463, 497. Gilreath v. Greenville Co., 63 S. C. 75: 597, 598, Gilson V. Commissioners, 128 Ind. 65: 353, 356,427. Ginn v. Com'rs, 11 Ohio C. C. 396: 528. Gin Webb v. Knight, 2 Q. B. D. 530: 755. Girardeau v. Eiley, 53 Mo. 434: 117. XCVlll TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 60B-181S. Girard, etc. Co. v. Philadelphia, 88 Pa. St. 393: — . Girdlestone v. Allan, 1 B. & C. 61: 1149. Girdner v. Stephens, 1 Heisk. 280: 20. Gist V. Drakely, 2 Gill, 330: 946. Gittings V. Crawford, Taney's Dec. 1: 1057. Given v. Simpson, 5 Me. 303: 1048, 1051. Gladney v. Deavors, 11 Ga. 79: 937. V. Sydnor, 173 Mo. 318: 1161, 1165, 1217. Glass V. State, 30 Ala 529: 778. Glassington V. Rawlins, 3 East. 407: 339. Glaubensklee v. Low, 39 111. App. 408: 784 Gleaton v. Gibson, 29 S. C. 514: 1161 Gleason v. Spray, 81 CaL 217: 846, 934. Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S. 360: 28, 633. V. Lopez, 1 Harper, 105: 910. V. Lynn, 89 Ala. 608: 277. V. Wray, 136 N. C. 730: 93, 94. Glentz V. State, 38 Wis. 549: 443, 445. Gliddon y. Strupler, 53 Pa. St. 400: 1142. Globe Mill Co. v. Bellingham Bay Imp. Co., 10 Wash. 458: 1031. Globe Pub. Co. v. State Bank, 41 Neb. 175: 1325. Glover v. Alcott, 11 Mich. 470: 863, 1081. Goddard v. Boston, 20 Pick. 407: 910. V. Chicago & N. W. Ey. Co., 104 III. App. 536: 1041. V. Gloninger, 5 Watts. 663: 890. Godfrey v. Douglas Co., 28 Ore. 446: 1076. Qoebeler v. Wilhelm, 17 Pa. Supr. Ct. 433: 200, 299. Goenen v. Schroeder, 8 Minn. 387: 1210. Goff V. Hankins, 11 Ind. App. 456: 707. Gohen v. Texas Pac. R R. Co., 3 Woods. 346: 490, 637. Goillotel V. Mayor, etc., 87 N. Y. 441: 443. Golden v. Prince,'3 Wash. 318: 1197. Golden Canal Co. v. Bright, 8 Colo. 144: 331, 381. Goldsborough v. United States, Taney's Deo. 80: 888. Goldsmid v. Hampton, 5 C. B. (N. S.) 94: 655. Goldsmith v. Georgia R. E. Co., 63 Ga. 485: 231. V. Rome R. R. Co., 63 Ga. 473: 205. V. Sawyer, 46 Cal. 209: 868, 869. Golonbieski v. State, 101 Wis. 333: 482. Gompf V. Wolflnger, 67 Ohio St. 144: 1330. Gonder v. Eastabrook, 33 Pa. St. 374: 1379. Goodbub V. Hornung's Estate, 137 Ind. 181: 1169, 1357. Goode V. Webb, 53 Ala. 453: 327. Goodell V. Jackson, 20 John. 706: 939. Goodell's Case, 39 Wis. 233: 910, 1312. Goodenow v. Buttrick, 7 Mass. 140: 517. Gooding v. Morgan, 70 IlL 275: 606. ;'' Goodman v. People, 90 111. App. ' 538: 963. Goodno V. Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 127: 443, 459, 460, 516, 545, 564. TABLE OF CASES CITED. XCIX The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1815. -Goodon V. Tweedy, 74 Ala. 232: 876. Goodrich v. Russell, 43 N. Y, 177: 853. Goodsell V, Boynton, 3 111. 555: 308. •Goodsell's Appeal, 55 Conn. 171: 1158, 1168. Goods of Ruddy, L. R. 3 P. & D. 330: 1248. Goodson V. National M. A, Ass'n, 91 Mo. App. 339: 727. V. United States, 7 Okl. 117: 42. -Goodwin v. Appleton, 33 Me. 453: 873, 879. V. Morris, 9 Ore. 322: 610. -Goody Koontz v. Acker, 19 Colo. 860 : 658, 1313. ■Gordon v. Cornes, 47 N. Y. 617: 583, 596. V. Hobart, 3 Sumner, 401: 613. V. Inghram, 1 Grant's Cas, 153: 19. V. Moores, 61 Neb. 345; 415. V. People, 44 Mich. 485: 443. V. San Diego, 101 Cal. 522: 1230. V. State, 4 Kan. 489: 680. V. Wansey, 19 Cal. 82: 113a V. Winchester Building Ass'n, 12 Bush. 110: 1140. -Gordon's Ex'r v. Mayor, 5 GilL 231: 1003. -Gore V. Brazier, 3 Mass. 523: 914 V. Clark, 37 S. C. 537: 1076. -Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter, Moore's Case of, 462: 864, 884, 886. V. Bishop of Exeter, 15 Q. B. 69, 887, 895. V. Luckett, 6 B. Mon, 146: 460, 475, 517, 638. V. Springfield, 21 Me. 58: 313, 313, 624. V. Wing, 10 Mich. 486: 338, 333. ■-Gorley v. Louisville, 104 Ky. 373: 391. Gorman v. Hammond, 38 Ga. 85: 481, 483, 484. V. McAidle, 67 Hun, 484 V. Pacitto R. N. Co., 36 Mo. 441: 643. Gormley v. Clark, 134 U. S. 338: 613, 616. V. Taylor, 44 Ga. 76: 47. Gorton v. Champneys, 1 Bing. 387: 990. 1246. Goshen v. Stonington, 4 Conn. 325: 576, 1158. Goshom V. Purcell, 11 Ohio St. 641: 641, 1329. Gosling V. Veley, 13 Q. B. 407: 999. Goss V. Cahill, 43 Barb. 310: 1063, 1243. V. Goss, 29 Ga. 109: 944 Gossler v. Goodrich, 3 Cliff, 71: 459. Gough V. Dorsey, 27 Wis. 119: 684 1051. V. Pratt, 9 Md. 526: 610, 683. Gould V. Wise, 18 Nev. 253: 931. Governor v. Allen, 8 Hump. 176: 1134 V. Howard, 1 Murphy (N. C), 465: 554 678. V. McEwen, 5 Hump. 341: 12. V. Porter, 5 Hump. 165: 635, 643, 683. V. Roby, 34Ga. 176: 934 Governor's Proc, In re, 19 Colo. 333: 112. Governor, The, 23 Mo. 353; 867. Gover's Case, L. R 1 Ch. Div. 198: 704 Gowen v. Coulow, 51 Minn. 213: 511. Grace v. Donovan, 13 Minn. 580: 558, 681. Graff v. Evans, L. R 8 Q. B. Div. 377: 964 Grafflns v. Commonwealth, 3 Pen. & W. 503: S33. TABLE or OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 605-1315. Graham, Ex parte, 13 Rich. 277: 547, 1160. Graham v. Bradbury, 7 Mo. 281: 1049. V. Charlotte, etc. R. R. Ca, 64 N. C. 631: 797. V. Chicago, etc. R R. Ca, 53 Wis. 473: 548, 556. V. Long, 65 Pa. St. 883: 1142. V. Muskegon Co. Clerk, 116 Mich. 571: 518, 519, 579. V. Strett, 93 Tenn. 673: 1076. V. Van Wyck, 14 Barb. 531: 863, 931. Grammar School v. Burt, 11 Vt. 632: 1193. Gran v. Houston, 45 Neb. 813: 1268. Grand Island R Co. v. Wright, 53 Neb. 574: 1294 Grand Island & Wya Cent. R. R. Co V. Swinbank, 51 Neb. 521 1 434. Grand Isle v. Milton, 68 Vt. 234: 574. Grand Lodge v. New Orleans, 166 U. S. 143: 13ia Grand Rapids v. Burlingame, 103 Mich. 331: 301. V. Lake Shore, etc. R. R. Ca, 130 Mich. 238: 1221. Grand Rapids Chair Co. v. Runnels, 77 Mich. 104: 420. Grand Rapids Electric Light, etc. Co. V. Grand Rapids, etc. Co., 33 Fed. 659: 1023, 1029. Grand River B. Co. v. Jar vis, 30 Mich. 308: 938. Granger, In re, 56 Neb. 260: 73, 78, 79. Grant v. Alpena, 107 Mich. 335: 324. V. Cole, 23 Wash. 542: 304. V. Courter, 24 Barb. 243: 170. V. Grant, 12 S. C. 29: 553. V. Leach, 20 La. Ann. 329: 1023. V. State, 33 Tex. Crim. Rep. 537: 773. Grant County v. Sels, 5 Ore. 343 r 463. Graves v. Ashford, L. R. 2 G P. 410: 956. V. Keaton, 3 Cold. 8: 606, 868. V. Mc Williams, 1 Pin. 491: 345i.- V. Otis, 3 Hill, 466: 1061. V. Seattle, 8 Wash. 248: 954. V. Wood, 87 Ma App. 92: 1164,. 1220, 1295. Gravett v. State, 74 Ga, 191: 730. Gray v. Bennett, 3 Meto. 522: 993. V. County Com'rs, 83 Me. 429: 739, 797, 800, 846. V. Gray, 34 Ga. 499: 908. V. Hook, 4 N. Y. 449: 938. V. La Fayette Ca, 65 Wis. 56r: 1004 V. Larrimore, 3 Abb. (U. S.) 543: 1050. V. Matheny, 66 Ark. 36: 578. V. Nations, 1 Ark. 557: 1061. V. Obear, 54Ga.231:573. V. Reg. 11 CI. & T. 427: 933. V. Telegraph Ca, 108 Tenn. 39: 952. Great Central Gas C. Co. v. Clarke,- 11 C. B. (N. S.) 814: 471. Great Central Gas Cons. Co. v. Clarke, 13 Com. B. (N. S.) 838:- 533. Greaton v. Griffin, 4 Abb. Pr. (N- S.) 310: 202, 204 Great Western Ry. Co. v.Swindon,- L. R 9 App. Cas. 808: 812, 817. Greb v. Cushman, 45 111. 119: 99. Grebble v. Wilson. 101 Tenn. 612: 579. Greeley v. Missouri Pao. Ry. Co,. 123 Ma 157: 885. Greeley, S. L. & P. R. R. Ca v.. Harris, 12 Cola 226: 1255. Greely & Salt Lake & Pac. R R Ca V. Harris, 12 Colo. 336: 644 TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-131B. 01 Green, In re, 40 Mo. App. 491: 1306. Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 430: 1239, 1233. V. Anderson, 39 Miss. 359: 1159, 1162, 1325. V. Baxter, 91 Mo. App. 638: 847, 1260. V. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1: 643, 1190, 1193, 1196, 1200. V. Briggs, 1 Curtis, 311: 13. V. Cheek, 5 Ind. 105: 660, 701, 732. V. Commonwealth, 13 Allen, 155: 845, 1102. V. Commonwealth, 95 Ky. 333: 386. V. Dikeman, 18 Barb. 535: 1168. V. Fresno County, 95 Cal. 329: 130, 177. V. Goodall, 1 Cold. 404: 868. V. Graves, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 351: 73, 910. V. Houston, 45 Nev. 813: 711, 885. V. Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 33 Barb. 35: 1391. V. Lord Penzance, L. E. 6 App. Cas. 675: 1058. V. Mayor, etc., 3 Hilt. 303: 948. V, Mayor, etc., R. M. Charlt. 368: 204. V. Neal, 6 Pet. 291: 616, 631, 898, 901. V. Rugely, 23 Tex. 539: 611. V. State, 59 Md. 133: 663, 693, 709. V. United States, 9 Wall 655: 933. V. Van Buskirk, 7 Wall. 139: 866. V. Weller, 33 Miss. 650: 50, 58, 609, 663, 665, 699, 747, 753, 867. V. Wood, 7 Q.B. 178: 756, 1110. Greencastle Southern T. Co. v. State, 38 Ind. 383: 433, 899. Greencastle Township v. Black, 5 Ind. 566: 123. Green City v. Holsinger, 76 Ma App. 567: 1031. Greene, Ex parte, 29 Ala. 63: 104a Greene, Matter of, 55 App. Div. 475: 353. Greenfield v. Dorris, 1 Sneed, 550: 1310. Greenfield Ave., 191 Pa. St. 390i 455, 694, 788. Greenhow v. James, 8 Va. 636: 663, 909, 1073. Greenlaw v. Greenlaw, 13 N. H. 200: 1226. Greenlee v. Eisenbrown, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 483: 56a Greenough v. Greenough, 1 Jones, 494: 14. V. Greenough, 11 Pa. St. 489: 19, 635, 1051, 1217, 1233. Greensboro v. MoAdoo, 112 N. C. 359: 473, 503,1013. Green's Estate, 4 Md, Ch. 349: 1021, 1033, 1055. Greenville v. .Townes, 93 Ky. 597: 733. Greenville, etc. E. R. Co. v. Cath- cart, 4 Rich. 89: 1057. Greenville Ice & C. Co. v. Green- ville, 69 Miss. 86: 815, 826, 1003. Greenville Nat. Bank v. Evf^ns- Snyder-Buell Co., 9 Okl. 353: 31, 23, 633. Greenwade v. Greenwade, 3 Dana, 495: 613. Greenwood v. Greenwood, 38 Md. 370: 863. V. Gruelich, 175 III 536: 706. Greenwood Cem. L. Co. v. Routt, 17 Colo. 156: 5. Greer, In re, 58 Kan. 268: 383, 33a cu TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Greer v. Asheville, 114 N. C. 678: 1117, 1122, 1159, 1163. V. Major, 114 Mo. 145: 814 V. Rowley, 1 Pittsburgh, 1: 1103. V. State, 54 Miss. 378: 133. V. State, 33 Tex. 588: 485, 555. Gregor v. Baylies, 19 Iowa, 43: 439. Gregory v. German Bank, 3 Colo. 833: 545. Gregory's Case, 6 Rep. 196; 661, 671. Greig v. Bendeno, El. Bl. & El. 133: 655. Greiner v. Klein, 28 Mich. 17: 784. Grenada Co. Supervisors v. Brog- den, 112 U.S. 261: 909,1072. Grey v. Dover, 63 N. J. L. 40: 379, 593. V. Mobile Trade Co., 55 Ala. 387: 548, 556. V. Newark Plank Road Co., 65 N.J. L.51: 427: 1035. V. Union, 67 N. J..L. 363: 393. Grider v. Tally, 77 Ala. 423: 880. Griebel v. State, 111 Ind. 369: 566. Grier v. State, 103 Ga. 438: 778,781, 815, 826, 857. Griflfen, Ex parte, 88 Tenri. 547: 287. Griffen v. Henry, 99 111. App. 284: 1058, 1060. Griffin, In re, 25 Tex. (Sup. 'It.) 623: 937. Griffin v. Cunningham, SO Gratt. 31: 19, 343. V. Evans, 114 Ga. 65: 341. V. Forrest, iQ Mich. 309: 337. V. Leslie, 30 Md. 15: 1249, 1251. V. State, 39 Ala. 541: 555. Grifflng v. Gibb, 3 Black, 519: 613. Griffin's Case, Chase's Dec. 364: 913. Griffith V. Beasly, 10 Yerg. 434: 610. Griffith V. Carter, 8 Kan. 565: 845. V. Wells, 3 Denio, 226: 938. Grigsby v. Barr, 14 Bush, 330: 460. V. Peak, 57 Tex. 142: 19. Grimes v. Eddy, 126 Mo. 168: 576, 585, 606, 985. V. N. W. Legion of Honor, 97 Iowa, 315: 703, 707. V. Reynolds, 94 Mo. App. 576: 1335. Grinad v. State, 34 Ga. 270: 313. Griner, In re, 16 Wis. 423: 148. Griswold v. Nichols, 111 Wis. 344: 685. V. Pitcairn, 2 Conn. 85: 868. Groat V. Johnson, 73 Vt. 268: 1232. Grob V. Cushman. 45 IIL 119: 98, 609, 882. Groesch v. State, 42 Ind. 547: 171, 173, 356. Groff, In re, 21 Neb. 647: 577, 578. GrofE V. Miller, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 353: 511, 514. 730, 733. Grogan v. San Francisco, 18 Cal. ' 590: 1193. Grooms v. Hannon, 59 Ala. 510: 965, 967, 987. Gross V. Fowler, 31 Cal. 393: 747. Grossman v. Hancock, 58 N. J. L. 139: 289. Grosvenor v. Duffy, 131 Mich. 230: 393. V. Magill, 37 III. 339: 320, 331. Grove v. Leidy, 9 Ohio C. C. 372: 424. Grover V. Fox, 36 Mich. 453: 1047. V. Trustees, 45 N. J. L. 399: 194, 195, 199, 202, 203, 204. Grubbe v. Grubbe,26 Ore. 363: 924, 925, 1295. Grubbs v. State, 24 Ind. 295: 185, 252, 901. Grubb's Appeal, 174 Pa. St. 187: 303. TABLE OF OASES CITED. cm The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Grumleyv. Webb, 44 Mo. 444: 833, 1010. . Guarantee Trust Co. v. Laughlin, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 591: 781. Guaranty Savings & L. Ass'n v. Asoherman, 108 Iowa, 150: 300. Guaranty Trust Co. v. Troy Steel Co., 33 Misc. 484: 443. Guaranty T. & S. D. Co. v. Bud- dington, 37 Fla. 215: 1303. Guerard v. Polhill, R. M. Charlt 337: 917. Guemey v. Moore, 131 Mo. 650: 988. Guggenheim Smelting Co., In re, 131 Fed. 153: 781. Guidry v. Eees, 7 La. 278: 115a Guild V. Chicago, 82111. 472: 164. V. Rogers, 8 Barb. 503: 1310. Guilford v. Cornell, 18 Barb. 615: 1194. V. Supervisors, 13 N. Y. 143: 20, 1194. Guilleaume v. Miller, 14 Rich. 118: 1030. Gulf, etc. E. R. Co. v. Barnett, 19 Tex Civ, App. 626: 1030. V. Ellis, 87 Tex. 19: 420. V. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150: 414. V. Levy, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 90: 1292. V. Lott, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 48: 555. Guliok V. Loder, 13 N. J. L. 68: 1311. Gull Riv. L. Co. V. Lee, 7 N. D. 135: 534, 546. Gunder v. Wyoming Co., 13 Pa. Dist. Ct. 78: 379. Gundling v. Chicago, 176 111. 340: 814. Gunn, In re, 50 Kan. 155: 47. Gunn V. Barry, 15 Wall. 610: 640, 1304. Gunnestad v. Price, L. R. 10 Ex. 69:814 Gunning v. People, 86 111. App. 174: 758. Gunnison Co. Com'rs v. Owen, 7 Colo. 467: 577. Gunter v. Leckey, 30 Ala. 591: 645, 863, 968, 1014. V. Tex. L. & M. Cb., 83 Tex. 496: 337, 340. Gurr V. Scudds, 11 Ex. 190: 998. Gustavel v. State, 153 Ind. 618: 300, 736. Gusthal V. Strong, 23 App. Div. 315: 323, 707, 717, 731, 740, 798. Gut V. State, 9 Wall. 35: 614, 1181. Guthrie v. Converse Co., 7Wyo. 95: 407. V. Fisk, 8 B. &. C. 182: 1076, 1084. Guthrie Daily Leader v. Cameron, 3 Okl. 677: 427. Guthrie National Bank v. Guthrie, 173 U. S. 538: 339. Gutienez, Ex parte, 45 Cal. 439: 1185. G winner v. Lehigh, etc. R. R. Co^ 55 Pa. St. 136: 490. Gwyn v. Hardwioke, 1 H. & N. 53: 888. Gwynne v. Burnell, 6 Bing, N. C. 559: 630,704,705. V. Burnell, 7 CI. & F. 696: llOa Gyger's Estate, 65 Pa. St. 311: 689, 794, 811, 813. H. Haas V. Shaw, 91 Ind. 384: 1396. Hackett v. Smelsley, 77 111. 109: 1365, 1366, 1268, 1369. Hackley v. Sprague, 10 Wend. 114: 1162. Hadden v. Collector, 5 Wall. 107: 630, 648, 649, 651, 697, 1071. Hadley v. Bernero, 97 Mo. App. 314: 775. CIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Hadley v. Peabody, 13 Gray, 200: 1103. V. Perks, L. R. 1 Q. B. 457: 777, 803. Hagerman v. Ohio Bldg. Co., 25 Ohio St. 186: 334. Hagerstown v. Sehuer, 37 Md. 180: 643. Haggerty v. St. Louis Ice, etc. Co., 143 Mo. 238: 1297. Haggett V. Hurley, 91 Me. 543: 1296. Hagner v. Hall, 10 App. Div. 581: 123a Hahn v. Salmon, 20 Fed. Rep. 801: 990. V. United States, 14 Ct. 01. 305: 890. V. United States, 107 U. S. 403: 886. Haigh V. Sheffield, L. E. 10 Q. B. 103: 837. Haight V. Gay, 8 Cal. 297: 1054 V. Holley, 3 Wend. 258: 933. Haines v. Board of Sup'rs, 99 Mich. 32: 1159. Hakes v. Peck, 30 How. Pr. 104: 930. Halbert v. Skyles, 1 A. K. Marsh. 369: 624 Haldane v. Beauolerk, 3 Ex. 658: 778. Halderman v. Young, 107 Pa. St. 324: 912. Hale V. Angel, 20 John. 343: 64.5. V. McGeltijan, 114 Cal. 112: 112, 113, 133, 409, fiOO, 928. V. N. J. St. Nav. Co., 15 Conn. 539: 620,622. V. Stenger, 22 Wash. 516: 1161, 1191. Hales V. Owen, 3 Salk. 625: 336. Haley v. Jump River L. Co., 81 Wis. 412: 470. V. Petty, 42 Ark. 393: 1136. Haley v. Philadelphia, 68 Pa. St. 45: 643. V. Young, 134 Mass. 364: 335. Hall, Ex parte, 1 Pick. 261 : 748. Hall V. Banks, 79 Wis. 239: 1160, 1161, 1192. V. Bray, 51 Mo. 288: 339. V. Burlingame, 88 Mich. 438: 301, 438. V. Byrne, 1 Scam. 140: 833. V. Cassidy, 25 Miss. 48: 327, 338, 331. V. Craig, 125 Ind. 523: 435. V. Goodwyn, 4 McCord, 442: 19. V. Leland, 64 Minn. 71: 240. V. Newcomb, 3 Hill, 333: 901. V. Newcomb, 7 Hill, 416: 901. V. Norfolk & W. R. R. Co., 44 W. Va. 36: 964. V. Perry, 73 Mich. 203: 1159, 1166. V. Pillow, 31 Ark. 33: 611. V. Schoenecke, 128 Mo. 661: 1130, 1290. V. State, 29 Fla. 79: 1190, 1208. V. State, 39 Fla. 637: 661. V. State, 20 Ohio, 7: 645, 819, 964, 965, 966. V. St. Paul, 56 Minn. 428: 773. V. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 5: 1193. V. Woodson, 13 Mo. 462: 611. Halleman v. Halleman, 65 Ga. 476: 321. Hallet V. Novion, 14 John. 273: 938. Hallock V. Hollingshead, 49 N. J. L. 64: 402. Halloran v. T., etc. R. R. Co., 40 Tex. 465: 1217, 1219. Halpin v. Prosperity L. & B. Ass'n, 108 ni. App. 316: 1158. 1165. Halvenstine v. Yantis, 88 Ky. 695: 330. Ham V. Board of Police, 142 Mass. 90: 933. TABLE OF OASES CITED. cv The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. 'Ham V. Ham, 39 Me. 263: 873. V. McClaws, 1 Bay. 93: 911. V. Sawyer, 38 Me. 37: 888. V. State, 7 Blackf. 314: 457. V. Steamboat Hamburg, 2 Iov7a, 460,638,933. t-Haman v. MoNamara, 77 Mo. App. I: 797. .Hamilton v. Buxton, 6 Ark. 34: 668. V. Carroll, 83 Md. 336: 171, 301. V. McNeil, 13 Gratt. 394: 887. V. Rath bone, 175 U. S. 414: 703, 779, 855. V. Smith, 3 Murphy, 115: 1383. V. Steamer R B. Hamilton. 16 Ohio St. 438: 688, 689. i Hamilton G. L. & C. Co. v. Hamil- ton City, 146 U. S. 258: 1195. . Hamlet v. Taylor, 5 Jones L. 36: 311. Hamlyn v. Nesbit, 37 Ind. 284: 463. Eamman v. Central C. & C. Co., 156 Mo. 333: 439. .Hammer v. State, 44 N. J. L. 667: 369, 403, 433. . Hammer Smith, etc. Ry. Co. v. Brand, L. R. 4 H. L. Cas. 171: 693. ; Hammock v. Loan & T. Co., 105 U. S. 77: 688, 689. 1 Hammond v. Am. Ins. Co., 10 Gray, 306: 337. V. Haines, 35 Md. 541: 171. V. Lesseps, 31 La. Ann. 337: 205. V. Webb, 10 Md. 281: 1063. ■ Hampe v. Traction Co. 165 Pa. St. 468: 469. Hampton v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. St. 329: 545, 551, 1169. -Hanchett v. Weber, 17 111. App. 114: 933. ' Hancock v. District Tp., 78 Iowa, 550: 445, 524,846. V. State, 114 Ga. 439: 356, 583. ..Hancock Nat'l Bank v. Farnum, 20 R. 1 466: 34, 988; Hand v. Cole, 88 Tenn. 400: 763, 1059, 1073. V. Fellows, 148 Pa. St. 456: 503. T. Stapleton, 135 Ala. 156: 158, 514, 668. Handley v. Cunningham, 13 Bush. 403: 339. Handley's Estate, In re, 15 Utah, 213: 684, 1065. Handy v. Hopkins, 59 Md. 157: 945. Haney v. Bartow Co. Com'r's, 91 Ga. 770: 173. V. State, 34 Ark. 263: 705, 797, 910. Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wall. 533: 45a Hankins v. People, 106 111. 638: 687, 918, 984. Hanks v. Brown, 79 Iowa, 560: 965. Hanley V. Donoghue, 116 IT. S. 1: 613, 866. V. Sixteen Horses, 97 CaL 183: 517. Hanlon v. Board of Com'rs, 53 Ind. 133: 357, 368. V. Partridge, 69 N. H 88: 57a Hanmann v. Mink, 99 Ind. 379: 873. Hannan v. Greenfield, 36 Ore. 97: 1145. Hannibal, etc. R. R. Co. v. Packet Co., 135 U. S. 360: 1031. Hannover Borough's Appeal, 150 Pa. St. 802: 466, 502. Hannover Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 90 Ala. 549: 1227. Hannum v. Bank of Tenn., 1 Cold. 398: 641. V. Turtellott, 10 Allen, 494: 336. Hanriok v. Andrews, 9 Port. 9: 619, 621. Hanscom v. Meyer, 61 Neb. 798: 547, 1321. Hanson v. Dunn, 76 Wis. 455: 1145. Happel V. Brethauer, 70 111. 166: 78, 82, 608. CVl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Harbeck v. Mayor, 10 Bos. 366: 458. Haiber, Com'rs v. Excelsior Red- wood Co., 88Cal. 491: 151. Harbord v. Perigal, 5 T. E. 210: 337. Hardaway v. Lilly (Tenn.), 48 S. W. 718: 240, 1197. Hardeman v. Downer, 39 Ga. 425: 1200. Hardenburgh v. Latin, 47 N. T. 109: 1230, 1231. Hardin v. Trimmier, 37 N. C. 110: 1216. Hardin Co. v. McFarlan, 83 111. 138: 1045. Harding v. Bader, 75 Mich. 316: 1009. V. People, 160 111. 459: 419. V. Strong, 42 111. 148: 867. Hardingsburg v. Cravens, 148 ind. 1: 907. Hardmann v. Bowen, 39 N. Y. 196: 1144 Hardy, Ex parte, 68 Ala. 303: 893. Hardy v. Bever, 5 T. E. 636: 1149. V. Gage, 66 N. H. 553: 1170. V. Heard, 15 Ark. 184: 1134. V. Kingman Co., 65 Kan. Ill: 278, 579. V. Ryle, 9 Barn. & C. 603: 337, 329. Hare v. Hare, 10 Tex. 855: 1226. Harford v. United States, 8 Cranoh. 109: 466. Hargrave v. Weber, 66 Mich. 59: 303. Haritwen v. The. Louis Olsen, 52 Fed. 652: 525. Harker v. Addis, 4 Pa. St. 515: 335. V. Harker, 3 Harr. 51: 1061. Harlan v. Sigler, Morris, 39: 577. V. State. 41 Misa 566: 37. Harland v. Territory, 3 Wash. Ter. 131: 24t Harlingan v. Doyle, 134 Cal. 53:. 427. 'Harmon v. Chicago, 140 111. 374: 133. Harold v. State, 16 Tex. App. 157: 518. Harpending v. Dutch Church, 16- Pet. 493: 614, 615. V. Haight, 39 Cal. 189: 925. Harper v. Mangel, 98 IlL App. 526: 1311. V. State, 109 Ala. 28: 295, 433, 436, 580, 582, 603, 651, 79^ 796. V. State, 109 Ala. 66: 395, 483,- 436, 580, 581." Harrell v. Harrell, 8 Fla. 46: 444_ 659, 854. Harriet, The Schooner, 1 Story, 251 r 963, 965, 983. Harrington v. DuChatel, 1 Bro. C. C. 134: 1105. V. Galveston, 1 Tex. Ct. App. 437: 470. V. Glidden, 179 Mass. 486: 9l7, 1310. V. Harrington's Est., 53 Vt. 649r 541. V. McKillop, 133 Mass. 567: 1271. V. People, 6 Barb. 607: 1137. V. Rochester, 10 Wend. 547: 460^- 541, 668. V. Smith, 28 Wis. 43: 684, 781.. V. Wands, 23 Mich. 385: 447. Harriott v. Potter, 115 Iowa, 648: 1166. Harris v. Allnutt, 12 La. 465: 611.. V. Ansonia, 73 Conn. 359: 123& V. Fond du Lao, 104 Wis. 44:. 539. V. Gest, 4 Ohio St. 469: 1136. V. Glenn, 56 Ga. 94: 648. V. Harsch, 29 Ore. 562: 1215.- TABLE OF CASES CITED. evil The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. eDB-1315. Harris v. Jenns, 9 C. B. (N. S.) 153: 512. V. People, 59 N. Y. 599: 186, 194, 203, 265. V. Register, 70 Md. 109: 1068. V. Runnells, 13 How. 79: 938. V. Rutledge, 19 Iowa, 388: 550. V. Saunders, 4 B. & C. 411: 1383. V. State, 110 Ga. 887: 301. V. State, 114 Ga. 436: 341, 593. V. State, 96 Tenn. 496: 847, 848. V. Supervisor.s, 33 Hun, 379: 563, 564, 581. V. Townshend, 56 Vt. 716: 549, 556, 558, 678, 683. V. Vanderveer, 31 N. J. Eq. 434: 1054. V. White, 81 N.Y. 533: 618. Harrisburg v. Sheck, 104 Pa. St. 53: 538. Harris County v. Stewart, 91 Tex. 138: 137. Harrison, Ex parte, 4 Cow. 63: 659, 708, 713. . Harrison v. Allen, Wythe (Va.), 391 : 554. V. Board of Suprs., 117 Mich. 315: 535, 532. V. Gordy, 57 Ala. 49: 83, 86. V. Harrison, 30 Ala, 639: 33. V. Harrison, 39 Ala. 439: 1283. V. Hill, 37 111. App. 30: 785. V. James, 3 Chitty, 547: 1097. V. Leach, 4 W. Va. 383: 644, 1015. V. Masonic Mut. Ben. Soc, 61 Kan. 134: 731, 733, 889. V. People, 191 111. 257: 693, 710. V. People, 93 111. App. 643: 706, 710, 914, 933. V. People, 97 111. App. 431: 889. V. Sager, 37 Mich. 476: 335, 336, 784. V. Smith, 3 Colo. 635: 1332. Harrison v. Southwark & V. Water Co. (1891), 3 Ch. 409: 943. V. State, 103 Ala. 170: 749. V. Walker, 1 Ga. 33: 463, 563, 853. V. Willis, 7 Heisfc. 35: 887. V. Wissler, 98 Va. 597: 1154. V. Young, 9 Ga. 359: 931, 1033, 1026, 1038. Hart V. Bodley, Hardin, 98: 873. V. Host wick, 14 Fla. 180: 1387. V. Kennedy, 14 Abb. Pr. 433: 795. V. Kennedy, 15 Abb. Pr. 290: 795, 813. V. Leete, 104 Mo. 315: 1395. V. Reynolds, 3 Cow. 43: 1127. V. Reynolds, 1 Heisk. 808: 684. V. State, 40 Ala. 33: 640, 1180. V. State, 88 Ga. 635: 497. V. State, 113 Ga. 939: 308, 441. V. State, 55 Ind. 591: 873, 879. V. State, 159 Ind. 183: 135. V. Walker, 31 Mo. 36: 337, 331. Hartford v. Hartford Theological Seminary, 66 Conn. 475: 534, 693, 1003. Hartford Bridge Co. v. Union Ferry Co., 29 Conn. 210: 927, 1033. Hartford, etc. R. R. Co., In re, 65 How. Pr. 133: 1043. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Owen, 30 Mich. 441: 1050. V. Peoria, 156 111. 420: 468. V. Raymond, 70 Mich. 485: 330. V. Warbritton, 66 Kan. 93: 419. Hartley v. Hooker, 3 Cowp. 533: 1053. Hartman v. Greenhow, 103 U. S. 673: 1193. Hartung v. People, 33 N. Y. 95: 553, 556, 1168. y. People, 36 N. Y. 167: 1178. CVUl TABLE OF OASES OITED. Tho references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315, Harvey v. Aurora & G. R, B. Co., 174 111. 395: 1041. V. Clarinda, 111 Iowa, 528: 685, 1064. V. Travelers' Ins. Co., 18 Colo. 354: 781, 899. V. Tyler, 3 Wall. 338: 641. Harwell v. Steel, 17 Ala. 373: 1283. Harwood v. Wentwortfa, 163 U. S. 547: 70, 407. Hasbrouok v. Shipman,16Wis. 396: . 1307. Hascall v. Madison University, 8 Barb. 174: 1141. Haseltine v. Central Nat. Bank, 155 Mo. 66: 39. v. Hewitt, 61 Wis. 121: 912. Haskel v. Burlington, 30 Iowa, 333: 393. Haskell, Ex parte, 113 Cal. 413: 189. Hasketh v. Lee, 3 Saund. 84: 628. V. Maxey, 184 Ind. 182: 907. Hassenplug's Appeal, 106 Pa, St. 527: 644, 1353. Hastings v. Aiken, 1 Gray, 163: 563. Hatch V. Burrows, 1 Woods, 439: 37. V. Calhoun Circuit Judge, 137 Mich. 174: 444. Hatchett v. Billingslea, 65 Ala. 16: 517. Hatfield v. Commonwealth, 120 Pa. St. 395: 353, 357. Hatfield Tp. Road, 4 Yeates, 393: 551. Hathaway v. Johnson, 55 N. Y. 93: 646. V. McDonald, 37 Wash. 659: 23d'. V. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 99 Fed. 534: 41, 613. Hatton V. Wier, 19 Ala. 137: 1063, 1294. V. Wilmington City Ry. Co., 3 Penn. (Del.) 159: 1295. Hatzung v. Syracuse, 92 Hun, 303: 1232. Hauensteine v. Lynham, 38 Gratt. 63: 1320. Haven v. Foster, 9 Pick. 113; 128a Haverly v. State, 63 Neb. 83: 267, .433. Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197: 575, 694, 730. Hawes v. Clement, 64 Wis. 153 : 1049. V. Fliegler, 87 Minn. 319: 514, 535, 536, 745. Hawke v. Dunn, (1897) 1. Q B. 579: 834. Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189: 427. Hawkins v. Barney's Lessee, 5 Pet 457: 1193. V. Filkins, 24 Ark. 386: 37. v. Gathercole, 6 De G. M. & G. 1:864,886. V. Great W. R. R. Co., 17 Mich. 57: 818, 819, 1263. V. Roberts, 133 Ala. 130: 199, -249, 474 Hawley v. Diller, 178 IT. S. 476: 753. Hawthorn v. St. Louis, 11 Mo. 59: 1102. Hawthorne v. Calef, 3 Wall 10: 1193, 1198. Hay V. Lord Provost of Perth, 4 Macq. So. App. 544: 1084. Hay burn's Case, 3 Dall, 409: 30. Hayden's Case, 3 Rep. 7: 1091, Hayes v. Arrington, 108 Tenn. 494: 530, 661, 955. v. Hanson, 13 N. H. 384: 844, 853. V. Phelan, 4 Hun, 733: 1291. V. State, 55 Ind. 99: 483. V. Williams, 17 Colo. 465: 644, 1291. Haynes, In re, 54 N. J. L. 6: 191, 379, 380, 888, 389. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CIX The rererences are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-flOS; VoL II, pp. 605-181S. Haynes v. Cape May, 53 N. J. L, 180: 539. V. Tredway, 133 CaL 400: 1190, 1210. Haynie v. Knights Templars, etc. Co., 139 Mo. 416: 415. V. State, 33 Miss. 400: 964. Hays V. Cumberland Co., 186 Pa. St. 109: 200, 295, 464. V. Cumberland Co., 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 159: 295. V. Hays, 5 Rich. 81: 1061. V. Hunt, 85 N. C. 303: 1046. V. Miller, 1 Wash. Ter. 148: 1064. V. Richardson, 1 Gill & J. 366: 848. Hay ward v. Gunn, 82 IlL 385: 505. V. Pilgrim Society, 21 Pick. 270: 1037. Haywood v. Mayor, 13 Ga. 404: 537. Hazeltine v. Central Nat. Bank, 155 Mo. 66: 61& Hazelton v. Valentine, 113 Mass. 473: 618. Hazen v. Union Bank, 1 Sneed, 115: 357. Head v. Ins. Co., 3 Cranch, 137: 1136. V. Providence Ins. Co., 3 Cr. 127: 1035. V. Ward, 1 J. J. Marsh. 280: 641. Head's Iron Foundry v. Sanders, 77 Hun, 433: 694, 914. Heald v. State, 36 Me. 63: 554, 555. Healey v. Dudley, 5 Lans. 115: 345, 401, 633. V. Reed, 153 Mass. 197: 31. Heanley v. State, 74 Ind. 99: 356. Heard v. Baskervile, Hob. 232: 649. V. Heard, 5 Ga. 380: 308. Hearn v. Brogan, 64 Miss. 334: 463. V. Ewin, 8 Cold. 399: 645, 863, 1050. V. Louttit, 43 Ore. 573: 235, 340, 241. Hearne v. Garton, 2 E. & E. 66: 976, 979, 1108. Heath, Ex parte, 3 Hill, 42: 636, 1117, 1130. Heath, In re, 144 U. S. 92: 788. Heath v. Griffen, 11 Wash. 466: 1259, 1260. V. Johnson, 36 W. Va, 783: 340. V. Kent Circuit Judge, 37 Mich. 373: 1054. V. Wallace, 138 U. S. 573: 890. Hebbert v. Purohas, L. R. 3 P. G 648: 461, 882. Hebert's Succession, 5 La. Ann. 131 466. Hecht V. Heimann, 81 Mo. App. 370 1306. Heokman v. Pinkney, 81 N. Y. 311 518, 531. Hedger v. Rennaker, 3 Met. (Ky.) 355: 313, 1170, 1287. Hedley, Ex parte, 31 Cal. 108: 797. Had worth v. Primate, Hard. 318: 882. Hegarty's Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 503: 1233. Heil V. Simmonds, 17 Colo. 47: 644, 1139, 1304. Heilbron's Estate, In re, 14 Wash. 536: 1160, 1161, 1191. Heilig V. Puyallup, 7 Wash. 29: 542. Heinssen v. State, 14 Colo. 228: 456, 573. Heintz v. Mueller, 19 Ind. App. 340: 770, 771. Heinze v. Butte, etc. Min. Co., 107 Fed. 165: 436, 440. Heirn v. Bridault, 37 Miss. 209: 617. Heisey v. Risser, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. 196: 1139. Heiskell v. Mayor, 65 Md. 125: 863. Helena v. Rogan, 27 Mont. 135: 442. ex TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Helena Steam H. & S. Co. v. Wells, 16 Mont. 65: 420. Hellmau v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136: 137, 363, 433, 443, 446, 453, 534. Helm V. Chapman, 66 Cal. 291: 710. Helwig V. United States, 188 U. S. 605: 987. Heman v. McNamara, 77 Mo. App. 1: 731,733,914,1076, 1349. Hemphill v. Bank of Ala., 6 S.&M. 44: 618. Hempstead v. New York, 53 App. Div. 183: 650, 1159, 1174, 1175. Hemstrat V. Wassum, 49 Cal. 373: 464. Henderson v. Alexander, 2 Ga. 81: 1077. V. Bise, 3 Starkie, 158: 655. V. Collier & C. L. Co., 2 Colo. App. 251: 115. V. Dowd, 116 N. C. 795: 137, 797. V. Griffin, 5 Pet. 151:616. V. Koenig, 168 Mo. 356: 341, 375, 407. V. Ky. Cent. E. R. Co., 86 Ey. 389: 934, 1393. V. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., 135 Ind. 33: 185, 305. V.Maxwell, L, R. 5 Ch. Div. 893: 1143. V. Reynolds, 85 Ga. 159: 1303, 1303, 1304. V. Sherboone, 3 M. & W. 236: 484, 986. V. State, 94 Ala. 95: 83, 100. Henderson's Distilled Spirits, 14 Wall. 44: 99& Hendricks, In re, 60 Kan. 796: 142. Hendricks, In re, 5 N. D. 114: 313. Hendricks v. State, 79 Miss. 368: 646, 973. Hendrickson v. Fries, 45 N. J. L. 555, 1106. Hendrickson v. Hendrickson, 7 Ind.. 13: 317. Hendrix v. Rieman, 6 Neb. 516: 844, 854. Hendrix's Account, 146 Pa. St. 385, 500. Henig v. Slaed, 138 Mo. 430; 307. Henley v. State, 98 Tenn. 665: 13, 566, 1305. Henneberger, Matter of, 155 N. Y. 420: 403, 407. Hennepin Co. v. Bell, 43 Minn. 344: 1003, 1007. V. Jones, 18 Minn. 199: 343. Hennessey, Matter of, 164 N. Y.. 393: 1117, 1120. Henrico Co. Supr. v. McGruder, 84 Va. 838: 186, 389. Henrietta M. & M. Co. v. Gardner,. 173 U. S. 123: 464. Henry v. Adey, 3 East, 233: 619. V. Chester, 15 Vt. 460: 997, 1009. V. Davis, 13 W. Va. 330: 1137. V. Henry, 31 S. C. 3: 185, 1169,. 1335. V. Mayor, 91 Ga. 368: 846, 1029. V. Sargeant, 13 N. H. 331: 35. V. Tilson, 17 Vt. 479: 664, 853. V. Trustees, 48 Ohio St. 671: 676,. 694, 717, 721, 760. V. Ward, 49 Neb. 393: 448. Henry & C. Co. v. Evans, 97 Mo. 47:: 749. Hensohall v. Schmidt, 50 Mo. 454: 643, 1386. Hensley v. Tarpey, 7 Cal. 388: 869. Henthorn v. Doe, 1 Blackf. 157: 868„ 871. Henzinger v. State, 39 Neb. 653: 434. Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall. 603: 643. Herber v. State, 7 Tex. 69: 1186. TABLE OF OASES CITED. 0X1 The references ar- to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-fi08; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Herbert v. Baltimore Co., 97 Md. 639: 348. V. Easton, 43 Ala, 547: 550. Heridla v. Ayers, 18 Pick. 344: 625, 638. Bering v. Chambers, 108 Pa. St. 173: 900. Herman v. Guttenberg, 63 N. J. L. 616: 363, 381, 398, 775. V. Oconto, 100 Wis. 391: 1139. Hermance, In re, 71 N. Y. 481: 666, 831. Hermanek v. Guthman, 179 111. 503: 706, 955. V. Guthman, 73 III App. 370: 706, 955. Herndon v. Commonwealth, 105 Ky. 197: 1185. Herold v. State, 31 Neb. 50: 687, 1064. Herr v. Seymour, 76 Ala. 370: 465. Herrick v. Minneapolis, etc. E. R. Co., 31 Minn. 11: 28. V. Niesz, 16 Wash. 74: 956. Herron v. Carson, 26 W. Va. 62: 474, 531. Herschfeld v, Clarke, 11 Exoh. 713: 1097. V. Dexel, 13 Ga. 583? 619. Herschoff v. Treasurer, 45 N. J, L. 388: 650. Hershy v. Latham, 43 Ark. 305: 506. Hersom's Case, 39 Me. 476: 981. Hertford College, L. E. 3 Q. B. Div. 707: 883. Hess V. Johnson, 3 W. Va. 645: 643. V. Pegg, 7 Nev. 33: 340, 784. V. Trigg,8 0kl. 286: 847. Hesse v. Seyp,88 Mo. App. 66: 1019. Hester v. Com'rs, 84 Mich. 450: 1306. V. Keith, 1 Ala. (N. S.) 316: 1131, 1134. Heston v. Mayhew, 9S. D. 501: 470. Hetland v. County Com'rs, 89 Minn. 493: 397, 404. Heward v. State, 13 S. & M. 361: 683, 963. Hewes v. Reis, 40 Cal. 355: 1009. Hewey v. Nourse, 54 Ma 256: 634. Hewitt V. People, 186 IlL §36: 510. V. People, 87 111. App. 367: 510. V. Sclmltz, 180 U. S. 139: 890. V. Waterlown S. E. Co., 65 111. App. 153: 846. Hewlett, Ex parte, 33 Nev. 333: 336, 577, 597, 1298, 1303. Heydon's Case, 3 Rep. 7b; 545, 644, 884. Hibbard v. Odell, 16 Wis. 664: 770. V. Parmenter, etc. Co., 70 N. H. 156: 556. Hibernia R N. Co. v. De Camp, 47 N. J. L. 43: 1043. V. De Camp, 47 N. J. L. 518: 1042. Hickman v. Alpaugh, 31 CaL 825: 611. V. Gaither, STerg. 200: 901. Hiokok V. Hine, 23 Ohio St. 523: 1044. Hickory Tree Road, 43 Pa. St. 139: 464, 549, 661. Hicks V. Bell, 3 Cal. 219: 1053. V. Jamison, 10 Mo. App. 35: 796, 799. Hick's Estate, 7 Pa. Supr. Ct 274: 505. Higginbotham v. State, 19 Fla. 557: 554. Higgins V. Mitchell Co., 6 Kan. App. 314: 301, 447, 566. V. State, 64 Md. 419: 466, 511. Highland Park v. Detroit, etc. P. R. Co., 95 Mich. 489: 1194. V. MoAlpine, 117 Mich. 666: 537, 943. CXll TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 605-1315. Hightower v. Wells, 6 Yerg. 349: 563. Hightstown v. Glenn, 45 N. J. L. 105: 37a Higler V. People, 44 Mich. 399: 818. Higley v. Gilmer, 3 Mont. 433: 330. Hlhn V. Courtis, 31 Cal. 403: 899. Hilburn v. St. Paul, etc. Ry. Co., 33 Mont. 239: 140, 143. Hildreth v. Crawford, 65 Iowa, 339: 148. V. Gwindon, 10 Cal. 490: 1136. Hilke V. Eisenbeis, 104 Pa. St. 514: 807. Hill, Ex parte, 40 Ala. 131: 171. Hill, Ex parte, 6 Ch. Div. 68: 711. Hill, Ex parte, 3 C. & P. 225: 816. Hill V. Bacon, 43 III. 477: 873. V. Berry, 75 N. Y. 339: 1303. V. Coats, 109 111. App. 366: 1054. V. Ginn, 3 Penn. (Del.) 174: 572. V. Grange, 1 Plowd. 178: 1079. V. Grigsby, 32 Cal. 55: 611. V. Kessler, 68 N. C. 437: 1200. V. Lovell, 47 Minn. 293: 1258. V. Memphis, 134 U. S. 198: 1194. V. Nye, 17 Hun, 467: 1159. V. Pressley, 96 Ind. 447: 334. V. Smith, Morris, 70: 460. V. Sunderland, 3 Vt. 507: 576. V. Townley, 45 Minn. 167: 1283, 1285, 1387. V. Yarborougb, 63 Ark. 320: 1231. Hilleker v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 153 Ind. 86: 781. Hiller v. People, 3 Colo. App. 459: 243. Hillhouse v. Chester, 3 Day, 166 : 757. Hilliard v. Roach, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 174: 555, 1235. Hill's Adm'r v. Mitchell, 5 Ark. 608: 881. Hillyard v. Miller, 10 Pa. St. 326: 489. Hilton V. Curry, 134 Cal. 84: 465. V. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113: 23, 34. Himrod Coal Co. v. Stevens, 104 IlL App. 639: 889, 891. Hinde V. Vattier, 5 Pet. 398: 865, 866. Hindmarsh v. Charlton, 8 H. L. Cas. 166: 699. Hindry v. Holt, 24 Colo. 464: 766. Hine v. Pomeroy, 39 Vt. 211: 558. Hines v. Freeholders, etc., 45 N, J. L. 504: 367. V. R. R. Co., 95 N. C. 434: 649, 651. Hingle v. State, 34 Ind. 38: 344 Hinsoldt v. Petersburg, 63 111. 157: 99. Hintermister v. First Nat Bank, 64 N. Y.313: 963. Hinze v. People, 92 IlL 406: 580, 592, 595. Hirn v. State, 1 Ohio St. 15: 1195. Hirsch v. Brunswick, 114 Ga. 776: 300. Hirschburg v. People, 6 Colo. 145: 459, 462, 481, 561. Hirst V. Molesbury, L. R. 6 Q. B. 130: 968. Hiss V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 53 Md. 242: 585. Hitchner v. Ehlers, 44 Iowa, 40: 1273. Hixon V. Burson, 54 Ohio St. 470: 354, 406, 434. Hoa V. Lafranc, 18 La. Ann. 393: 642. Hoagland v. Sacramento, 52 Cal. 142: 640. Hoare v. Silverlock, 13 Q. B. 624: 877. Hobart v. Supervisors, 17 Cal. 23: 161, 170. TABLE OF OASES OITED. CXlll The references are to the pages: ToL I, pp. 1-608; ToL H, pp. 605-181S. Eobbs V, Memphis, etc. B. R. Ca, 9 Heisk. 879: 566. Hockaday v. Wilson, 1 Head, 113: 463, 466. Hodges Y. Baltimore Pass. By. Ca, 58 Md. 603: 401. V. Baltimore Union Pass, B. B. Co., 58 Md. 603: 439. V. Buffalo, 2 Denio, 110: 1033. V. Tama Co., 91 Iowa, 578: 917, 1310. Hodnett v. State, 66 Miss. 26: 481, 554, 1161. Hodsden v. Harridge, 2 Williams' Saunders, 64a; 1277. Hoentze v. Howe, 38 Wis. 293: 711. Hoetzel v. Bast Orange, 50 N. J. L. 354: 539. Hoey V. Gilroy, 139 N. Y. 132: 661, 955. Hoff V. Person, 1 Pa. Supr. Ct, 357: 303, 416. Hoffman v. Delihanty, 13 Abb. Pr. 388: 778. V. Duel, 5 John. 232: 328, 331. V. Dunlop, 1 Barb. 185: 645. V. Pack, 183 Mich. 74: 1236. V. Parsons, 87 Minn. 286; 231. V. Pawnee Co. Com'rs., 3 Okl. 325:949, 1028. V. Peters, 51 N. J. L. 244: 671. Hogan V. Akin, 181 111. 448: 650, 696, 731, 885. ■V. Gushing, 49 Wis. 169: 1055, 1858. V. Devlin, 3 Daly, 184: 1151. V. State, 36 Wis. 386: 1068. Hogane v. Hogane, 57 Ark, 508: 463. Hogg V. Lobb, 7 Houst. 399: 749. Hoguet V. Wallace, 28 N. J. L. 533: 1081, 1249, 1251. Hoke V. Richie, 100 Ky. 66: 1300. Holbrook v. Bliss, 9 Allen, 69:912. Holbrook v. Holbrook, 1 Pick. 248. 653, 656, 659, 712, 780, 853, 912. v.Niohol, 36 111161:444, Holcomb V, Boynton, 151 111, 294: 544, 546. V. Davis, 56 111. 413, 172. V. Tracy, 3 Minn. 241: 1387. Holden y. James, 11 Mass. 396: 343, 576. V, Minnesota, 137 U. S. 483: 493, 523, 1189. V. Supervisors, 77 Mich. 202: 231. Holding, Ex parte, 56 Ala. 458: 1124. Holl V. Deshler, 71 Pa. St. 299: 660, 666. Holland v. Davies, 36 Ark. 446, 1120. V. Mayor, 11 Md. 186: 1009, 1010. V.Osgood, 8Vt. 880:1124. V. State, 34 Ga. 455: 963. Hollenbaok v. Fleming, 6 Hill, 303: 644, 1045. HoUey v. Holley, Lit. Sel. Cas. 505: 611. Holliday v. Atlanta, 96 Ga. 377: 1237. Holling worth v. Palmer, 4 Ex. 367: 780. Hollingsworth v. Thompson, 45 La. Ann. 323: 57, 85, 91. V, Virginia, 8 Dall. 378: 553. HoUis V. Francois, 1 Tex. 118: 327. HoUister v. Donahoe, 11 S. D. 497: 1190, 1210. V. HoUister Bank, 3 Keyes, 245: 1019, 1054, 1056. V. McCord, 111 Wis. 538: 619. HoUister Bank, Matter of, 27 N. Y. 383; 1019. HoUman v. Bennett, 44 Miss. 328: 644, 863, 864, 1064, HoUon V. Center, 103 Ky. 119: 1130. CXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. U, pp. 605-1315. Holman v. Frost. 26 S. C. 390: 964. V. Johnson, 1 Cowp. 343: 25. V. King, 7 Met. 384: 632. V. School District, 77 Mich. 605: 753. Hoi man's Appeal, 106 Pa. St. 503: 808, 874. Holraan's Heirs v. Bank of Norfolk, 13 Ala. 369: 637. Holmberg v. Jones, 7 Idaho, 753: 737. Holmes v. Broughton, 10 Wend. 75: 610, 618. V. Carley, 81 N. Y. 390: 1252. V. French, 68 Me. 525: 551. V. Harrington, 20 Mo. App. 661: 868. V. Hunt, 122 Mass. 505: 888. V. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540: 754. V. Paris, 75 Me. 559: 716, 739, 1106. Holt V. Agnew, 67 Ala. 360: 860, 864. V. Green, 73 Pa. St. 198: 938. V. Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co., 1. 174M0..534: 1054. V. Mayor, 111 Ala. 369: 353, 438. Holt Ca Bank v. Holt Co., 53 Neb. 827: 469. Holton V. State, 28 Fla. 803: 133, 300. Holyland v. Lewin, L. R. 26 Ch. Div. 266, 721. Holyoke Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. 500: 1023, 1023. Homan v. Liswell,6 Cow. 609: 338. Home B. & L. Ass'n v. Nolan, 21 Mont. 205: 299, 571, 795, 955. Home for Inebriates v. Reis, 95 Cal. 142, 530. Home Ins. Co. v. Northwestern Packet Co. 32 Iowa, 338: 1051. V. Swigert, 104 111. 653, 168. V. Taxing District, 4 Lea, 644, 447, 463, 544. Home Ins. Co. v. United States, 8 Ct. of CI. 449: 37. Homer v. Commonwealth, 106 Pa. St. 221: 401, 482. Homestead Cases, 23 Gratt. 266: 1204. Homestead Cases, 31 Tex. 677: 1098. Homire v. Halfman, 156 Ind. 470: 1S66, 1368. Homzighausen v. Knoclie, 58 Kan. 646: 73,75,93, 100. Honey v. Ciark, 37 Tex. 686: 1330, 1231. Hood V. Norton, 203 Pa. St. 114: 303. Hook V. Gray, 6 Barb. 398: 938. Hooker v. Greenville, 130 N. C. 472: 93, 95. V. Hooker, 10 Sm. & M. 599: 1319. Hoole V. Dorrah, 75 Miss. 257: 439. Hooper v. Birchfield, 115 Ala. 226: 739,'797. V. Creager, 84 Md. 195: 857, 858, 859. V. Mayor, 12 Md. 464: 803. Hope V. Deaderick, 8 Humph. 1: 17, 18. V. Flentge, 140 Mo. 390: 1290. V. Gainsville, 72 Ga. 246: 258. V. Johnston, 28 Fla. 55: 408. Hopkins V. Braddock, 172 Pa. St. 605: 503. V. Florida Cent., etc. R. R. Co., 97 Ga. 107: 693, 699, 1041. V. Haywood, 13 Wend. 205: 708. V. Jamieson-Dixon Mill Co., 11 Wash. 308: 559. V. Jones. 22 Ind. 310: 641. V. Sandidge, 31 Miss. 668: 1059. V. Scott, 38 Neb. 661: 247, 315, 469. Hopt V. Utah, 110 U. S. 574: 1175,' 1180. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CXV The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 606-1315. ^Horkey v. Kendall, 53 Neb. 532: 236, 434. Horn V. Lookhart.lT Wall. 570: 37. V. State, 114 Ga. 509: 440, 525. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 648: 1054. Home V. Railroad Ca, 1 Cold. 72: 911. -Horner v. Lyman, 2 Abb. App. Dea 399: 643. V. State, 1 Ore. 367: 970. ..Hornsey Looal Board v. Monarch Invest. Bldg. Soc, L. E. 24 Q. B. D. 1: 915. ■Hornung v. Board of Canvassers, 119 Mich. 51: 1290. . Horton v. Sledge, 29 Ala. 478: 609. Horwich v. Walker-G. L. Co., 205 111. 497: 425. Hoskins v. Crabtree, 103 Ky. 117: 238. ^.Hoskinson v. Adkins, 77 Mo. 537: 1142. . Hotchkiss V. Marion, 12 Mont. 318: 185, 191, 238, 349. Hotham v. Sutton, 15 Ves. 330: 723, 824, 833. -Hough V. Windus, L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 229: 740. : Houghtailing v. Ball, 19 Mo. 84: 611, 869. X Houghton V. Commissioners, 23 Mich. 370: 457. V.Lee, 50 Cal. 101: 1260. .'Houghton Co. v. Auditor General, 41 Mich. 28: 1009. > Houghton's Appeal, 42 CaL 35: lOJS. . : Houk V. Barthold, 73 Ind. 31: 1086, 1305. Housatonlc B. B. Ca v. Lee & H. E. R Co., 118 Mass. 391: 1044. ^ House V. House, 5 Har. & J. 125: 966. House V. State, 41 Miss. 737: 462. House Bill No. 303, In re, 21 Colo. 29: 417. House Bill No. 250, In re, 26 Colo. .234: 95. Householder v. Granby, 40 Ohio St. 430: 1127. House Resolution, In re, 13 Cola 359: 141, 435, 584. House Eoll Na 284, In re, 31 Neb. 505: 133, 432, 448. Houston V. Boyle, 10 Ired. 496: 640. V. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1: 147. V. Steele, 98 Ky 596: 1290. Houston, etc. Ry. Co. v. Bradley, 45 Tex. 171: 1291. V. Ford, 53 Tex. 364: 513, 514. V. Odura, 53 Tex. 343: 67, 97. V. State, 95 Tex. 507: 514, 528, 847, 880, 890, 896, 1027. Hovey v. Wyandotte Co., 56 Kan. 577: 156. Howard v. Bangor & A. E. E. Co., 86 Me. 387: 441. V. Bodington, L. E. 2 P. Div. 303: 637, 1116. V. Central Bank, 3 Ga. 380: 1077. V. Clatsop Ca, 41 Ore. 149: 461 V. Hulbert, 63 Kan. 793: 533, 540. V. Ives, 1 Hill. 263: 337. V. Mansfield, 30 Wis. 75: 732. V. Moot, 64 N. Y. 263: 1210. V. Schneider, 10 Kan. App. 137: 317. V. State, 5 Ind. 183: 555. V. Supervisors, 54 Neb. 443: 303. Howard Association's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 344: 511, 704, 927, 929. Howard Co., Division of, 15 Kan. 194: 881, 882. Howard-Harrison I. Co., Ex parte, 119 Ala. 484: 78, 79, 84, 85. CXVl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1315. Howard Oil Co. v. Davis, 76 Tex. 630: 955. Howard Sav. Inst. v. Newark, 63 N. J. L. 65: 689. Howe, Ex parte, 36 Ore. 181: 233, 240, 341, 986. Howe, Matter of, 48 Hun, 235: 335. Howe, Matter of, 113 N. Y. 100: 313. Howe V. Ballard, 113 Wis. 375: 33, 38, 618, 631. V. Peokhani,6 How. Pr.329: 861, 863. Howell V. Hair, 15 Ala. 194: 1015, 1283. V. State, 71 Ga. 234: 305, 291, 887. V. Stewart, 54 Mo. 400: 918,939. Howes, Matter of, 21 Vt. 619: 319. Howey, v. Miller, 67 N. C. 459: 863. Howland V. Luce, 16 John. 135: 1118. Howjand Coal & Iron Works v. Brown, 13 Bush, 681: 199, 302, 318, 231. Hewlett V. Cheetham, 17 Wash. 636: 311, 333, 435, 570, 795. Hoyt V. Com'rs of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 234: 699. V. McNeil, 13 Minn. 390: 869. Hronek v. People, 134 111. 139: 305, 335, 846, 850. Hubbard v. Johnstone, 3 Taunt. 177: 996. V. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 70 Conn. 563: 1226. V. State, 3 Tex. App. 506: 555. Hubbell V. Denison, 20 Wend. 181: 645. v.Weldon, Lalor, 189: 1137. Huber v. People, 49 N. Y. 133: 188, 206. V. Steiner, 2 Bing. N. C. 203: 1211. Hubman v. State, 61 Ark. 483: 463. Huddleston t. Askey, 56 Ala. 218: 759, 781. Hudler v. Golden, 36 N. Y. 446: 64^. 1242. Hudson V. Buck, 51 N. J. L. 155t 369, 377. V. Jefferson Co. Ct, 38 Ark. 359: 1136. V. King, 23 111. App. 118: 784. V. Tooth, L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 46: 883. Hudson Co. v. Buck, 49 N. J. L. 228: 403. V. Clarke, 65 N. J. L. 371: 868,. 379, 387, 406. Hudspeth v. Davis, 41 Ala. 389: 12m Hudston V. Midland Ry. Co., L. R. 4 Q. B. 866: 778. Huecke v. Milwaukee City Ry. Coi,. 69 Wis. 401: 1121. Huff V. Woodmen, 85 Mo. App 96:. 1159. Huffman v. Hall, 103 Cal. 36: 443;. 517. V. State, 29 Ala. 40: 963. V. State, 30 Ala. 532: 908. Hugg V. Camden, 89 N. J. L. 620:- 1117. Huggins V. Bambridge, Willes, 341: 931. V. Kavanaugh, 53 Iowa, 36^. 1373. Hughes V. Cannon, 3 Humph. 589: 1231. V. Chester, etc. Ry. Co., 1 Drew-.^ & Sm. 534: 655. V. Chester, etc. Ry. Co., 8 Jnr.. (N. S.) 231: 1019. V. Done, 1 Q. B. 301 : 655. V. Farrar, 45 Me. 73: 778. V. Felton, 11 Colo. 489: 1051. V. Griffiths, 106 E. C. L. R. 332: 336, 337. V. Linn Co., 87 Ore. Ill: 1002.- TABLE OF OASES CITED. OXVll The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Hughes V. Milligan, 43 Kan, 396: 339. T. Murdock, 45 La, Ann, 935: 133. V. Upson, 84 Minn. 85: 1390. V. Western Union Tel. Co., 79 Mo. App, 133: 1019, Hughston V. Carroll Co., 68 Miss, 660: 1299. Hugo V. Miller, 50 Minn. 105: 768, 777, 778. Hulbert v. Clark, 128 N. Y. 295: 547, 1318, 1289. Huling V, Topeka,44 Kan. 577: 155. Hull V, Hull, 3 Strob. Eq. 174: 1111. V. Miller, 4 Neb. 503: 93,94, 96, 97. Humboldt Co. v. County Com'rs, 6 Nev. 30: 343, 343, 936. Hume V, Eagon, 73 Mo. App. 371: 775. Humer v. Cumberland Co., 4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 588: 500. Humes v. Mo. Pao. Ey. Co., 83 Mo. 231: 412, 413, Humphrey v, Auditor-General, 70 Mich. 293: 1159, 1166. V. Chamberlain, 11 N, Y, 374: 645, 1050. Humphreys v. Green, L, E. 10 Q. B. Div. 148: 1101, Humphreyville Cop. Co. v. Ster- ling, 1 Brun. Colo. Cas, 3: 621, Hundall v. Ham, 172 111. 76: 191, 199, 286. Hundley v, Chaney, 65 Cal. 363: 1197. Hunt, In re, 81 Me. 375: 1397, Hunt V, Burrel, 5 John. 137: 145, V, Card, 94 Me. 386:534, V, Grant, 19 "Wend, 90: 1127, V, Jennings, 5 Blackf. 195: 544, 551, 1169, V, Murray, 17 Iowa, 313: 316. Hunt V, Wright, 70 Miss. 398: 58, 135. Hunter v. Glenn, 1 Bailey, 543: 1378. V, Memphis, 93 Tenn. 571: 447, 566. V. Nockolds, 1 McN, & G, 651: 648. Huntington v, Attrill, 146 U. S. 657: 26. V. Barton, 64 111. 503: 1354. V. Brinkerhoff, 10 Wend. 378: 1278. V. Forkson, 6 Hill, 149: 645. Huntingtower v. Gardiner, 1 B. & C. 397: 979. Huntzinger v. Brook, 3 Grant's Cas. 243: 1200. Hurd V. MoClellan, 14 Colo. 213: 815, 828, Hurford v, Omaha, 4 Neb, 336: 471, 637,1138, Hurla V. Kansas City, 46 Kan. 738: 155. Hurlburt v. Merriam, 3 Mich. 144: 123. Hurley v. State, 98 Tenn. 665: 137. V. State, 30 Tex. App 333: 765. V. Texas, 20 Wis. 634: 521, 543. Huron, In re, 58 Kan. 153: 6. Hurst V. Hawn, 5 Ore. 275: 463. V, Samuels, 39 S. C, 476: 493, 533. V. Warner, 103 Mich. 238: 150. Hurt V. Cook, 151 Mo. 416: 507. Hurth V. Bower, 30 Hun, 151: 1053. Husbands v. Talley, 3 Penn. (Del.) 88: 463, 517, 519, Hutchings v. Commercial Bank, 91 Va. 68: 736, 797, 801.' Hutchinson v. Davis, 58 111. App^ 358: 963. V. Hubbard, 31 Neb. 33: 126a V, Self, 153 111. 543: 513, exviu TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. C05-1315. Hutohinson v. Whitmore, 90 Mich. 355: 1258. Huth V. Ins. Co., 8 Bosw. 538: 611. Huyser v. Commonwealth, 25 Ky. L. E. 608: 141, 301. H. W. Wright L. Co. v. Hixon, 105 Wis. 153: 1217. Hyatt V. Taylor, 42 N. Y. 258: 705. Hyde V. Cogan, 2 Doug. 699: 991, 1086. V. German Nat. Bank, 115 Wis. 170: 22, 623. V. Hyde, L. R. 1 P. & D. 134: 748. V. Wabash, etc R. R. Co., 01 Iowa, 441: 27. V. White, 24 Tex. 137: 109. Hyde Park v. Cemetery Ass'n, 119 111. 141: 538. V. Chicago, 124 111. 156: 233. Hydriok v. Burke, 30 Ark. 124: 611. Hyland v. Brazil Block Coal Co., 138 Ind. 335: 463. Hyman v. State, 87 Tcnn. 109: 233. I. Ihmsen v. Monongahela Nav. Co., 32 Pa. St. 153: 671, 674, 676. lies V. West Ham Union, L. R. 8 Q. R Div. 69: 999. Illinois Cent. R R Co. v. Chicago, 138 111. 453: 732. V. Chicago, 173 111. 471: 703, 913. V. Chicago, etc. R. R Co., 133 111. 473: 1041, 1044. V. People, 143 III. 434: 73, 84, 85, 88, 94. V. Wells, 104 Tenn. 706: 144, 847, 1311. V. Wren, 43 111. 77: 98, 99. Illinois, etc. Canal Co. v. Chicago, 14 IlL 334: 551, 1169. Illinois, etc. R. R. Co. v. Gay, 5 111. App. 393: 1136. Illinois Slate Trust Co. v. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 308 111. 419: 1041. Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Pearson, 140,111. 438: 846, 847. Independent School Dist. v. Bur- lington, 60 Iowa, 500: 430. India, The, Brown & L, 321: 491. India, The, 33 L. J. Rep. P. M. & A. 193: 461. Indiana Cent. Ry. Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681: 201,203, 204. Indiana, etc. Ry. Co. v. Attica, 56 Ind. 478: 1045. V. People, 154 IlL 558: 693, 738, 797. V. Wilson, 77 111. 603: 1128. Indianapolis v. Huegele, 115 Ind. 581: 239. V. Im berry, 17 Ind. 175: 642. V. Morris, 25 Ind. App. 409: 468. V. Navin, 151 Ind. 139: 885, 398. Indianapolis, etc. R. R. Ca v. Case, 15 Ind. 42: 872. V. Kercheval, 16 Ind. 04: 1194. V. Stephens, 28 Ind. 439: 873. Industrial School Dist. v. White- head, 13 N. J. Eq. 390: 516, 638. Industry, The Schooner, 1 Gall. 114: 483, 968. Ingalls V. State, 48 Wis. 647: 1185. Inge V. Murphy, 10 Ala. 885: 631, 622. IngersoU v. Nassau Elec. R. R Co., 157 N. Y. 458: 707. Ingles V. Strauss, 91 Va. 209: 198, 222. Inglis V. Haigh, 8 IVL & W. 769: 1281. V. Trustees, 3 Pet. 99: 137, 616. Ingraham v. Hart, 11 Ohio, 255: 618, 623. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CXIX The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Ingraham v. Began, 23 Miss. 213: 784. V. Speed, 30 Miss. 410: 711. Ingram v. Colgan, 106 Cal. 113: 1313. V. State, 27 Ala. 17: 871. Ingram's Case, Co. Lit. 234a; 1105. Inheritance Tax, In re, 23 Colo. 492: 426. Inkster v. Carver, 16 Mich. 484: 218, 927.. Inlow V. Graham Co., 6 Kan. A pp. 391: 301, 1172. In man v. State, 65 Ark. 508: 517. Innis V. Templeton, 95 Pa. St. 262: 1143. Insurance Ca v. Stokes, 9 Phila. 80: 649, 650. Insurance Co. of North Am. v. Baohler, 44 Neb. 549: 419. Internal Imp. Fund, In re, 34 Colo. 247: 768. International Patent P. etc. Co., In re, 37L. T. (N. S.) 351: 965. International Trust Co. v. Am. Loan & T. Ca, 62 Minn. 501: 708, 1013. Interstate B. & L. Ass'n v. Powell, 55 S. C. 316: 1160, 1161, 1191. Intoxicating Liquor Cases, 35 Kan. 751: 920. lona. The, L. R. 1 P. C. 426: 1005. Iowa Elec. M. C. Ass'n v. Board, 87 Iowa, 659: 487. Iowa Land Co. v. Soper, 39 Iowa, 113: 393. V. Soper, 48 Iowa, 613: 393. Iowa Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 187 U. S. 385: 40, 614 Iowa 8. & L. Ass'n v. Curtis, 107 Iowa, 504: 339, 1197. V. Heidt. 107 Iowa, 297: 416, 1197. V. Selby, 111 Iowa, 403: 331. Irelan v. Colgan, 96 Cal. 418: 846, •848. Ireland v. Mackintosh, 33 Utah, 296: 12S9. V. Palestine, etc. T. Co., 19 Ohio St. 369: 1198. Ireton v. Lonbuer, 9 Kan. App^ 561: 301. Ironsides, The, Lushington, 458: 1318, 1234. Irresistible, The, 7 Wheat. 551: 2a 554, 678, 679. HVing V. Humphreys, Hopk. 364: 328, 831. V. McLean, 4 Blackf. 53: 869. Irwin V. Gregory, 86 Ga. 605: 57a Irwin's .Succession, 33 La. Ann. 63: 351. Isabelle v. Iron Cliffs Co., 57 Mich. 120:330,335. Isenhour v. State, 157 Ind. 517: 150, 191, 229, 249. Isham V. Bennington Iron Co., 19 Vt. 230: 679. Isitt V. Beeston, L. R 4 Ex. 159: 809. Itawamba v. Candler, 62 Miss. 193: 1054. luka V. Schlosser, 97 III App. 222: 706, 914. Iverson v. State, 53 Ala. 170: 462. Ivey V. McQueen, 17 Ala. 408: 1307, Jack V. Cold, 114 Iowa, 849: 1200. Jackman v. Dubois, 4 John. 316: 1065. V. Garland, 64 Me. 133: 312, 313, 325. Jackson v. Baehr, 138 Cal. 266: 300, 438. V. Bradt, 2 Caines, 169: 636, 7ia 730. V. Butler, 8 Minn. 117: 1206. cxx TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. 11, pp. 605-1315. Jackson v. Cairns, 20 John. 301: 1064. V. Catlin, 3 John. 248: 637, 1046. V. Catlin, 8 John. 530: 627. V. Chew, 13 Wheat. 153: 616. V. Collins, 3 Cow. 89: 693, 739. V. Cory, 8 John. 885: 1038. V. Dillon, 3 Overt, 261: 1230, 1231. V. Gilchrist, 15 John. 89: 653, 654, 655, 1329, 1231. V. Hammond, 2 Caines Cas. 337: 1037. V. Hobby, 30 John. 361: 645. V. Jackson Co., 117 Mich. 305: 301. V. Kittle, 34 -W. Va. 307: 732, 956. V. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 280: 1033, 1197", 1307. V. Lervey, 5 Cow. 397: 939. V. Moye, 33 Ga. 396: 683. V.Noble, 54 Iowa, 641: 1263, 1373. V. Phelps, 3 Caines, 63: 683. V. Shelton, 89 Tenn. 83: 1361. V. Shepard, 7 Cow. 88: 1046. V. Shepherd, 6 Cow. 444: 645. V. State, 76 Ala. 36: 465. V. State, 131 Ala. 21: 29, 78, 85, 171. V. state, 30 Tex. Ct. App. 664 1133. V. Supervisors, 34 Neb. 680: 538. V. Thurman, 6 John. 883: 693. V. Walsh, 75 Md. 304: 1195. V. Warren, 33111.331: 644, 1350. V. Young, 5 Cow. 369: 1117, 1130. Jackson, etc. R. R. Co. v. Davison, 65 Mich. 416: 1025, 1026, 1046. Jackson Fire Clay, etc. Co, v. Snyder, 98 Mich. 385: 791. Jackson & Suburban Traction Co. V. Commissioner of R. E., 128 Mich. 164: 301. Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525: 265, 1230, 1233. Jacksonville, etc. Ry. Co. v. Adams, 33 Fla. 608: 437. V. Harris, 33 Fla. 317: 814. Jacob V. State, 3 Humph. 493: 610 , V. United States, 1 Brock. 530; 1058, 1061. Jacobs, In re, 98 N. Y. 98: 1019, 1368. Jacobs V. Board of Supervisors, 100 Cal. 181: 913, 954. V. Brett, L. R, SO Eq. 6: 1053. v. Graham, 1 Blackf. 393: 327, 329. V. Kruger, 19 Cal, 411: 1107. V. Smallwood, 03 N. C. 112: Jacobyv. Shafer, 105 Pa. St. 610: 844. Jacquins v. Clark, 9 Cush. 379: 1226. V. Commonwealth, 9 Cush. 379: 642, 1182, 1183. Jacubeck v. Hewitt, 61 Wis. 96: 1055, 1258. Jadwin v. Hurley, 10 Pa. Supr. Ct. 104: 533. James v. Appel, 192 U. S. 189: 785. V. Buzzard, Hempst. 859: 563. V. Catherwood, 3 D. & R. 190: 25. v. Commonwealth, 13 S. & R. 220: 461. V. Dubois, 16 N. J. L. 285: 547, 548, 551, 663, 654. V. Rowland, 52 Md. 463: 635. V. West, 67 Ohio St. 38: 1117, 1183. Jameson v. Gile, 98 Iowa, 490: 770. V. State, 33 Tex. Crim. Rep. 385: 304. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CXXl The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-«03; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. -James Smith Woolen Machinery Co. V. Browne, 206 Pa. St. 543: 455. > Jamison v. Bamsey, 128 Mich. 315: 1170. Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288: 19, 438. Janney v. Buell, 55 La. 408: 478, 1056. -January v. January, 7 T. B. Mon. 543: 1310. Janvrin v. De la Mare, 14 Moore's P. C. 334: 893. Jaques v. Golightly, 3 W. Bl. 1073: 918. Jarman, Ex parte, L, R. 4 Ch. D. 838: 778, 1149. -Jarvis v. Bradford, 88 111. App. 685: 510. V. Jarvis, 3 Edw. Ch. 463: 641, 1239. V. Robinson, 31 Wis. 533; 866, 874. , -Jasper v. Porter, 3 McLean, 579: 865. Jay V. School Dist., 24 Mont. 319: 699. Jefferson v. Eeitz, 56 Pa. St. 44: 538. - Jefiferys v. Boosey, 4 H. L. 815: 630, 648, 709,711,733. . Jenking v. Osman, 79 Mich. 305: 247. -Jenkins v. CoUard, 145 U. S. 546: 628. V. Crevier, 50 N. J. L. 351: 1052: V. Ewin, 8 Heisk. 456: 781. V. Union Turnpike Co., 1 Cai. Cases, 86: 634. V. Wild, 14 Wend. 539: 1018. -Jenkinson V. Thomas, 4 T. R. 665: 983. Jennings v. Love, 24 Miss. 349: 699, 713. Jennings v. Webb, 8 App. Cas. (D. . C.) 43: 1340. Jensen v. Fricke, 133 111. 171: 465, 467, 1336. Jermyn v. Scranton, 186 Pa. St 595: 158,363. Jernigan v. Holden, 34 Fla. 530: 517, 519, 530. V. Madisonville, 103 Ky. 313: 156. Jerome v. Ross, 7 John Ch. 315: 1043. Jersey City v. Hudson, 13 N. J. Eq. , 420: 931, 1038, 1039. v. Jersey City, etc. R R. Co., 30 N. J. Eq. 360: 488. Jersey Co. v. Davison, 29 N. J. L. 415: 913, 914. Jesson V. Wright, 8 Bligh. 3: 747. Jessup V. Carnegie, 80 N. T. 441: 784. Jewell V. Weed, 18 Minn. 272: 697. 701. V. Welch, 117 Mich. 65: 1274. Jewett V. Wanshura, 48 Iowa, 574: 1268, 1273. Jewison v. Dyson, 9 M. & W. 540: 893. Jimison v. Adams Co., 180 111. 558: 1158, 1163. Job V. Alton, 189 111. 356: 503. Jobb V. Meagher Co., SO Mont. 424: 303, 493, 511. Jochein v. Dutcher, 104 Wis. 611: 1224. Jockheck v. Shawnee Ca Com'rs, 53 Kan. 780: 249. JofiEee, Ex parte, 46 Mo. App. 360: 473, 473, 515. Johanson v. Washington, 190 U. S. 179: 1027. Johnes v. Johnes, 8 Dow. 15: 1075. Johns V. State, 78 Ind. 333: 483. Johnson, Ex parte, 7 Gow. 434: 1131. cxxu TABLE OF CASES CITED. Th3 reterenoes are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-131t.. Johnson, In re, 98 Cal. 531: 1117, 1138. Johnson v. Asbury Park, 58 N. J. L. 604: 390. V. Astiury Park, 60 N. J. L. 437: 311, 390. V. Ballou, 38 Mich. 379: 889. V. Barham, 99 Va. 305: 134, 737, 799. V. Bond, Hempst. 533: 1206. V. Bradstreet Co., 87 Ga. 79: 757, 768, 1235. V. Burrell, 2 Hill, 338: 1163. V. Bush, 3 Barb. Ch. 307: 513. V. Byrd, Hempst. 484: 463. V. Champion, 88 Ga. 537: 771. V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 39 Minn. 425: 414. V. Chicago, etc. R. E. Co., 64 Wis. 435: 1393. V. Common Council, 16Ind.327: 879. V. Betriok, 153 Mo. 343: 766,1145. V. Drummond, 16 IlL App. 641: 1267. V. Fluetsch, 176 Mo. 453: 861. V. Gebhauer, 159 Ind. 271: 19, 1314. V, Goodyear Min. Co., 137 CaL 4: 416. V. Gram, 73 III. App. 676: 981. V. Haines, 4 Dall. 64: 1112. V. Hariscom, 90 Tex. 331: 135, 781. V. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575: 185, 1S6, 197, 349, 385. V. Hesser, 61 Neb. 631: 619. V. Higgins, 3 Met. (Ky.) 566: 199, 925, 1310. V. Hill, 90 Wia 19: 1235, 1261. V. Hudson, 11 East, 180: 939. V. Johnson, 26 Ind. 441 : 642. V. Johnson, 52 Md. 668: 1159, 1330. Johnson v. Johnson, 100 Mich. 336:- 1376. V. Joliet, etc. R R. Co., 33 111.- 203, 951. V. Koockogey, 33 Ga. 183: 1335. V. Martin, 75 Tex. 33: 158: 386. 447. V. Meeker, 1 "Wis. 436: 550. V. Merchandise, 2 Paine, 601: 308. V. Milwaukee, 88 Wis. 383: 135,- 392, 397. ■p. Mocabee, 1 Okl. 204: 339. V. Mut. Life Ina Co. 180 Mass.- 407: 21. V. N. Y. Life Ins. Ca, 187 U. a 491: 23,634. V. People, 83 111. 431: 303, 303,- 311. V. People, 303 111. 58: 468. V. Richardson, 44 Ark. 365: 1239,, 1231, 1238. T. Robertson, 31 Md. 476, 868,- 880. V. R. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 455: 698,- 701, 704, 915. V. Southern Mut. B. & L. Ass'd,- 97 Ga. 633: 492, 533, 566. V. Southern Pao. Co., 117 Fed.. 463, 695, 747, 931. V. Southern Ry. Co. 117 Fed.- 463, 1060. V. State. 91 Ala. 70: 620. V. State, 133 Ala. 43: 468. V. State, 83 Miss. 363, 1131. V. State, 59 N. J. L. 271: 577,- 580. V. State, 59 N. J. L. 535: 577, 580. V. Stout, 42 Minn. 514: 1056. V. Tautphaus, 137 Cal. 605: 57&-. V. Turnell, 113 Wis. 468: 1138. V. Upham, 2 E. & E. 250: 649. V. Winslow, 68 N. C. 553: 577- TABLE OF CASES CITED. OXXlll The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1 "15. Johnson's Adm'x v. Haldeman, 103 Ky. 163: 773. Johnston v. Bank, 3 Strob. Eq.263: 621. V. Ban-ills, 27 Ore. 251: 1058, 1060, 1201. V. Pate, 95 N. C. 68: 1149. V. Rankin, 70 N. C. 550: 1056. V. Spicer, 107 N. Y. 185: 250. V. State, 100 Ala. 33: 143. V. Wilson, 29 Gratt. 379: 869. V. Wood, 19 Wash. 441: 304. Johnston's Estate, 33 Pa. St. 511: 473, 531. John V. Favwell Co. v. Matheis, 48 Fed. 363: 105, 107. JoUie V. Jaques, 1 Blatoh. 618: 1143. Jolliffe V. Brown, 14 Wash. 155: 304. Jonas V. Cincinnati, 18 Ohio, 318: 1009, 1011. Jones, In re, 7 Ex. 586: 804 Jones V. Alexander, 10 S. & M. 637: 1254. V. Aspen Hardware Co., 21 Colo. 263: 199, 279. V. Black, 48 Ala. 540: 177. V. Brown, 3 Ex. 332: 929. V. Cavins, 4 Ind. 305: 317. V. Collins, 16 Wis. 594: 644, 1096. V. Columbus, 25 Ga. 610: 331. V. Commissioner, 31 Mich. 236: 433, 435. V. Dexter, 8 Fla. 270: 788, 930. V. Falvella, 136 CaL 34: 800. V. German Ins. Co., 110 Iowa, 75: 1304. V. Hays, 4 McLean, 531: 618, 865. V. Hutchinson, 43 Ala. 731: 53, 71, 78, 87, 867. V. Jones, 95 Ala. 443: 339. V.Jones, 18 Ma 308: 750. V. Jones, 104 N. Y. 334: 593. Jones V. Kearns, Mart. & Y. 241: 630. V. Lake View, 151 111. 663: 331. V. Madison Co., 73 Miss. 777: 176. V. Maffet, 5 S. & E. 523: 618, 619. V. Mail & Exp. Pub. Co., SO Hun, 368: 694, 736, 797. V. McCaskill, 113 Ga. 453: 176, 343. V. Melohior, 71 Miss. 115: 469. V. Memphis, 101 Tenn. 188: 596. V. Morristown, 66 N. J. L. 488: 201, 293, 582, 652. V. Eobbins, 8 Gray, 829: 595. V. Smart, 1 T. E, 44: 1109, 1111. V. Smith, 3 Gray, 500: 938. v. Smith, 14 Mich. 334: 1054. V. State, IGa. 610: 1183. V. State, 1 Iowa, 395: 558, 679. V. State, 1 Kan. 273: 1116, 1124. V. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Eep. 533: 1302. V. Surprise, 64 N. H. 243: 688, 1064. V. Tatham, 20 Pa. St. 398: 637, 931, 937. V. Theall, 3 Nev. 333: 111. V. Thompson, 13 Bush, 394: 254, 581. V. Water Com'rs, 34 Mich. 273: 710. V. Wootten, 1 Harr. (Del.) 77: 640, 683. Jones' Appeal, 8 Grant, 169: 669. Jones' Heirs v. Cooper, 10 Yerg. 69: 13. Joplin V. S. W. Mo. Light Co., 191 U. S. 150: 1023. Jordan v. Board of Education, 39 Minn. 298: 1257. V. Dobson, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 398: 1220. CXXIV TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 606-1315. Jordan v. Giblin, 12 Cal. 100: 1050. V. Wlmer, 45 Iowa, 65, 640. Jordan's Adm'r v. Cincinatti, etc. Ey. Co,, 89 Ky. 40: 1293. Jordt V. State, 31 Tex. 571: 959. Jorgensonv. Superior, 111 Wis. 561: 689. Joseph V. Elliott, 47 Mo. App. 418: 834. Journeay v. Gibson, 56 Pa. St. 57: 550, 635, 1229. Judd V. Fulton, 10 Barb. 117: 320. V. Judd, 125 Mich. 228: 1225. Judge of Co. Ct. V. Taylor, 8 Bush, 206: 1009, 1011. Judkins v. TufFee, 21 Ore. 89: 1226. Judson V. Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240: 190, 243, 432. V. Leach, 7 Cow. 152: 639. V. Smith, 104 Mo. 61: 1058, 1060. Juilliard v. May, 130 111. 87: 21. Juliand V. Eathbone, 39 N. Y. 369: 1144. Julien V. Model B. & L. Ass'n, 116 Wis. 79: 137, 216, 304, 365, 370, 445, 524. Julius V. Bishop of Oxford, L. E. 5 App. Gas. 214: 1146, 1149. V. Callahan, 63 Minn. 154: 189. Jump V. Batton, 35 Mo. 196: 117. Junction City v. Webb, 44 Elan. 71: 445. Junction Railroad Ca v. Bank of Ashland, 12 Wall. 226: 41, 613, 866. Justices V. Griffin, etc Plank E. Co., 9 Ga. 475: 1021, 1025 K. Kadgin v. Miller, 13 111. App. 474: 1265. Kagit Co. V. Stiles, 10 Wash. 388: 577, Kameriok v. Castleman, 21 Mo. App. 587: 443, 444. Kameta, Ex parte, 36 Ore. 251: 766. Kampton v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. St. 329: 20. £ane v. Kansas City, etc. Ey. Co., 112 Mo. 34: 722, 846, 851, .909. V. New York, etc. Ey. Co., 49 Conn. 139: 446. V. State, 78 Ind. 103: 291. Kankakee Co. v. j3Etna Life Ins. Co., 106 U. S. 668: 529. Kansas Breeze Ca v. Edwards, 55 Kan. 630: 468. Kansas City v. Kansas City Med. College, 111 Mo. 141: 1007. V. Kimball, 60 Kan. 224: 466, 467, 511, 524. V. Lorber, 64 Mo. App. 604: 1010, 1028. V. Scarritt, 127 Mo. 642: 134. V. Smart, 128 Mo. 272: 469. V. Stegmiller, 151 Mo, 189: 373, 386, 437. V. Summerwell, 58 Mo. App. 246: 1053. V. Vindquest, 36 Mo. App. 584: 769. Kansas City, etc. E. E. Co. v. Camp- bell, 62 Mo. 585: 1048. V. Frey, 30 Neb. 790: 185, 191. Kansas City Hydraulic P. B. Co. v. Barber, 50 Mo. App. 60: 847. Kansas Pacific Ey. Co. v. Dun- meyer, 113 U. S. 629: 1026. V. Lundin, 3 Colo. 94: 1292. V. Wyandotte, 16 Kan. 587: 670. Kaolatype Engraving Co. v. Hpke, 30 Fed. Eep. 444: 878. Karasek v. Peier, 22 Wash. 419: 43, 176, 307, 774. Karr v. Washburn, 56 Wis. 303: 1096. TABLE OF OASES CITED. cxxv The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603: Vol. n, pp. 605-1316. Kate Heron, The, 6 Sawyer, 108: 748, 757, 864. Kaufman v. SohoefEel, 37 Hun, 140: 1396. Kaufman's WUl, 131 N. Y. 620: 775. Kavanagh's Will, Matter of, 135 N. Y. 418: 792. Kean v. Stetson, 5 Pick. 493: 1044. Kearney v. Fitzgerald, 43 Iowa, 580: 1373, 1374, 1275, 1276. Kearney Co. Com'rs v. Vandries, 115 Fed. 866: 340, Kearney Elea Ca v. Laughlin, 45 Neb. 390: 1391. Keavus v. Cordwainers' Co., 6 C B. (N. S.) 388: 654, 655, 657. Keeoh v. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 17 Md. 82: 863. Keemer v. Herr, 98 Pa. St. 6: 1056. Keen v. De Eancy, 5 Cranch, 33: 631. Keenan v. Stimson, 33 Minn. 877: 38. Keene v. Jefferson Ca, 135 Ala. 465: 85, 86, 128. Keep V. Crawford, 93 111. App. 587: 517. Keeton v. Keeton, 20 Mo. 530: 1279. Kehl V. Dunn, 103 Mich. 581: 1260. Keim v. Devitt, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 250: 430. Kein v. School District, 43 Mo. App. 460: 954, 1262. Keith V. Clark, 97 U. S. 454: 37. V. Quinney, 1 Ore. 364: 711,729, 864, 885. Keitler v. State, 4 Greene (Iowa), 291: 1051. Xeller v. Commonwealth, 71 Pa. St. 413: 534. V. Corpus Christi, 50 Tex. 614; 1049, 1056. Keller v. Houlihan, 33 Minn. 486: 1154. V. State, 11 Md, 531: 185, 963. V. State, 13 Md. 335: 552, 555. Kelley v. Burke, 132 Ala. 335: 702. V. Mayberry, 154 Pa. St. 440: 303. V. Minneapolis City, 57 Minn. 394: 301. V. Multnomah Co., 18 Ore. 356: 890. V. People, 133 111. 363: 992. V. State, 6 Ohio St. 269: 348, 355, 592, 598. V. Stevenson, 85 Minn. 347: 1297. V. Story, 6 Heisk. 202: 880. Kellook's Case, L. a 3 Oh. 781: 930. Kellogg, Ex parte, 3 Cow. 373: 1131. Kellogg V. Hickman, 13 Colo. 356: 1390. V. Oshkosh, 14 Wis. 633:457. V. Page, 44 Vt. 356: 1115. Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. Peterson, 162 111. 158: 1058. Kelly V. Canon, 6 Colo. App. 465: 1165, 1296. V. McGuire, 15 Ark. 555: 794. V. Meeks, 87 Mo. 396:159. V. Northern Trust Co., 190 111. 401: 781. V. People, 115 111. 583: 1185. V. Pratt, 14 Misc. 31 : 306. V. School Directors, 66 III. App. 134: 530, 538. V. State, 93Ind. 386: 339. Kelly's Heirs v. MoGuire, 15 Ark. 555: 659, 712, 731. Kelly Tp. v. Union Tp., 5 Watts & S. 535: 636, 914 Kelsey v. Kendall, 48 Vt. 24: 443, 643. CXXVl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Kemble v, MoPhaill, 128 Cal. 444: 1154 Kemeys, Matter of, 56 Hun, 117: 1166. Kenaston v. Great Northern Ky. Co., 59 Minn. 35: 505. Kendall v. Dodge, 3 Vt. 360: 19. V. Garneau, 55 Neb. 408: 784. V. United States, 13 Pet 524: 788. Kenealy v. Leavy, 67 N. J. L. 435: 98& Keneflok v. St. Louis, 137 Mo. 1: 373. Kenfleld v. Irwin, 53 Gal. 164: 1124. Kennedy, In re, 3 S. C. 316: 1301. Kennedy v. Adams, 24 Nev. 317: 1383. V. Agricultural Ins. Co., 165 Pa. St. 179: 416. V. Cunningham, 3 Met. (Ky.) 538: 946. V. Des Moines, 84 Iowa, 187: 1158, 1160, 1167. V. First Nat. Bank. 107 Ala. 170: 1258. V. Gies, 25 Mich. 83: 723. V. Kennedy, 3 Ala. 571:739. ■V. LeMoyne, 188 111. 255:323, 334, 234. V. Montgomery Co., 98 Tenn. 165: 304. V. Palmer, 6 Gray, 316: 330, 321, 607. V. Pawtuoket, 24 R. I. 461: 158. V. Savage, 18 Mont. 119: 464. Kenneys, Matter of, 56 Hun, 117: 308. Kenny v. Clarkson, 1 John. 385: 620. Kent V. Clark, 181 111. 237: 736. V. Somervell, 7 Gill & J. 365: 649, 657. V. United States, 68 Fed. 536: 619. Kent V. United States, 73 Fed. 680: 519. V. Warner, 47 Hun, 474: 1330. Kenton v. State, 53 Ohio St. 59: 382. Kentz V. Mobile, 130 Ala. 633: 578. Kephart v. Farmers', etc. Bank, 4 Mich. 603: 910. Keppel V. Petersburg E. R. Co., Chase's Deo. 167: 871. Kerkow v. Bauer, 15 Neb. 150: 876, 1374. Kerlin v. Bull. 1 Dall. (Pa.) 175: 913, 914. Kerlinger v. Barnes, 14 Minn. 526: 443. Kermott v. Ayer, 11 Mich. 181: 610. Kern v. Browne, 64 Pa. St. 55: 138T. V. People, 44 111. App. 181: 467, 509. V. Supreme Council, 167 Mo. 471: 683, 1065. Kerney v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co.^ 86 Mo. App. 573: 730. Kernion v. Hills, 1 La. Ann. 419: 893, 893. Kerr, Matter of, 43 Barb. 119: 1194. Kerr v. Haverstick, 94 Ind. 180: 331. Kerrigan v. Force, 9 Hun, 185: 625. V. Force, 68 N. Y. 381: 345, 403, 633, 928. Kersten v. Voight, 61 111. App. 42: 1158, 1191. Kesler v. Smith, 66 N. C. 154: 511. Kessel v. Albetis, 56 Barb. 363: 606. 865. Kesterson v. Hill, 101 Va. 739: llfiO. Ketcham v. Fox, 52 Hun, 284: 12C5. Ketle V. Reading Iron Works, 134 Pa. St. 325: 1336. Keyes v. Westford, 17 Pick. 373: 1033. Keyner, Matter of, 148 N. Y. 319 l 434 TABLE OP OASES CITED. cxxvu The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Keyport St B. Co. v. Farmers' Transportation Ca, 18 N. J. Eq. 13: 870, 874, 883. Kibbe v. Ditto, 93 U. S. 674: 506. Kick V. Doerste, 45 Mo. App. 134: 1335. Kiel V. Chicago, 69 111. App. 685: 981. Kieldsen v. "Wilson, 77 Mich. 45: 13oa Kielley v. Carson, 4 Moore P. C. 85: 30. Kiernan, In re, 6 T. & C. 320: 243. V. Swan, 131 Cal. 410: 597. Kiersted v. State, 1 G. & J. 231: 889. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168: 17, 867, 1051. Kilburn v. Demming, 2 Vt 404: 1099. Kile V. Telle whead, 80 111. 208: 873. Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Pa. St. 401: 59, 377, 383, 925. Kilgour V. Miles, 6 Gill & J. 268: 837. Killebrew v. Murphy, 3 Heisk. 546: 871. Kilpatiick v. Byrne, 25 Miss. 571: 1015. Kimball v. Davis, 53 Mo. App. 194: 23, 26, 988. V. Grants ville City, 19 Utah, 868: 133, 133, 137. V. Masons' Fraternal AcaAss'n, 90 Me. 183: 1158, 1191. V. Eosendale, 43 Wis. 407: 403. Kimbray v. Draper, L. B. 3 Q. B. 160: 643, 1335, 1336. Kimbro v. Bank of Fulton, 49 Ga. ' 419: 665. Kimbrough v. Barnett, 93 Tex. 301: 577, 587. Kimm v. Osgood, 19 Mo. 60: 838, 339. Kinard v. Moore, 8 Strob. 193: 1005. Kindergarten Schools, In re, 18 Cola 234: 13, 133. Kinderley v. Jervis, 35 L. J. Ch. 541: 699, 703. Kine v. Crider, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 688: 815. King, Ex parte, 2 Bro. C. C. 158: 627. King V. Adderley, 3 Doug. 463: 829. V. Arundel, Hob. 110: 48, 81. V. Banks, 61 Ga. 20: 245, 261. V. Belcher, 30 S. C. 881: 1161, 1283, 1284. V. Birmingham, 8 R & C. 39: 939. V. Bridges, 8 East, 53: 481. V. Burridge, 3 P. Wms. 496: 024. V. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395: 515. V. Davis, 1 Leach's Cas. 371: 481. V. Dedham Bank, 15 Mass. 447: 1193. V. Dowdall, 2 Sandf. 131: 835. V. Downs, 3 T. R. 569: 469. V. Haley. 86 111. 106: 1267. V. ner«fordshire, 3 Barn. & Aid. 581: 330. V. Kent, 39 Ala. 543: 873. V. Moore, Jeff. (Va.) 8: 321. V. Pease, 4 B. & Ad. 30: 754, 794. V. Philadelphia Ca, 154 Pa. St. 160: 178. V. Pony Gold Min. Co., 24 Mont. 470: 429, 447. V. Thompson, 87 Pa. St 865: 821. V. Thurston, 1 Lev. 91: 311. V. Welborn, 83 Mich. 195: 1261. V. Wilcox, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 301: 35. V. Wilson, 1 Dill. 555: 614. Kingman et al., Petitioners, 156 Mass. 361: 710,731. CXXVlll TABLE OF CASES OrfED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp, 605-1815. King Real Est. Ass'n v. Portland, S3 Ore. 199: 1154. Kings Co. V. Johnson, 104 CaL 198: 275, 428. King's Estate, In re, 105 Iowa, 320: 703, 908, 909. Kingsford v. Great W. Ry. Ca, 16 C. B. (N. &)761: 1097. King's Lake D. & L, Dist. v. Jami- son, 176 Mo. 557: 673. Kingsley v. Kingsley, 20 111. 203: 610, 622. Kinkead v. United States, 150 TJ. S. 483: 658. Kinney v. Mallory, 3 Ala. 626: 462, 465. Kinsey v. Eilerman, 110 Ky. 948: 1258. V. Hey ward, 1 Lord Ray m. 434: 1278. -Kipp V. Robinson, 75 Minn. 1: 1137, 1138. Kirby v. Runals, 140 111. 289: 781, 899, 900. Kirohner v. Myers, 35 Ohio St. 85: 1271. Kirohoff v. Union Mut. L. Ins. Co., 138 111. 199: 757. Kirk V. Armstrong, Hempst. 283: 1136. V. Robinson, 25 Ky. L. R. 1633: 463. Kirkpatriok v. Commonwealth, 95 Ky 336: 497. V. Gibson, 2 Brook. 388: 784, 930. V. Lewis, 46 Minn. 164: 792. V. Mo. K. & T. Ry. Co., .71 Mo. App. 263: 469. V. New Brunswick, 40 N. J. Eq. 46: 231, 287. Kirksey v. Rowe, 114 Ga. 893: 1259. Kirkstall Brewery, In re, 5 Ch. Div. 535: 758. Kirman v. Powning, 35 Nev. 378: 786. Kiskaddon t. Dodds, 21 Pa. Supr. Ct. 351: 1231. Kistler v. Hereth, 75 Ind. 177: 1282. Kitchen v. Bartsch, 7 East, 53: 892. V. Shaw, 6 Ad. & E. 729: Sia V. Smith, 101 Pa. St. 452: 461. Kleokner v. Turk, 45 Neb. 176: 231, 986. Klein v. Bayer, 81 Mioh. 233: 1161, 1191. V. Kinkead, 16 Nev. 194: 221, 262. V. Livingston Club, 177 Pa. St. 224: 964, 973. V. State Treas., 42 La. Ann. 174: 307. Kline v. Baker, 99 Mass. 253: 617, 618, 622. Kling V. Packet Co., 101 Tenn. 99: 415. Knapp V. Brooklyn, 97 N. Y. 520: 788. V. Kansas City, 48 Mo. App. 485: 1028. Knaust, In re, 101 N. Y. 188: 204. Kneeland v. Milwaukee, 15 Wis. 454: 904 Knight V. Aroostook R, R. Co., 67 Me. 291: 517. V. Bate, 2 Cowp. 788: 127a V. Freeholders, 10 Cent. Rep. 653: 930. V. Lee, L. R. (1893) 1 Q. B. 41: 1160. V. Martin, 128 CaL 245: 40a V. West Jersey R. R. Co., 108 Pa, St. 250: 2a Knight's Templars & M. L. J. Co. v. Jarman, 187 U. S. 197: 40, 136, 304, 614. Kniper v. Louisville, 7 Bush. 599: 1009. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CXXIZ The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1816. Knisely v. Cotterel, 196 Pa. St. 614: 483, 455. Knopf V. People, 185 IlL 30: 339. Knoup V. Piqua Bank, 1 Ohio St. C03: 549, 561. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41: 649, 707, 885. Knox V. Baldwin, 80 N. Y. 610: 516, 545, 561. V. Cleveland, 13 Wis. 249: 1318. Knox Co. Com'rs. v. McComb, 19 Ohio St. 320: 488. Knox Street, 12 Pa. Supr. Ct. 534: 565. Knoxville v. Lewis, 13 Lea, 180: 202, 254. Knoxville, etc. R. R. Co. v, Harris, 99 Tenn. 684: 414, 1003, 1006. V. Hioks, 9 Baxt. 443: 12. Koch V. Bridges, 45 Miss. 347: 471, 701, 920, 1138. V. New York, 5 App. Div. 376: 13, 133. Koehler, Ex parte, 23 Fed. 529: 1195. Koelesoh v. New York, 34 App. Div. 98: 135. Koen V. State, 35 Neb. 676: 770. Koerner v. Oberly, 56 Ind. 284: 1265. Koester v. Com'rs, 44 Kan. 141: 404. Koetting, In re, 90 Wis. 166: 447. Kohler, Ex parte, 74 Cal. 38: 300. Kohn V. CarroUton, 10 La. Ann. 719: 433. V. Collison, 1 Marvel (Del.), 109: 1059, 1062, 1293, 1294. Kolb v. Reformed Episcopal Church, 18 Pa. Supr. Ct. 477: 955. KoUock v. Parcher, 35 Wis. 372: 1055, 1258. Koning v. Bayard, 3 Paine, 351: 933. Koontz V. Franklin Ca, 76 Pa. St 754: 1194. V. Howsare, 100 Pa. St. 506: 849. Korah v. Ottawa, 33 IlL 131: 490. Koser, Ex parte, 60 CaL 187: 401, 430. Kossuth Ca v. Wallace, 60 Iowa, 508: 1184. Kountze v. Omaha, 5 DilL 443: 615, 925. V. Omaha, 63 Neb. 53: 538, 529. Kraoh v. Heilman, 53 Ind. 517; 1370, 1271. Kramer v. Ooodlander, 98 Pa. St. 353: 979. V. Holster, 55 Miss. 243: 1050. Krause v. Durbrow, 127 Cal. 681: 340. V. Penn. R R. Co., 19 Phila. 436: 455, 1236. Kreiger v. Shelby R. R. Co., 84 Ky. 66: 1036. Kreiter v. Nichols, 38 Mich. 496: 1265. Kretzeschmar v. Meehan, 74 Minn. 211: 469. Kreyling v. O'Reilly, 97 Mo. App. 384: 730, 1383, 1385. Knng V, Missouri, 107 U. S. 231: 1174, 1175, 1177. Kroop V. Forman, 31 Mich. 144: 114i: Kruse v. Kennett, 69 111. App. 566: 963. Kuckler v. People, 5 Park. Cr. R. 313: 1187. Kuenster v. Board of Education, 134 111. 165: 537. Kuhlman v. Smeltz, 171 Pa. St. 440: 470. Kuhns V. Krammis, 30 Ind. 490: 354. Kulpv. Fleming, 65 Ohio St. 321: 23, 988. cxxx TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-181B. Kulp V. Luzerne Co., 30 Pa. Supr. Ct. 7: 470. Kumler V. Supervisors, 103 Cal. 393: 157. Kunkle v. Franklin, 13 Minn. 127: 643. Kupfert V. Building Ass'n, 30 Pa. St. 465: 635. Kyle V. Malin, 8 Ind. 34: 1033. L. La Arba Silver Min. Co. v. U. S. 175 U. S. 423: 104. Lacey v. Palmer, 93 Va. 159: 201, 207, 294, 953. Lachman v. Ottawa Circuit Judge, 125 Mioh, 37: 1203. Lackawana Iron Co. v. Little Wolf, 38 Wis. 153: 1117. Laokawann, Tp., In re, 160 Pa. St. 494: 268. Lackawana Tp. v. Harris Tp., 160 Pa. St. 494: 383. Lackland v. Davenport, 84 Va. 638: 132.5. V. Walker, 151 Mo. 210: 654, 655. Lacon v. Higgins, 3 Stark. 178: 617, 618. Ladd V. Gambell, 35 Ore. 393: 466. V. Holmes, 40 Ore. 167: 388. V. Portland, 32 Ore. 271: 1215. Lafayette v. Cox, 5 Ind. 38: 1033. Lafferty v. Huffman, 99 Ky. 80: 66, 77, 574. V. Ry. Co.. 71 Mioli. 35: 430. La France v. Krayer, 42 Iowa, 143: 1372, 1273. La Grange v. Chapman, 11 Mich. 499: 873. V. Cutler, 6 Ind. 354: 662. Lair v. Killmer, 1 Dutch. 522: 645. V. Killmer, 25 N. J. L. 522: 964, 965. Lake v. Caddo Parish, 37 La. Ann* 788: 710. V. Ocean City, 63 N. J. L. 160: 95. V. State, 18 Fla. 501: 446. V. Williamsburgh, 4 Denio. 520: 1009. Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Walkins, 157 Ind. 600: 552. Lakeman v. Moore, 33 N. H. 410: 681. Lake Shore, etc. R. R. Co. v. Grand Rapids, 103 Mich. 374: 1004, 1006. Lake Superior Ship Canal, Ry. & Co. v. Aplin, 79 Mich. 351: 469. Lamar v. Adams, 90 Mo. App. 35: 469. v. Allen, 108 Ga, 158: 543. V. Micou, 114 U. S. 318: 613, 866. Lamar Canal Co. v. Amity Land & Irr. Co., 26 Colo. 370: 300. Lamar Water & E. L. Co. v. Lamar, 138 Mo. 188: 909, 912, 914. Lamb, Matter of, 51 Hun, 633: 1232. Lamb v. Dunwody, 94 Ga. 58: 1299. V. Lynd, 44 Pa. St. 336: 1039. V. Schottler, 54 Cal. 319: 553, 1169. Lambe v. McCormiok, 116 Iowa, 169: 466, 467. Lambertson v. Hagan, 8 Pa. St. 35: 19, 635, 640. Lambie's Estate, 94 Mich. 489: 764. Lambkin v. Pike, 115 Ga. 837: 516. Lammer, In re, 7 Diss. 269: 1005. Lamond v. Eiffe, 3 Q. B. 910: 916. Lamphear v. Buckingham, 33 Conn. 237: 908. Lampkin v. Pike, 115 Ga. 837: 435. V. State, 87 Ga. 516: 124. Lampson, Matter of, 33 Misc. 1S8: 568. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CXXXl The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. 'Lampton v. Haggard, 3 T. B. Mon. 149: 878. Lancashire Ins. Ca t. Bush, 60 Neb. 116: 479. •Lancaster v. Knight, 74 Appi Div. 255: 557. Lancaster Co. v. Hoagland, 8 Neb. 36: 434. V. Lancaster City, 160 Pa. St. 411: 739, 797. V. Trimble, 83 Neb. 131: 429. V. Trimble, 34 Neb. 753: 771. •Lance's Appeal, 55 Pa. St. 16: 1041. Lanoy v. King Co., 15 Wash. 9: 191, 205. Landauer v. Conklin, 8 S. D. 462: 749. Landers v. Staten Island R. B. Ca, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 346: 1053. Landfield, Matter of, 183 III. 264: 846. Landford v. Dunklin, 71 Ala. 594: 778. Land Grant Railway v. Commis- sioners, 6 Kan. 253: 23. Landis v. liVindis, 39 N. J. L. 374: 459, 511. ►Land L. & L. Co. v. Brown, 73 Wis. 294: 394. V. Mclntyre, 100 Wis. 245: 776. ■Landrum t. Flannigan, 60 Kan. 436: 693, 699, 707, 717, 736. Land Title W. & S. Co. v. Tanner, 99 Ga. 470: 201. iLane v. Bennett, 1 M. & W. 70: 1109. V. Burnap, 39 Mich. 736: 1141. V. Gary, 19 Barb. 539: 1305. V. Nelson, 79 Pa. St. 407: 1217, 1336, 1333. V. Schomp, 20 N. J. Eq. 83: 799. V. State, 49 N. J. L. 673: 353. V. Wheeler, 101 N. Y. 17: 1136. T. White, 140 Pa. St. 99: 1336. Lane's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 49: 1019. Lanfear v. Mestier, 18 La. Ann. 497: 873. Lang V. Calloway, 68 Ma App. 393: 436, 439, 847. V. Phillips, 27 Ala. 311: 320. V, Scott, 1 Blackf. 405: 638, 917. Langdean v. Hanes, 21 Wall 521: 84. Langdon v. Summers, 10 Ohio St. 79: 1056. V. Young, 33 Vt. 136: 611. Lange, In re, 85 N. Y. 307: 1141. Langenberg v. Decker, 131 Ind. 471: 5,6, 10. Langley v. Western Union Tel. Co., 88 Ga. 777: 972. Languille t. State, 4 Tex. App. 313: 643. Lankford v. County Com'rs., 73 Md. 105: 104, 109, 341. V. Gebhart, 130 Ma 621: 1130, 1145, 1290. Lanning v. Carpenter, 20 N. Y. 447: 605, 608. Lansing v. Board of State Audit- ors, 111 Mich, 337: 267. Lanzetti's Succession, 9 La. Ann. 333: 193, 203. Lapeyse v. United States, 17 Wall. 191: 607. Lapham v. Marshall, 51 Hun, 36: 1159, 1164. La Plaisance Bay Harbor Co. v. Monroe, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 155: 1023. La Plume v. Gardner, 148 Pa. St. 193: 388. Laporte v. Gamewell Fire Alarm & Tel. Ca, 146 Ind. 466: 784. Larabee v. New York, etc. R. R Co., 183 Mass. 348: 760. Largey v. Chapman, 18 Mont. 563: 784. CXXXll TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; VoJ. H, pp. 605-1816. Larimer Ditch Co. v. Zimuierman, 4 Colo. App. 78: 693, 719, 770, 885, Larkin, Ex parte, 1 Okl. 53: 1179. Larrabee v. Talbott, 5 Gill, 426: 313, 325. Larrison v. Peoria, etc. R. R. Co., 77 111. 11: 84,98,214,608. Larzelere v. Hauberfc, 109 Pa. St. 515: 730. La Selle t. Whitfield, 12 La. Ann. 81: 931. Lash V. Von Neida, 109 Pa. St. 207: 932. Lasher v. People, 183 111. 326: 370, 426. La Sooiete Francaise, etc.. Matter of, 123 Cal. 525: 158, 843. Lassen v. Karrer, 117 Mich. 512: 816. Lasure v. State, 19 Ohio St. 43: 1183 Lathrop v. Mills, 19 Cal. 513: 593, 600, 601. Lattess v. Holmes, 4 T. E. 660: 311, 312. Laude v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 33 Wis. 640: 443, 415, 561. Lauer v. District ol Columbia, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 453: 991, 992, 993. V. State, 23 Ind. 461: 228. Laughlin v. Commonwealth, 13 Bush. 261: 550, 1180. Laughter v. Seela, 59 Tex. 177: 853. Lau 0\v Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47: 730,743, 914. Laura, The, 114 U. S. 411: 890. Laurence v. State, 31 Tex. Crim. Rep. 601: 1180. LaurSDS v. Crawford, 55 S. C. 594: 518. Lauve's Succession, 6 La. Ann. 529: 899. Lavigne v. Lizeri des Patriotes, 178 Mass. 35: 760. Law V. Hodson, 11 East, 300: 93&. V, Law, Cas. Temp. Talb. 140: 1105. Lawder v. Stone, 187 U. S. 281: 880;- Lawrenoe v. Allen, 7 How. 785:: 754. V. Grambling, 13 S. C. 125: 447- V. Hanley, 84 Mich. 399: 1300;. V. King, L. R 3 Q. B. 345: 777. V, Louisville, 96 Ky. 595: 1387.. Lawrence Co. v. Meade Co., 6 S. D- 528: 694, 717, 733, 751. V. New Castle, 18 Pa. Supr. Ct. 313: 545, 1225. Lawrence R. R. Co. v. Mahoning: Co., 35 Ohio St. 1: 1826. Law.son v. De Bolt, 78 Ind. 563: 435,. 517. V. Jeffries, 47 Miss. 686: 343. Lawton v. Steele, 119 N. Y. 326:: 579. V. Waite, 103 Wis. 244: 1283. Lay V. O'Neil, 29 La, Ann. 733: 33.. Laying v. Paine, Willes' Rep. 571: 1105. Lazarus v. Met. El. R R. Co., 83: Hun, 553: 1226. V. Met. El. R R Co., 145 N. Y.. 581: 1230. Lea V. Buram, 83 Pa. St. 337: 577,. 581. V. Iron Belt M. Co., 119 Ala.- 371: 1337. Leader Printing Co. v. Nichols, 6- Okl. 302: 673. Lead Smelting Co. v. Richardson,. 3 Burr. 1341: 809. League V. State, 93 Tesr. 553: 1333.. Leak v. Gay, 107 N. C. 468: 1223. Leake v. Colgan, 125 Cal. 413: 331,. 834. Leard v. Leard, 30 Ind. 171: 45a Learned v. Corley, 43 Miss. 687: 666,. 695, 713, 739, 915, 1353. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CXXXIU The referoQces are to the pages: ¥ol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 60&-1316. Leathe v. Thomas, 109 III. Appk 434: 618. Leavenworth v. Billings, 26 Wash. 1: 499. V. Erockway, 3 Hill, 301: 611. Leavenworth Co. v. Miller, 7 Kan. 479: 356. Leavenworth Coal Co. v. Barber, 47 Kan. 39: 317, 321, 607, 1322. Leavenworth, etc E. E. Co. v. United States, 93 U. S. 733: 1025. Leavitt v. Bell, 55 Neb. 57: 1013. V. Chambers, 16 Wash. 353: 519. Le Couteulx v. Buffalo, 33 N. Y. 333: 1033. Lee V. Barkhampsted, 46 Conn. 813: 710. V. Carlton, 3 T. R. 643: 337. V. Clary, 38 Mich. 333: 1047. . V. Cook, 1 Wyo. Ter. 413: 643. V. Forman, 3 Met. (Ky.) 114: 1064. V. King, 21 Tex. 577: 609. V. Lincoln, 1 Story, 610: 755. V. Roberts, 3 Okl. 106: 707, 914. V. Simpson, 3 C. B. 871: 979, 1108. V. State, 49 Ala. 43: 1117. Lee Bros. Furn. Co. v. Cram, 63 Conn. 433: 703, 745. Leep V. Railway Co., 58 Ark. 407: 418, 578. Leeper v. State, 103 Tenn. 500: 137, 158. Lees V. Sumnersgill, 17 Ves. 508: 654. Leeschke v. Miller, 100 IlL App. 137: 468. Lee's Estate, 76 Md. 108: 1159. Leese v. Clark, 20 Cal. 387: 883. Leete v. State Bank, 115 Mo. 184: 1161,1164. V. State Bank, 141 Mo. 574: 1161, 1164, 1295. Lefflngwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599: 614,615,1218. Le Forest v, Tolman, 117 Mass. 109: 646. Leftwiche's Case, 5 Rand. 657: 554. Legg V. Britton, 64 Vt. 652: 1393. V. Mayor, 43 Md. 203: 53, 73, 74, 82, 87, 331, 608, 867. Leggate v. Clark, 111 Mass. 308: 1142. Leggett V. Hunter, 19 N. Y, 445: 627. Legler v. Board of Com'rs, 147 Ind. 181: 437. Lehigh Co. v. Meyer, 102 Pa. St. 479: 673, 811. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.'s Appeal, 164 Pa. St. 44: 363. Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U. S. 388: 1023, 1039. Lehman v. McBride, 15 Ohio St. 573: 188, 431, 433, 447. V. Robinson, 59 Ala. 219: 759. Leigh V. Kent, 3 T. R. 362: 461, 893. V. Thornton, 1 B. & Aid. 625: 1282. Leighton v. Walker, 9 N. H. 59: 481, 482, 518. Leinkauf v. Banes, 66 Miss. 207: 815, 825. Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 176 : 34. Leitzel v. Centre Co., 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 208: 500. Leland v. Tousey, 6 Hill, 328: 636, 1058. V. Wilkinson, 6 Pet. 317: 628. Lemon v. Lloyd, 46 Mo. App. 452: 1253., Lemonius v. Mayer, 71 Miss. 514: 699, 703, 731, 885. Leraont v. Jenks, 197 111. 363: 1011. Lemp V. Hastings, 4 Greene (Iowa), 448: 898. CXXXIV TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-«03; Vol. II, pp. 605-131S, Lent V. Portland, 43 Ore. 488: 834, 1028. Leonard v. Canton, 35 Miss. 189: 1010, 1028, 1033. V. Columbia St. Nav. Co., 84 N. Y. 48: 28, 784. V. Pope, 27 Mich. 145: 1295. V. Wiseman, 31 Md. 201: 702. Leoni v. Taylor, 20 Mich. 148: 693. Leroy v. ChaboUa, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 448: 844. Les Bois v. Bramell, 4 How. 449: k35. Lescallett v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 878: 294. Leschi v. Washington Ter,, 1 Wash. T. 13: 308, 555. Lesesne v. Yound, 33 S. C. 543: 696. Lessard v. Revere, 171 Mass. 294: 1257. Lesser Cotton Co. v. Yates, 69 Ark. 396: 499. Lessley v. Phipps, 49 Miss. 790: 549, 1204. Lester v. Garland, 15 Ves. 248: 337, 329. Leverson v. Reg., L. R. 4 Q. B. 394: 875, 893. Levet's Case, 1 Hale, 474: 97a Levy V. Hitsche, 40 La. Ann. 500: 907. V. Ostega, 9 N. M. 391: 46i V. State, 6Ind.281: 633. V. Stewart, 11 Wall. 244: 1016. V. Superior Court, 105 Cal. 600: 986. Lewis V. Aylott, 45 Tex. 234: 853. V. Brackenridge, 1 Blaokf. 220: 640. V. Brandenburg, 105 Ky. 14: 155, 436, 439. V. Calor, 1 Fost. & Fin. 306: 337. Lewis V. Cook Co., 72 111. App. 151 : 462. V. Dunne, 134 CaL 291: 196, 238. 452. V. Foster, 1 N. H. 61: 552, 555. V. Gill, 76 Mo. App. 504: 847. V. Glass, 93 Tenn. 147: 683. V. Jersey City, 66 N. J. L. 583: 410. V. Lewelling, 53 Kan. 201 : 587. V. Lynch, 61 III. App. 476: 784, 785. V. McClure, 8 Ore. 373: 869. V. McElvain, 16 Ohio, 347: 550. V. Mynott, 105 Tenn. 508: 93a V. Schultz, 98 Iowa, 341: 771. V. State, 133 Ala. 84: 300, 433. V. State, 3 Head, 137: 864, 1154. V. State, 148 Ind. 346: 331, 237. V. Stout, 33 Wis. 234: 533. V. Syracuse, 13 App. Div. 587: 528. V. Webb, 3 Ma 336: 343. V. Woodfolk, 58 Tenn. 25: 308. Lewis Co. V. Gordon, 20 Wash. 80: 304, 430. License Cases, 5 How. 504: 16. Lide V. Parker, 60 Ala. 165: 612. Liddell, Ex parte, 93 Cal. 633: 185, 188, 189, 191, 303, 377, 648, 785. Lien v. County Com'rs, 80 Minn. 58: 193, 281, 514. Life Ins. Co. v. Ray, 50 Tex. 513: 1160. Liggett V. People, 26 Colo. 364: 300. Lillard v. McGee, 4 Bibb, 165: 636. Lima v. Cemetery Ass'n, 43 OhioSt. 128: 1003, 1033. Lime City B. & L. Ass'n v. Black, 136 Ind. 544: 693, 706, 713, 733. Limestone Co. v. Rather, 48 Ala. 433, 1117. Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475: 618, 869. TABLE OF OASES OITED. CXXXV The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Liucoln V. Haugan, 45 Minn. 451: 77, 81. V. Janesoh, 63 Neb. 707: 707. Lincoln Co. v. Oneida Co., 80 Wis. 267: 547, 1231. Lincoln, etc. Ass'n v, Graham, 7 Neb. 173: 635. Lincoln St. Ry. Co. v. Lincoln, 61 Neb. 109: 1003, 1023. Linden, In re, 113 Wis. 533: 157, 158. Lindenmuller v. People, 31 How. Pr. 156: 1071. Lindley v. Davis, 7 Mont. 306: 1261. Lindsay v. Archibald, 65 Mo. App. 130: 1295. V. Cundy, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 358: 685, 1066, J067. V. U. S. Sav. & L. Ass'n, 130 Ala. 156: 19, 185, 253. V. Williams, 17 Ala. 229: 873. Lindsay v. Rutherford, 17 B. Mon. 245: 939. V. State, 65 Miss. 543: 481, 554, 1161, 1188. Lining v. Bentham, 3 Bay, 1 : 947. Link V. Houston, 94 Tex. 378: 1383, 1385. V. Jones, 15 Colo. App. 281: 515, 668. Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67: 635. Lin Sing v. Washburn, 30 Cal. 534: 343. Linton v. Blakeney, etc. Society, 3 H. & C. 853: 549, 679. Lintons Appeal, 104 Pa. St 338: 848. Lion Ins. Ass'n v. Tucker, L. B. 12 Q. B. D. 180: 709, 711, 747. Li Po Tai, In re, 198 Cal. 484: 781. Lippincott v. Hopkins, 57 Pa. St. 328: 940. V. Leeds, 77 Pa. St. 430: 940. Lippman v. People, 175111. 101: 353, 425. Lipscomb v. Dean, 1 Lea, 546: 17. Litch V. Brotherson, 35 How. Pr. 416: 1337. Litchfield v. Vernon, 41 N. Y. 123: 997. Lithbridge v. Chapman, 15 Vin. Abr. 103: 1278. Litson V. Smith, 68 Mo. App. 397: 707, 1170. Little V. Cogswell, 20 Ora 345: 518, V. Poole, 9 B. & C. 192: 938. V. State, 60 Neb. 749: 298, 1313. Little Equemunk, etc. Turnpike Co., 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 633: 314, 372. Littlefield v. Winslow, 19 Me. 394: 1010. Little Rock v. Quindley, 61 Ark. 623: 440. Little Rock, etc. R. R. Co. v. Barker, 39 Ark. 491: 1292. V. Howell, 31 Ark. 119: 659, 708, 712. Little Schuylkill Nav. Co. v. Rich- ards, 57 Pa. St. 142: 1272: Littleton Bridge Co v. Pike, 72 Vt. 7: 792. Liverpool Bank v. Turner, 30 L. J. Ch. 380: 1115. Liverpool Bor. Bank v. Turner, 2 De. G. F. & J. 503: 471, 637. Livingston, Ex parte, 30 Nev. 282 229, 247, 778. Livingston, Matter of, 131 N. Y. 94 707, 847, 884. Livingston v. Harris, 11 Wend. 329 939. V. Jordan, Chase's Dec. 454: 37 V. Livingston, 74 App. Div, 361: 1223. V. Livingston, 173 N. Y. 377 1219, 1322. V. Van Ingen, 9 John. 507: 636, Livingston L. & B. Ass'n v. Drum- mond, 49 Neb. 200: 416. CXXXVl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Livingston's Lessee v. Moore, 7 Pet. 469: 613. Lloyd, In re, 51 Kan. 501: 956. Lloyd V. Dollison, 13 Ohio C. D, 571: 140, 143, 356, 360, 423, 776, 847. V. Matthews, 155 U. S. 223: 23, 634. V. Smith, 176 Pa. St. 313: 348, 404, 405, 406, 455. Lobdell V. Keene, 85 Minn. 90: 1167. Lobrano v. Nelligan, 9 Wall. 395: 627. Look V. Miller, 3 Stew. & Port. 13: 472, 863. Locke's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 491: 145, 164,171, 173. Lockett V. Usry, 28 Ga. 345: 18, 1325. Lookhart v. Troy, 48 Ala. 579: 446. Lookwood V. Crawford, 18 Conn. 361:611, 618,633. Loeb V. Columbia Tp., 91 Fed. 37: 577. Loftis V. Loftis, 94 Tenn. 232: 1361. Loftus V. F. & M. Nat. Bank, 133 Pa. St. 97: 1296. Logan V. Attix, 7 Iowa, 77: 1354 V. Courtown, 13 Beav. 33: 699. V. Fidelity & C. Co., 146 Mo. 114: 693. V. State, 3 Heisk. 443: 308. V. United States, 144 U. S. 263: 779, 780. V. Walton, 13 Ind. 639: 640. Logan Co. Coni'rs. v. Harvey, 6 Okl. 629: 986. Logan Nat. G. & T. Co. v. Chilli- cothe, 65 Ohio St. 186: 694, 713, 723. Logsdoh V. Logsdon, 109 111. App. 194: 329. Lohman v. State, 81 Ind. 15: 877. Lombard v. Antioch College, 60 Wis. 459; 581. Lombard v. Trustees, etc., 73 Ga. 333: 911. V. Whiting, Walker (Miss.), 329: 1049. Lommen v. Minneapolis G. L. Ca, 65 Minn. 196: 439. London, etc. Co. v. St. Paul Imp. Co., 84 Minn. 144: 1337. London, Mayor of, v. Queen, 13 Q. B. 33: 471. London Tobacco Pipe Makers v. Woodroffe, 7 B. & C. 838: 849. Long V. Culp, 14 Kan. 412: 661, 666. V. Duluth, 49 Minn. 280: 1034. V. Louisville, 97 Ky. 364: 1158. V. People, 109 111. App. 197: 963. V. Schee, 86 Iowa, 619: 707. V. Stone, 19 Ky. L. R. 246: 517. V. Walker, 105 N. C. 90: 1190, 1205. Longes v. Kennedy, 3 Bibb, 607: 869, 880. Longey v. Leach, 57 Vt. 377: 1063. Long Island Water Supply Co. v. Brooklyn, 166 U. S. 685: 1031, 1033, 1034. Longlois V. Longlois, 48 Ind. 60: 443, 459, 563. Looker v. Davis, 47 Mo. 140: 675, 677. Loomis V. Little Falls, 66 App. Div. 399: 1233. V. Runge, 66 Fed. 856: 451. Looney v. Hughes, 30 Barb. 605: 1119. Loper V. State, 83 Minn. 71: 441, 649, 736, 795, 801, 803, 846, 884. Lord v. Parker, 3 Allen, 137: 863, 1296. Lord Advocate v. Sinclair, L. R. 1 Scotch App. 178: 893. Lord & P. Chem. Co., In re, 7 Del. Ch. 348- 573. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CXXXVll The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Xorentz v. Alexander, 87 Ga. 444: 341. Lornian v. Benson, 8 Mich. 18: 605, V. Clarke, 2 McLean, 568: 613. iLos Angeles v. Hance, 123 Cal. 77: 223. iLos Angeles Ca v. Spencer, 126 Cal. 670: 800. Los Angeles Gold M. Co. v. Camp- bell, ISColo. App. 1:420. liosch v. St. Charles, 65 Mich. 555: 253. Xothrop V. Stedman, 42 Conn. 583: 654. 658. Cougee V. Washburn, 16 N. H. 134: 611. Ijougher v. Soto, 129 Cal. 610: 897. Loughridge v. Huntington, 56 Ind. 253: 334. .Louisiana v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 203: 1190, 1200, 1201. V. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285: 1213. v. Pilsbury, 105 U. & 278: 184, 265. V. St. Martin's Parish, 111 V. S. 716: 1213. 'Louisiana State Bank v. Flood, 8 Mart. (U. S.) 341: 625. .Louisiana St. L. Co. v. Richoux, 28 La. Ann. 745: 203. Louis Olson, The, v. Haritwen, 57 Fed. 845: 525. .Louisville v. Commonwealth, 9 Dana, 70: 849. V. Garr, 97 Ky. 583: 582. V. Hegan, 20 Ky. L. R. 1532: 391. V. Kuntz, 104 Ky. 584: 391. V. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 469: 308, 320, 331, 606, 608. Xouisville, etc. Co. v. Ballard, 3 Met. (Ky.) 168: 199, 321, 262. JLouisville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Anch- ors, 114 Ala. 492: 1314. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co. v. Bullitt Co., 93 Ky. 280: 1336. V. Catron, 102 Ky. 333: 814. v. Commonwealth, 97 Ky. 675: 1035. V. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 133: 143. V. County Court, 1 Sneed, 668: 904, 907, 937. V. East St. Louis, 134 IlL 656: 435. V. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677: 1021, 1038, 1035. V. Mississippi, 133 IT. S. 587: 613. V. Sharp, 91 Ky. 411: 1167. V. State, 66 Miss. 663: 469. V. Wallace, 186 111. 87: 414. Louisville & J. Ferry Co. v. Com- monwealth, 104 Ky. 736: 428. Louisville Trust Co. v. Cincinnati, 73 Fed. 716: 1035. V. Cincinnati, 76 Fed. 296: 614, 1021. Louisville Water Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 1: 533, 931. Lovev. Pusey, 3 Penn. (Del.) 577: 988. Lovejoy v. Whipple, 18 Vt. 379: 938. Lovelace v. Tabor M. & M. Ca, 29 Colo. 62: 467. Lovell V. Davis, 53 Mo. App. 342: 1332. Loverin v. McLaughlin, 161 IlL 417: 736. Low V. Rees Printing Co., 41 Neb. 127: 417, 597, 599. Lowe V. Bourbon Co., 6 Kan. App. 603: 279, 566. V. Harris, 113 N. C. 473: 1161, 1191, 1319, 1234. Lowell V. Doe, 44 Minn. 144: 862. V. Washington Co. R. R. Co., 90 Me. 80: 796, 800. CXXXVUl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. It, pp. 605-1315. Lowenberg v. Levine, 93 Cal. 215: 953. V. People, 27 N. Y. 336: 573, 860. Lowenstein v. Young, 8 Okl. 216: 124. Lower Chatham, In re, 35 N. J. L. 497: 701. Lowndes Co. v. Hunter, 49 Ala. 507: 253, 256, 581. Lowrey v. Mayor, 23 R. I. 284: 528. Lo^Ty c. Collateral ti. Ass'n, 172 N. Y. 394: 851. V. Francis, 2 Yerg, 534: 1192. Lucas V. Com'rs, 44 Ind. 524: 907. V. Ladew, 28 Mo. 343: 611. V. McBlair, 12 Gill & J. 1: 649. Lucas County v. Chicago, etc. Ey. Co., 67 Iowa, 541: 443. Luck T. State, 96 Ind. 16: 867. Lucky V. Police Jury, 46 La. Ann. 679: 301. Lucy V. Levington, 1 Vent. 175: 637. Ludeling v. His Creditors, 4 Mart. (N. S.) 603: 1235, 1227. Ludington v. Heilman, 9 Colo. A pp. 543: 262. V. United States, 15 Ct. of CI. 453: 795. Ludlow Street, 59 App. Div. 180: 1235. Luehrman v. Taxing Dist., 2 Lea, , 435: 204, 205, 324. Lueken v. People, 3 111. App. 875: 1270. Luke V. Calhoun Co., 53 Ala. 115: 877. V. Calhoun Co., 56 Ala. 415: 561. Luling V. Racine, 1 Biss. C. C. 316: 345, 346. Lull V. Fox, etc. Improvement Co., 19 Wis. 100: 1373. Lum V. Vicksburg, 73 Miss. 950: 860. Luman v. Hitchens Bros., 90 Md. 14: 306. Lumberman's Exch. v. Lutz, 2 Pa.. Supr. Ct. 91: 707. Lund V. Chippewa Co., 93 Wis. 640: 769, 950. Lundberg v. Sharvey, 46 Minn. 300r 1261. Lusher v. Scites, 4 W. Va. 11: 17,. 605, 608. Luther v. Saylor, 8 Mo. App. 424: 202, 205, 211. Lybavger v. State, 3 Wash. 552:- 1184. Lycoming F. Ins. Co. v. Wood- worth, 83 Pa. St. 223: 807. Lyddy v. Long Island City, 104 N.. Y. 218: 462,473. Lyman v. Martin, 2 Utah, 136: 73.. Lyn V. Wyn, Bridg. 133: 661. Lynch v. Chase, 55 Kan. 367: 10^. 301, 525. V. Murphy, 119 Mo. 163: 292,. 437, 834. V. State, 9 Ind, 541: 946. Lynchburg v. N. & W. R R. Co., 80- Va. 237: 887, 838. Lynchburg, etc. R. R. Co. v. Pear- son Co. Com'rs, 109 N. C. 159 1303. Lynde v. Noble, 20 John. 80: 1249. Lynes v. State, 5 Port. 236: 1058. Lynn v. Co. Com'rs, 148 Mass. 148 1145, 1149. V. Co. Com'rs, 153 Mass. 40: 775. V. State, 84Md. 67: 1188. Lynott V. Dickerman, 65 Minn. 471 301. Lyon V. Denison, 80 Mich. 371 741. V. Jerome. 26 Wend. 485: 1043, V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 143 N. Y. 298: 444 V. Ogden, 85 Me. 374: 543, 795,. 855, 858. V. Smith, 11 Barb. 124: 515. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CXXXIX The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Lyons v. Woods, 153 U. S. 649: 48, 70. V. Yerex, 100 Mich. 214: 766. Lytle V. Haflf, 75 Tex. 138: 137. M. Mabie V. Whittaker, 10 Wash. 656: 1395. Mabry v. Baxter, 11 Heisk. 682: 643, 1238. MaoDonald v. New York, etc. R. R. Co., 23 R. I. 558: 654.. Maodougall v. Paterson, 11 C. B. 755: 793, 1147, 1149. Mace V. Cammel, Lofft. 782: 656. V. State, 58 Ark. 79: 766. Mack V. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130, 517. V. Johnson, 59 Ark. 333: 567. V. State, 60 N. J. L. 28: 334, 243. Mackall v. District of Columbia, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 301: 710, 713, 731, 735. Maoke v. Byrd, 131 Mo. 683: 785, 846. Mackey v. Miller, 136 Fed. 161: 693, 779. Mackin v. Haven, 187 111. 480: 1311. V. Haven, 88 IlL App. 434: 1311. Maonagh ten's Case, 10 C. & F. 200: 978. Maonawhoo Plantation v. Thomp- son, 36 Me. 365: 551, 1169. MaoNiohoI v. Spence, 83 Me. 87: 1158, 1191. Macoleta v. Packard, 14 Cal. 179: 34. Macon v. Hughes, 110 Ga. 795: 208. V. Macon Sav. Bank, 60 Ga. 133: 838. Macon, etc. Co. v. Macon, 96 Ga. 23: 846. Macon, etc. R. R Co. v. Gibson, 85 Ga. 1: 300. J Macon, etc. R. R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Ga. 409: 1293. V. Little, 45 Ga. 370: 47. MaoVeagh v. Royston, 173 111. 515: 846, 848. V. Royston, 71 III. App. 617: 846, 848. Madden v. Hardy, 93 Tex. 613: 135, 727, 955. V. Lancaster Co., 65 Fed. 188: 917, 1283, 1311. Maddox v. Graham, 3 Met. (Ky.) 56: 463, 1021. Madera Irr. Dist., In re, 93 CaL 396: 133. Madigan v. Workingmen's, etc. Ass'n, 73 Md. 317: 1331, 1237. Madison, etc. P. R. Co. v. Reynolds, 8 Wis. 287: 796. Magneau v. Fremont, 30 Neb. 843: 13, 133, 139. Magown v. Illinois T. & S. Bank, 170U. S. 383: 437. Magruder v. Carroll, 4 Md. 335: 660, 709, 1330. V. State, 40 Ala. 347: 481. Mahomet v. Quackenbush, 117 U. S. 508: 222, 357. Mahoney v. State, 5 Wye. 530: 555. V. Wright, 10 Irish C. L. (N. S.) 430: 493, 539. Mahoon v. Greenfield, 53 Miss, 434: 979. Main v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 78 App. Div. 265: 518, 519. Main St., In re, 98 N. Y. 454: 788. Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 842: 145, 172. Malcolm v. Rogers, 5 Cow. 188: 1155. Maling v. Crummey, 5 Wash. 322: 222, 294. Mallan v. May, 13 M. & W. 511: 753. cxl TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 603-1315 Mallett V. Simpson, 94 N. C. 37: 950. Mallory v. Berry, 16 Kan. 293: 1097. V. Hiles, 4 Met. (Ky.) 58: 309. V. La Crosse Abattoir ■ Co., 80 Wis. 170: 1256. Malloy V. Commonwealth, 115 Pa. St. 25: 528. Malone v. Bosch, 104 Cal. 680: 468. V. Roy, 134 CaL 344: 1190,1210. Maloney v. Bruce, 94 Pa. St. 249: 1005. Malonny v. Mahar, I Mich. 26: 889. Maltby v. Cooper, Morris (Iowa) 59: 1282. Manchester v. People, 178 111. 285: 191, 287. Mandel v. Swan L. & C. Co., 154 111. 177: 23. Mandell v. Fogg, 182 Mass. 582: 21, 24. Mandere v. Bonsignore, 28 La. Ann. 415: 627. Manger v. Board of Examiners, 90 Md. 659, 688, 689. Mangun v. Webster, 7 Gill, 78: 867. Mangus v. McClelland, 93 Va. 786: 781. Manhardt v. 111. Staats Zeitung Co., 90 111. App. 315: 733. Manhattan Co. v. Kallenberg, 165 N. Y. 1: 694, 695, 707, 711, 988. Manhattan Life Ins, Co. v. Albro, 127 Fed. 281: 614 Manhattan B. E. Co., Matter of, 102 N. y. 301: 1141. Manhattan Trust Co. v. Davis, 23 Mont. 273: 1030. V. Sioux City Cable Ry. Co. 68 ' Fed. 83: 772. Manion v. Ohio Valley Ry. Co., 99 Ky. 504: 924, 936. Manistee & N. R. R. Co. v. Commis- sioner of Railroads, 118 Mich. 349: 1314 Mankin v. Penn. Co. (Ind.): 335. Manley v. Park, 187 U. S. 547: 40, 614. V. Raleigh, 4 Jones Eq. 370: 173. Manlove v. White, 8 Cal. 376: 457. Manly v. Downing, 15 Neb. 637: 1056. Mann v. McAtee, 37 CaL 11: 443, 643, 1328. Mansell v. Reg., 8 E. & B. Ill: 887, 895. Mansfield v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Wash. 665: 464. Mansfield's Case, 33 Pa. Supr. Ct. 334: 306, 415. Mansur-Tibbetts' Impl. Co. v. Wil- let, 10 Okl. 383: 618. Mantle v. Largey, 15 Mont. 116: 530, 537. Mantonya v. Emerich Outfitting Co., 172 III 92: 741. Manuel v. Manuel, 13 Ohio St. 458: 844, 852. Maple Lake v. Wright Co., 12 Minn. 403: 660, 666. Marblehead v. County Com'rs, 5 Gray, 451: 1044. Marchant v. Longworthy, 6 Hill, 646: 1139. Marcotte v. Fitzgerald, 45 Minn. 51: 1123. Marcy v. Howard, 91 Ala. 133: 23, 618. Mariner v. Dyer, 3 Ma 165: 947. Marion v. State, 16 Neb. 349, 1187. V. State, 20 Neb. 233 : 1175, 1 181. Marion Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 91 Ky. 388: 1330, 1336. Mark v. Russell, 40 Pa. St. 373: 337. Market Bank v. Pacific Bank, 37 Hun, 465: 880. Marks v. Trustees, 37 Ind. 161: 339. Marple v. Myers, 13 Pa. St. 122: 1005. TABLE OF OASES OITED. cxli The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. Marqueze v. Caldwell, 48 Miss. 33: 784 Marquis v. Chicago, 37 III. App, 351 : 815. Marquis of Chandos v. Com'rs, 6 Ex. 464: 998. Marr v. Enloe, 1 Yerg. 453: 17. Marrigault v. Ward, 133 Fed. 707: 126. Marriner v. Roper Co., 112 N. C. 164: 964. Marsh v. Chestnut, 14 111. 333: 1139. V. Hanley, HI Cal 368: 409,597, 598. V. Higgins, 9 C. R 551: 1160, 1234. V. Nelson, 101 Pa. St. 51: 1013. V. Supervisors, 42 Wis. 502: 1133. Marshall v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 16 Pa. Supr. Ct. 615: 470. V. Grimes, 41 Miss. 37: 92a V. Sherman, 148 N. Y. 9: 34 V. Vultee, 1 E. D. Smith, 394: 644, 1344. Marshalsea, Case of the, 10 Rep. 73a, 884. Marson v. Lund, 13 Q. B. 664: 1149. Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 267: 98. 243. V. Tryon, 108 Pa. St. 370: 986, 987. Martin, Ex parte, L. R. 4 Q. B. Div. 213: 945. Martin v. Archer, 3 Hill (S. C.) 311: 1378. V. Broach, 6 Ga, 21: 184, 305, 207. V. Election Com'rs, 126 Cal. 404: 661, 955. V. Ford, 5 T. R. 101: 963. V. Gleason, 139 Mass. 183: 689. T. Hemming, 18 Jur. 1002: 881. T. Hewitt, 44 Ala. 418: 223. V. Hughes, 67 N. C. 293: 1200. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304: 39, 708, 747, 887. T. Jennings, 10 La. Ann. 558: 637. V. Le Master, 63 Mo. App. 342: 1340. V. Martin, 51 Me. 366: 873. V. Martin, 1 Sm. & M. 176: 611. V. O'Brien, 34 Miss. 31: 709,731. V. People, 87 111. 534: l74 V. Robinson, 67 Tex. 368: 910. V. South Salem Land Co., 94 Va. 38: 135, 330, 1314. V. State, 33 Tex. 314: 641. V. State, 34 Tex. 61:931. V. Territory, 8 Okl. 41: 43. V. Tyler, 4 N. D. 378: 381. V. Waddell, 16 Pet. 411: 1020. Martindale v. Martindale, 10 Ind. 566: 443. Martinsville v. Frieze, 33 Ind. 507: 435, 440. Marvin v. Bates, 13 Mo. 317: 1279. Mary Blane, Steamer, v. Beehler, 13 Mo. 477: 338, 339. Mascowitz v. State, 49 Ark. 171: 1377. Maslin v. Hiett, 37 W. Va. 15: 1160, 1288. Mason v. Armitage, 13 Ves. 36: 654. V. Poom Co., 3 Wall. Jr. 252: 670. V. Commonwealth, 101 Ky. 397: 773. V. Cranberry, 68 N. J. L. 149: 61. V. Crosby, Da vies, 303: 1383. V. Finch, 3 111. 333: 659. V. Finch, 3 Scam. 333: 717, 718. V. Haile, 12 Wheat. 370: 1190, 1300. V. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co., 17 W. Va. 397: 539. V. Johnson, 34 111. 159: 1279. V. Mason's Widow, 13 La. 589: 611. cxiii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 60&-131B. Mason v. Mulholn, 6 Dana, 140: 634. V. Rogers, 4 Litt. 377: 693. V. Spencer, 35 Kan. 513: 401, 430. V. Wash, 1 la 16: 869. Massachusetts L. & T. Co. v. Hamil- ton, 88 Fed. 588: 707, 772, 884. Mass. Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Colo. L. & T. Co., 20 Colo. 1: 85, 95, 1318, 1388. Massenburg v. Bibb Co. ComTS, 96 Ga. 614, 891. Massey v. Dunlap, 146 Ind. 850: 767. Masterson v. Beasly, 3 Ohio, 301: 1096. Mastronada v. State, 60 Miss. 86: 550, 554. Matheson v. Eearin, 39 Ala. 210: 905. Mathews v. Densmore, 43 Mich. 461: 1049. V. People, 203 IlL 889: 425, 597, 599. V. Shores, 34 111. 37: 684, 889. Mathewson v. Ham, 31 R. L 303: 331. V. Phoenix Iron Foundry, 20 Fed. 381:573. Mathieson v. Harrod, L, R. 7 Bq. 370: 1143. Math is V. Jones, 84 Ga. 804: 341. V. State, 31 Fla. 291: 135, 560. Matthew v. Sands, 39 Ala. 136: 788. Matthews, Ex parte, 52 Ala, 51: 781, 930. Matthews, In re, 109 Fed. 603: 711, 731, 885. Matthews v. Ansley, 31 Ala. 20, 31, 610. V. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 989: 663, 712, 729, 813. V. Kimball, 70 Ark. 451: 834, 840. V. Murphy, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 750: 142. V. Phillips, 2 Salk. 434: 137a Matthews v. Sands, 39 Ala. 136: 1048. V. Skinker, 63 Mo. 339: 645, 1035. V. Zane, 7 "Wheat. 164: 308, 309. Matthewson v. Spencer, 3 Sneed, 513: 1230. Mattingly v. District of Columbia, 97 U. S. 687: 1237. Matti.son v. Hart, 14 C. B. 385: 793. Mattox V. Hightshue, 39 Cal. 95: 1143. V. Knox, 96 Ga. 403: 354, 408. V. State, 115 Ga. 213: 383, 603. Matz V. C. & A. R. R. Co., 85 Fed. 180: 614. Mauch V. Hartford, 113 Wis. 40: 560. Mauer v. Cliff, 94 Mich. 194: 769. Mauget V. Plummer, 21 Ky. L. R. 641: 527. Mauldin v. Greenville, 33 S. C. Ir 1030. Maule Coal Co. v. Parthenheimer, 155 Ind. 100: 134, 205, 316, 221, 339. MauU V. Vaughn, 45 Ala. 134: 1201. Mausur-Tebbetts Impl. Co. v. Wil- let, 10 Okl. 383: 33. Maxey v. Loyal, 38 Ga. 531: 1300. Maxwell v. Bay City, 46 Mich. 378r 1070. V. Collins, 8 Ind. 88: 665, 710, 730, 1103, 1103. V. Goetschius, 40 N. J. L. 383: 1217, 1218. V. People, 158 111. 348: 834, 835. V. State, 89 Ala. 150: 491. V. Stuart, 99 Tenn. 409: 518. V. Tillamook Co., 20 Ore. 495: 434. V. Wessels, 7 Wis. 103: 1136. May V. Anaconda, 36 Mont. 140t 1311. TABLE OF OASES CITED. cxliii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. May V. Great W. Ey. Co., L. E. 7 Q. B. 377: 703, 705. V. Jameson, 11 Ark. 368: 619. V. Rice, 91 Ind. 549: 114, 116, 117. Mayer, In re, 50 N. Y. 504: 308, 204, 221, 323. Mayer, Matter of, 50 N. Y. 507: 198. Mayer v. Soyster, 30 Md. 403: 1296. Mayers v. State, 7 Ark. 68: 554. Mayfield v, Elmore, 100 Ky. 417: 429. Maynard v, Marshall, 91 Ga. 840: 280, 1191. V. Valentine, 3 Wash. Ter. 3: 14 Mayne v. Board, 133 Ind. 132: 1235. Mayor, Ex parte, 116 Ala. 186: 299. Mayor, etc. v. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Gill, 288: 1038. V. Broadway, 97 N. Y. 275: 563. V. Central R. R etc. Co., 50 Ga. 620: 1002. V. Clunet, 23 Md. 469: 164 V. Davis, 6 W. & S. 269: 924 1019. V. Dearmon, 2 Sneed, 121 : 343, 357, 461, 518. V. Dechert, 32 Md. 369: 583. V. Finney, 54 Ga. 317: 173. V. Green Mount Gem., 7 Md. 517: 716. V. Groshen, 30 Md. 436: 517. V. Hiirtridge, 8 Ga. 23: 999: 1013. V. Harwood, 32 Md. 471: 609. V. Howard, 6 H. & J. 388: 636, 659, 709, 731, 845, 853. V. Jersey City, etc. R R. Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 360: 462. V. Lord, 17 Wend. 285: 644 1341. V. Lord, 18 Wend. 136: 1019, 1341. V. Macon, etc. R R Co., 7 Ga. 221: 532, 1021. Mayor, etc. v. Magruder, 34 Md. 381 : 675. V. Marriott, 9 Md. 160: 1150. V. Minor, 70 Ga. 191: 537. V. Moore, 6 R & J. 381: 657, 912. V. Ohio, etc. E. R. Co., 26 Pa. St. 355: 1031. T. Queen, 13 Q. B. 33: 471. V. Reitz, 50 Md. 575: 231. V. Root, 8 Md. 95: 663, 914 1075, 1077, 1102. V. Sands, 105 N. Y. 210: 943. V. State, 4 Ga. 36: 184 204 V. State, 15 Md. 376: 935, 937. V. State, 30 Md. 113: 185, 553, 554 V. Trigg, 46 Mo. 288: 431, 432. Mayrhofer v. Board of Education, 89 CaL 110: 953, 1257. Mays V. Cincinnati, 1 Ohio St. 368: 1009, 1011, 1033. May's Heirs v. Frazee, 4 Litt. 393: 637. Maysville, etc, R R Co. v. Her- rick, 13 Bush, 133: 795. Maysville & Lexington T. Road Co. V. Wiggins, 104 Ky. 540: 360, McAfee v. Southern R E. Co., 36 Miss. 669: 463, 496. McAllister v. Armstrong Co., 6 Pa. Dist Ct. 766: 500. V. Hamlin, 83 Cal. 361: 45a MoAnnioh v. Miss. & M. R R Co., 20 Iowa, 338: 398, 412. McArdle v. Jersey City, 66 N. J. L. 590: 379, 380, 390, 577. MoArthur v. Nelson, 81 Ky. 67: 221. V. St. Louis Piano Co., 85 Mo. App. 525: 1311. McAskie's Appeal, 154 Pa, St. 24: 955. McAurich v. R. R. Ca, 20 Iowa, 343: 376. cxliv TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol, n, pp. 005-1315. MoBee v. Hoke, 2 Speers, 138: 1118. MoBride's Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 480: 754 McBrown v. Scottish Invest. Ca, 153 U. S. 818: 1197. McCabe v. Carpenter, 102 CaL 469: 157. V. Emerson, 18 Pa. St 111: 19. V. Kenney, 52 Hun, 514: 352. MoCalla v. Bane, 45 Fed.- 838: 340. McCallie v. Chattanooga, 8 Head. 331: 357. MoCalment v. State, 77 Ind. 350: 558. MoCann v. Mortgage Bank & In- vest. Co., 3 N. D. 172: 557. V. New York, 53 App. Div. 358: 558, 1317. V. State, 18 S. & M. 471: 481. McCardle, Ex parte, 7 Wall. 506: 553, 938, 935, 1169, 1333. MoCarter v. Orphan Asylum Soo., 9 Cow. 437: 858, 919. McCarthy v. Commonwealth, 110 Pa, St. 243: 403, 403. V. McCarthy, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195 : 464, 465, 467, 573. V.Wells, 51 Hun, 171: 1365, 1369. MoCarver v. Herzberg, 130 Ala. 533: 115, 638, 1027. V. Jenkins, 3 Heisk. 639: 1118. McCaslin v. State, 44 Ind. 151: 305, 331, 363. McCay's Appeal, 87 Pa. St. 135: 1354. McChesney v. Chicago, 159 111.338: 321, 372. McClain v. Williams, 10 S. D. 336: 1222. V. Williams, 11 S. D. 60: 415. McClay v. Lincoln, 33 Neb. 412: 391. V. Worrall, 18 Neb. 44: 1266: 1368. McCleary v. Alleghany Co., 163 Pa. St. 578: 539. McClellan v. Hein, 66 Neb. 600: 1268. V. Powell, 109 III App. 233: 1258, 1360. McClelland v. Hammond, 12 Colo, App. 83: 573. McCless V. Meekins, 117 N. C. 84: 579. McCloskey v. McConnell, 9 Watts, 17: 914. McCluny v. Silliman, 8 Pet. 270: 1017. McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 601: 695, 698, 699. MoCollister v. Bishop, 78 Minn. 338: 803. McComb V. Gilkey,39 Miss. 146: 636. McComraons v. English, 100 Ga. 658: 300. McConky v. Superior Ct., 56 CaL 83: 757. MoConnaughy v. Pennoyer, 43 Fed. 196: 1190. MoConnell's Estate, 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 120: 465. MoCook v. State, 91 Ga. 740: 380. MoCool v. Smith, 1 Black, 459: 463, 494, 511, 710, 711, 748, 757, 864, 958, 1169. V. State, 7 Ind. 379: 317. MoCord V. Sullivan, 85 Minn. 344: 1187, 1188, 1224, 1286. MoCormaok v. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. Co., 9 Ind. 283: 638, 917. McCormick v. Alexander, 3 Ohio, 74: 644, 1076. V. Eliot, 43 Fed. 469: 1160, 1388. V. People, 139 111. 499: 534. V. SuUivant, 10 Wheat. 193: 617. V. West Duluth, 47 Minn. 373: 135, 872, 669, 694, 707, 789, 79& TABLE OF OASES OITBD. cxlv Xhe references are to the pages: YoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1316. McCormick Harvesting Machine Ca V. Mills, 64 Neb. 166: 964 MoCornick V. Thatolier,8Utali, 394 464 McCorry v. King, 3 Humpii. 267 609. MoCowan v. Davidson, 43 Ga. 480 1170, 1174 McCowin's Appeal, 165 Pa. St. 283 930. McCraoken v. Hayward, 2 Hovr. 608: 648, 1190, 1203. V. State,, 71 Md. 150: 537. MoCraney v. MoCraney, 5 Iowa, 233: 1326. McCrea v. Roberts, 89 Md. 338: 9. V. Russell, 100 Mich. 375: 1261. McCready v. Sexton, 39 Iowa, 356: 585. MoCreery v. Cobb, 93 Mich, 463: 499. McCuen v. State, 19 Ark. 634: 558. McCullooh v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316: 631, 888, 997, 1194 V. State, 11 Ind. 424: 85, 935. McCullough V. Virginia, 172 U. S. 103: 585, 953. MoCully V. State, 103 Tenn. 509: 133, 137, 138. MoCutcheon v. Pacific R. R. Co., 72 Mo. App. 271:815,828,999. V. People, 69 111. 601: 1376. MoDade v. People, 39 Mich. 50: 819, 1363, . McDaniel v, Webster, 3 Houst 305: 1200. McDaniels v. Connelly, 30 Wash. 549: 430. McDeed v. McDeed, 67 111. 545: 610, 633. MoDermott v. Nassau Electric R. R. Ca, 85 Hun. 433: 440. McDermut v. Lorillard, 1 Edw. Ch, 273: 674 McDonald v. Berry, 90 Ala. 464: 1191. V. Commonwealth, 178 Mass. 333: 1185. V. Connif, 99 CaL 386: 428. V. Kirby, 3 Heisk. 607: 880. v. McDonald, 96 Ky. 209: 1393. V. Mont. Wood Co., 14 Mont. 88: 646, 964 979, 987. V. Myles, 12 Sm. & M. 279: 611, 612. V. New York, etc. R R. Co., 33 R. I. 558: 470. V. State, 80 Wis. 407: 73, 100, 136, 605. McDonnell v. De SotoL. & B. Ass'n, 175 Mo. 350: 135. McDonnough Co. v. Thomas, 84 111. AppL 408: 530, 536. McDonough, In re, 49 Fed. 360: 973. McDonough's Election, In re, 105 Pa. St. 488: 1143. McDougal V. Hennepin Co., 4 Minn. 184: 1103. McDougald v. Dougherty, 14 Ga. 674: 667, 848. McDuffie v. State, 87 Ga. 687: 653. McEldowney v. Wyatt, 44 W. Va. 711: 310, 346, 480. MoElviree v. McElwee, 97 Tenn. 649: 10, 304 MoEvoy V. Humphrey, 77 111. 388: 1266. McEwen v. Dew, 34 How. 343: 443, 641. V. Montgomery Ins. Co., 5 Hill, 104: 1305. MoFadden v. Blocker, 2 Ind. T. 260: 1335. V. Evans-Snider-Buel Co., 185 U. S 505: 1335, 1363. McFarland v. Bank of State, 4 Ark. 410: 845. V. Burton, 89 Ky. 294: 1235. cxlvi TABLE OF CASES CITED, The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1815. McFarland v. Butler, 8 Minn. 116: 1206. V. Donaldson, llo Ga. 567: 176, 306. V. Stone, 17 Vt. 173: 910. McFate's Appeal, 105 Pa. St. 323: 854. MoFerren v. Umatilla- Co., 27 Ore. 311: 1019. MoGann v. People, 194 111. 526: 781. V. People, 97 111. App. 587: 703. McGavick v. State, 34 N. J. L. 509: 533, C79. McGee v. McGann, 69 Me. 79: 1262. V. McGee, 10 Ga. 477: 944. McGeehan v. Burke, 37 La. Ann. 156: 443. MoGill V. State, 34 Ohio St. 239: 348, 349, 355, 363. MoGillen v. Wolff, 83 III App. 227: 468. McGinn v. State, 46 Neb. 427: 315, 955. McGinnis v. Mo. Car & F. Co., 174 Mo. 225: 1311. V. Eagsdale, 116 Ga. 345: 424, 50a V. State, 24 Ind. 500:872. MoGivney v. Pierce, 87 Cal. 124: 475. McGlade's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 338: 1019. McGIasson v. Johnson, 86 Iowa, 477: 1179. MoGovern v. Hope, 63 N. J. L. 76: 284. McGowan v. McDonald, 111 Cal. 57: 578, 602, 1195. V. Met. Life Ins. Co., 57 N. J. L. 390: 909. V. Met. Life Ins. Co., 60 N. J. L. 198: 909. V. State, 9 Yerg. 184: 1065. MoGrath v. State, 46 Md. 633: 185, 201, 202, 223. McGrath v. St. Louis, etc. E. R, Co., 128 Mo. 1: 778. McGraw v. County Cora'rs., 89 Ala. 407: 157. V. Walker, 2 Hilt. 404: 333, McGrew v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 87 Mo. App. 250: 857. McGruder v. State, 83 Ga. 616: 205, 292, 527. McGuire v. Evans, 5 Ired. Eq. 269: 669. V. State, 76 Miss. 504:1189. MoGunnegle v. Allegheny Co., 163 Pa. St. 589: 539. McGurn v. Board of Education, 133 111. 133: 191, 373. MoHenry's Petition, 6 Pa. Supr. Ct. 464: 470. Mclnery v. Galveston, 58 Tex. 334: 693. Mclniffe v. Wheelock, 1 Gray, 600: 336. Mclntire v. Western N. C. E. R. Co., 67 N. C. 378: 1056. Mcintosh V. Johnson, 51 Nev. 33: 644, 1076, 1159. V. Lee, 57 Iowa, 356: 876. Molnturf v. State, 20 Tex. App. 335: 1186. Mclntyre v. Ingraham, 35 Miss. 25: 711, 717, 723, 824, 833, 844, 884. V. Marine, 93 Ind. 193: 435. Mclver V. Kagan, 2 Wheat. 29: 1282. Y. State, 34 Tex. Crim. Rep. 314: 741. McKay v. Fairhaven & W. R Co., 75 Conn. 608: 703. V. Trainer, 153 Pa. St. 242: 384. McKean v. Archer, 52 Fed. 791: 430. V. Wolf, 75 111. App. 325: 815. McKechnie Brewing Co. v. Canan- daigua, 15 App. Div. 139:703. TABLE OF CASES CITED. cxlvii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. McKee v. McKee, 17 Md. 352: 758, 759, 781. V. United States, 164 U. S. 287: 694, 718, 722. McKee Land & Imp. Co. v. Swike- hard, 23 Misc. 21: 570, 797, 800. V. Williams, 63 App. Div. 553: 570, 797, 800. McKeen v. Delanoy, 5 Crancb, 23: 616,892,893,902. McKenna v. Edmundstone, 91 N. Y. 231: 538. McKennie v. Gorman, 68 Ala. 443: 86. MoKennon v. State, 42 Tex. Crim. Rep. 371: 1175. V. Winn, 1 Okl. 327: 31. McEenzie v. State 11 Ark. 594: 931. V. Wardwell, 61 Me. 136: 618. McKeon v. Summer, B. & S. Co., 51 La. Ann. 1961: 208, 301. McKineron v. Bliss, 31 Barb. 180: 31, 610. McKinney v. Memphis Overton Ho- tel Co. 13 Heisk. 104: 357. McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206: 627, 872. V. Cotner,30Ore.588: 73,84,85, 86, 87. McKinzie v. Moore, 92 Ky. 316: 109. McKisson v. Davenport, 83 Mich. 311, 1283, 1284, 1388. McKune v. Weller, 11 CaL 49: 1114, 1139. MoKuskie v. Hendrickson, 128 N. Y. 555: 1110. ilcLain v. Mayor, eta 3 Daly 32: 625. V. New York, 3 Daly, 33: 63D. McLaren v. Byrnes, 80 Mich. 375: 1258. McLarney, Matter of, 90 Hun, 361: 736. McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Ore. 31: 508, 636, 845. V. Menotti, 105 Cal. 573: 123. v. Page, 14 Daly, 374, 528. V. State, 66 Ind. 193: 1136. McLaughlin's Estate, In re, 4"Wash. 570, 931. McLean Co. v. Bloomingion, 106 111. 209: 1003. MoLellan v. Young, 54 Ga. 399: 1103. McLelland v. Shaw, 15 Tex. 319: 665, 911. MoLeod V. Burroughs, 9 Ga. 313: 19, 31, 764, 1032. V. Scott, 21 Ore. 94: 1154, McLoughlin v. Raphael Tuck Co. 191U. S. 267: 22,964. M'Cluny v. Silliman, 8 Pet. 370: 615. McMahon v. Hodge, 3 Misc. 334: 1058, 1354. V. Mayor, 38 N. Y. 647: 1303. MoManning v. Farrar, 46 Mo. 376: 641. McMannis v. Butler, 49 Barb. 176: 1159, 1163. McManus v. Duluth, etc. R, R. Co., 51 Minn. 30: 1030. V. Gavin, 77 N. Y. 36: 1059. McMaster v. Advance Thresher Co., 10 Wash. 147: 250, 519. V. Lomax, 3 Myl. & K. 33: 882. McMasters v. Burnett, 93 Ky. 358: 964. McMechen v. Mayor, etc., 3 H. & J. 41: 547. v. McMechen, 17 W. Va. 683: 1059. McMicken v. Commonwealth, 58 Pa. St. 318: 759, 778. McMillan v. Bellows, 37 Hun, 314: 563. McMinn v. Whelan, 27 Cal. 300: 1048. cxlviii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol It, pp. 605-1815. McHorran v. Ladies of the Macca- bees, 117 Mich. 398: 199, 349. McMuUen v. Guest, 6 Tex. 378: 443, 561. McNabb v. Tonioa, 103 111. App. 156: 552. McNally v. Field, 119 Fed. 445: 999. McNamar v. Schwaniger, 106 Ky. 1: 1326. McNamara v. Minn. Cent. Ey, Co., 18 Mii,n. 388: 643, 778, 1226. McNary v. Blackburn, 180 Mass. 141: 1263. McNaughton v. Martin, 73 Mich. 276: 1159, 1166. V. Ticknor, 113 Wis. 555: 1160, 1161. MoNear v. Wabash Ry. Co., 43 Ma App. 14: 987. McNeely v. Woodruff, 13 N. J. L. 352: 513. McNeil V. CoUinson, 130 Mass. 167: 1263. V. Commonwealth, 12 Bush, 727: 107, 457. McNichol V. Pacific Exp. Co., 12 Mo. App. 401: 868. V. Spence, 83 Me. 87: 1161. MoNiel, Ex parte, 13 Wall. 236: 613. McNiel V. Holbrook, 12 Pet. 84: 613. McNulta V. Lockridge, 137 111. 270: 1076. McNulty, Ex parte, 77 Cal. 164: 151, 437, 965, 966. MoNulty V. Batty, 10 How. 27: 553. McPhail V. Gerry, 55 Vt. 174: 690. McPherson v. Blocker, 93 Mich. 377: 141, 199, 378. V.Leonard, 29 Md. 377: 116, 117, 119. McQueen v. Middletown, .eta Co., 16 John. 5: 645. McQuesten v. Morrell, 13 Wash. 3:i5: l':83, 1285. MoRae v. Holcomb, 46 Ark. 306: 671, 675. V. Mattoon, 13 Pick. 58: 630. McRee v. M'Lemore, 8 Heisk. 440: 551. MoRoberts v. Lyon, 79 Mich. 35: 860, 861, 1060. V. Washburne, 10 Minn. 23: 459, 488, 918. MoTigue V. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 66: 292, 538. McVey v. McVey, 51 Mo. 406: 527. MoWetby v. Aurora Elec. L. & P. Co., 203 111. 318: 1158,1164 MoWhorter v. Donald, 39 Miss. 779: 1050, 1061. McWilliara v. Adams, 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 120: 630, 845, 853. Mead v. Bagnall, 15 Wis. 156: 308,. 317, 543. V. Stratton, 87 N. Y. 498: 1268. Meade v. Deputy Marshal, 1 Brock. 33-1: 664. y. French, 4 Wash. 11: 529,537. Meadowcroft v. People, 163 111. 56: 981. V. Winnebago Co., 181 III. 504: 757. Meagher v. Drury, 89 Iowa, 366: 557. Mealey v. Hagerstown, 92 Md. 741: 271. Mears v. Dexter, 86 Va. 828: 1133. V. Stewart, 31 Ark. 17: 520. Mecartney v. People, 202 III 51: 1163. Mecham v. McKay, 37 Cal. 154: 1051. Mechanics, etc. Bank's Appeal, 31 Conn. 63: 673. Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank, 31 Conn. 63: 549. Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v.. Bridges, 30 N. J. L. 113: 533. TABLE OF OASES CITED. cxlix The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; VoL n, pp. 605-1315i Mechanics' & Traders' L. & B. Ass'n V, People, 72 111. App. 160: 706, 955. Medbury v. Watson, 6 Met. 246: 1263. Medford v. Learned, 16 Mass. 215: 641. Medical College v. Muldoon, 46 Ala. 603: 443, 448. Medley, In re, 134 U. S. 160: 1175. Meeks v. Vassault, 8 Saw. 206: 1380. Meer v. Board of Com'rs, 26Jnd. App. 85: 444. Mefifert v. Medical Board, 66 Kan. 710: 11, 1179. Meidel v. An this, 71 111. 241: 1265. Mellor V. Pittsburgh, 201 Pa St. 397: 470. Melody v. Eeab, 4 Mass. 471 : 473, 862, 959, 1013, 1061. Memphis v. Am. Express Co., 103 Tenn. 336:305, 504. V. Bing, 94 Tenn. 644: 790, 999. V. Carrington. 91 Tenn. 511 : 504. V. Fisher, 9 Baxt. 239: 343, 357. V. Laskie, 9 Heisk. 511: 1102. V. MemphisCity Bank, 91 Tenn. 574: 1002, 1038. V, Memphis Sav. Bank, 99 Tenn. 104: 464. Memphis F. Go. v. Mayor,4Cold.419: 72. Memphis Land & Timber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District, 64 Ark. 258: 1133. Mendon v. Worcester Co., 10 Pick. 335: 659, 853, 913. Menges v. Dentler, 83 Pa. St. 495: 1233. V. Frick, 73 Pa. St. 137: 328, 333. Meraoh v. Down, 64 Wis. 323: 73, 74, 87. Merced Co. v. Helm, 103 Cal. 159: 909. Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. 450: 956. V. Ogilvy, 3 Patton, 434: 329, 331. V. State, 17 Ga. 146: 642, Merchant v. Marshfleld, 35 Ore. 55 : 1154. Merchants' Bank, In re, 3 La. Ann. 68: 316. Merchants' Bank v. Ballon, 98 Va. 112: 1219. V. Bliss, 18 Abb. Pr. 335: 986. V. Cook, 4 Pick. 405: 753, 958. Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541: 553. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Braith- waite, 7 N. D. 858: 1283, 1387. Meredith v. Chancey, 59 Ind. 466: 334. V. Perth Amboy, 60 N. J. L^ 134: 360. Meriam v. Harsen, 2 Barb. Ch. 370: 899. Meriwether v. Love, -167 Mo. 514 r 569. Merriam, In re, 84 N. Y. 596: 114L Merriam v. Moody's Ex'rs, 35 Iowa, 163: 1033. Merrick v. Kennedy, 46 Neb. 364: 1306. Merrifleld v. Bobbins, 8 Gray, 150r 620. Merrill v. Croasman, 68 Me. 412: 845. V. Dawson, Hempst. 563: 613, 865. V. Melchior, 30 Miss. 516: 964. V. Sherburne, 1 N. a 303: 14, 31, 548, 640. Merriman v. Great No. Exp. Co., 63 Minn. 543: 464. V. Peck, 95 Mich. 277: 1123. V. Peck, 96 Mich. 603: 469. Merritt v. Covey, 82 Wash. 444: 304. cl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. Merritt v. Knife Falls B. Corp., 34 Minn. 345: 342, 418. V. Wliitlook, 200 Pa. St. 50: 303. Mersereau v. Mersereau Co., 51 N. J. Eq. 883: 518. Mersey Steel & Ir. Co. v. Naylor, L. R. 9 Q. B. Div. 648: 911. Merwin v. Ballard, 66 N. C. 398: 643, 1228. V. Board of Com'rs, 39 Colo. 169: 800, 674. V. Chicago, 45 111. 138: 1103. Meshke v. Van Doren, 16 Wis. 319: 634. 633. Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 482: 145, 579, 596, 600. Metcalf V. State, 49 Ohio St 586: 488. Metropolitan Asylum Dist. v. Hill, L. R. 6 App. Cas. 208: 911. Metropolitan Board of Health v. Schmades, 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 305: 811, 541, 548. Metropolitan Board of Works v. Steed, L. R. 8 -Q. B. D. 447: 665, 756. Metropolitan Dist. Ry. Co. v. Sharpe, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 481: 663. Metropolitan G. L. Co., Matter of, 85 N. Y. 537: 577. Mette V. Feltgen, 148 UL 357: 543, 685. Meul V. People, 198 HI. 358: 317, 394. Mewherter v. Price, 11 Ind. 199: 303, 253, 255, 281. Mew, In re, 81 L. J. Bankruptcy, 89: 883. Mewster v. Spalding, 6 McLean, 34: 618. Mexican Nat. Ry. Co. v. Jackson, 118 Fed. 549: 193, 250. V. Musette, 86 Tex. 708: 1200. Meyer v. Kalkmann, 6 Cal. 582: 1058. V. Meyer, 33 Iowa, 875: 1099. Meyers v. Kirt, 57 Iowa, 431: 1362. Miami Co. Com'rs v. Hiner, 54 Kan. 334: 315. Michel V. Michel, 5 Madd. 73: 883. Miohell V. Brown. 1 K & E. 367: 481, 483, 484, 486. Michigan State Bank v. Hastings, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 227: 1193. Michigan Trust Co. v. Libby, 137 Mich. 45: 1167. Micklethwait, In re, 11 Ex. 452: 999. Middleboro v. New South Brewing, etc. Co., 108 Ky. 351: 1008, 1007. Middleton v. New Jersey, etc. Co., • 26 N. J. Eq. 269: 448, 445, 561. Middletown, Matter of, 83 N. Y. 196: 582. Middletown v. Sage, 8 Conn. 231 : 1039. Middletown Road, 15 Pa. Supr. Ct. 167: 303, 363. Midland Ry. Co. v, Ambergate Ry. Co., 10 Hare, 869: 687, 1066. V. Pye, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 191: 1070. Miesen v. Canfield, 64 Minn. 518: 72, 77, 90. Migneault v. Malo, L. R. 4 P. C. 133: 892, 893. Milburn v. State, 1 Md. 17: 663, 693, 729, 1077. Miles V. Benton Tp., 11 S. D. 450: 303. V. Commonwealth, 16 Ky. L R 92: 557. V. McDermott, 31 Cal. 273: 385. V. State, 40 Ala. 39: 481, ^84. V. Utah, S3 Utah, 55: 703. V. Wells, 33 Utah, 55: 1153, 1154. V. Williams, 1 P. Wms. 349: 863. TABLE OF OASES CITED. cli The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Miles V. Woodward, 115 Cal. 308: 428. Milford V. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48: 939. Miller, Matter of, 47 Hun, 394: 1159, 1166. Miller, Matter of, 110 N. Y. 216: 1159, 1166. Miller v. Avery, 2 Barb. Ch. 583: 869. V. Berry, 101 Ala. 531: 453. V. Board of Supervisors, 68 Miss. 88: 1015. V. Camden, 64 N. J. L. 201: 429. V. Craig, 11 N. J. Eq. 175: 1019. V. Curry, 113 Cal. 644: 539. V. Davis, 106 Mich. 300: 1170. V. Edwards, 8 Colo. 528: 458, 469. V. Fiery, 8 Gill, 147: 19. V. Goodwin, 70 111. 659: 73. V. Graham, 17 Ohio St. 1: 643: 1238. V. Grandy, 18 Mich. 540: 1095. V, Hageman, 114 Iowa, 195: 545, 1216. V. Hixon,64 0hio St. 89: 1171. V. Hurford, 11 Neb. 377: 107. V. Kirkpatriok, 39 Pa. St. 236 938. V. Maujer, 83 App. Div. 419 713,743,914. V. McKeon, 15 App. Div. 133 444. v. MoQuerry, 5 McLean, 469 865. V. Meroier, 3 Mart (N. S.) 336 523. v. Miller, 16 Mass. 59: 643. V. Miller,,44 Pa. St. 170: 931. V. Moore, 1 E. D. Smith, 739: 642, 1300. V. Preston, 4 N. M. 396: 1137. V. Reynolds, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 605: 1158, Miller v. Ruble, 107 Pa. St. 395: 1142. V.Salomons, 7 Ex. 560: 630,701, 703, 704. 705, 730, 794 r. State, 83 Miss. 356: 463. V. State, 3 Ohio St. 475: 84, 85, 93, 96, 188. V. Tod, 95 Tex. 404: 1038. V. Toledo Grain & Milling Co., 31 Ohio C. C. 335: 964 V. United States, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 6: 766. V. Went worth, 83 Pa. St. 280: 1142. Millered v. R. R. Co., 9 How. Pr. 338: 863. Millers Case, 1 W. Black. 451: 653,. 554 Mills V. Charleston, 60 S. C. 1: 1161. V. Charleton, 29 Wis. 400: 233. V. Detroit, 95 Mich. 433: 1145. V. La Verne Land Co., 97 Cal. 354: 1109, 1254 V. Sanderson, 68 Ark. 130: 530, 537. V. Scott, L. R. 8 Q. B. 496: 940. V. St. Clair Co., 8 How. 581: 1020, 1021. V. Thurston Co., 16 Wash. 378: 994 , V. Wilkins, S Mod. 62: 630, 648. V. Williams, 11 Ired. L. 55Sr 1028, 119,3. Mills Co. V. Brown Co., 87 Tex. 475: 374 Millvale v. Evergreen Ry. Co., 131 Pa. St. 1: 332. Milne V. Huber, 8 McLean, 313 : 564. Milton V. Swift, 40 Iowa, 78: 643. Milwaukee Co. v. Isenring, 109 Wis. 9: 73, 100, 379, 354 407. Milwaukee, etc. R R. Co. v. Fari- bault, 23 Minn. 167: 1044 V. Milwaukee, 34 Wis. 271: 1003. Mims V. Swartz, 87 Tex. 13: 865. clii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Miner v. Clark, 15 Wend. 425: 1305. V. Justice's Ct., 121 Cal 264: 415. Miners' Bank v. United States, 1 Greene (Iowa), 553: 1031, 1198. Minet v. Leman, 20 Beav. 269: 910, 931, 1072. Minis V. United States, 15 Pet 445: 663, 671. Minneapolis Brewing Co. v. Mo- Gellivray, 104 Fed. 258: 176. Minneapolis Co. of Co. v. William- son, 51 Minn. 58: 703. Minneapolis Gas Light Co. v. Min- neapolis, 86 Minn. 159: 1030. Minneapolis & N. EL Co. v. Traill Co., 9 N. D. 213: 429. Minneapolis & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Beckwith, 129 U. S. 26: 414. V. Herrick, 127 U. S. 210: 417. Minnehaha Co. v. Champion, 5 Dak. 433: 464. V. Thorne, 6 S. D. 449: 404, 406. Minnesota & Mont. L. & J. Co. v, Billings, 111 Fed. 972: 436, 1030. Minor v. Card well, 37 Mo. 850: 28, 25. V. Marshall, 6 N. M. 194: 1058, 1254, 1255.. V. Mechanics' Bank, 1 Pet. 46: 739, 1146, 1154. Minot V. Winthrop, 162 Mass. 113: 763. Mintner v. Bradstreet Co., 174 Mo. 444: 1159. Mintum v. Larue, 28 How. 435: 1010, 1033, 1083. Mintzer v. Schilling, 117 Cal. 361: 391. Mirehouse v. Eennell, 1 Ci. & F. 546: 703, 705. Misch V. Russell, 136 III. 23: 815, 828, 835. Mississippi, etc. Co. v. Prince, 10 Am. & Eng. C. Cas. 891: 186, 252. V. Prince, 34 Minn. 71: 201, 203. V. Prince, 34 Minn. 79: 581. Mississippi Riv. & B. T. Ey. Co. v. Jones, 54 Mo. App. 529: 937. Missouri, etc. R. R Co. v. K P. R. R. Co., 97 U.S. 491: 1026. V. McGlamory, 92 Tex. 150: 315. V. Simonson, 64 Kan. 802: 6, 10, 578. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Douglas, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 32: 888. V. Harrelson, 44 Kan. 253: 260. V. Humes, 115 U. S. 513: 414. V. Lee, 70 Tex. 496: 1293. V. Maokey, 137 U. S. 203: 417. V. Park, 66 Kan. 348: 490. Mitchel V. United States, 9 Pet. 711: 84. Mitchell V. Blanchard, 72 Vt. 85: 752: 764. V. Campbell, 19 Ore. 198: 72, 131. V. Colo. M. & E. Co., 13 Cola App. 277:. 198. V. Doggett, 1 Fla. 856: 547. V. Duncan, 7 Fla. 13: 484, 498, 686, 845, 854, 1057, 1149. V. Halsey, 15 Wend. 241: 521. V. Lasseter, 114 Ga. 275: 658. V. Maxwell, 2 Fla, 594: 942. V. Mitchell, 1 Gill. 66: 644, 1248, 1251. V. Mitchell, 5 Modd. 73: 728, V. Rockland, 45 Me. 496: 1014. V. State, 134 Ala 393: 153, 325, 349. V. Tucker, 10 Mo. 262: 34. V. Union Electric Co., 70 N. H. 569: 1033. V. Wells. 37 Miss. 235: 617. V. Winkek, 117Cal. 520: 18,133. TABLE OF OASES CITED. oliii The references are to the pages: Vol. I ,pp. 1-603: Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. Mitchell V. Witt, 98 Va. 459: 845. V. Woodson, 37 Miss. 567: 337. Mitford V. Elliott, 8 Taunt. 13: 683. Mixer v. Sibley, 53 111. 61: 1016. Mobile V. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co., 134 Ala. 133: 258. V. Rowland, 26 Ala. 498: 1103. V. Watson, 116 U. S. 305: 1313. Mobile, etc. R. R. Co. v. Com'rs Ct., 97 Ala. 105: 339. V. Malone, 46 Ala. 391: 845. V. State, 39 Ala. 573: 308, 577. V. Thompson, 101 Tenn. 197: 741, 1313. V. Whitney, 89 Ala. 471: Sa Mobile Sav. Bank v. Patty, 16 Fed. 751: 54a Mobile Trans. Co. v. Mobile, 138 Ala. 335: 185, 203, 311, 299. Modawell V. Holnnes, 40 Ala. 391: 880. Modern Woodmen v. Wieland, 109 III. App. 840: 1161, 1170. Modoc Co, V. Spencer, 103 Cal. 498: 1038. Moeller v. Harvey, 16 Phila. 66: 804. Moers v. Reading, 21 Pa. St. 189: 170. Mohawk Bridge Co. v. Utioa, etc. R. R Co: 6 Paige, 554: 548. JVIohawk, etc. R. R. Co., Matter of, 19 Wend. 143: 1139. Mohrman v. State, 105 Ga, 709: 97a MoHie Gibson Consol. Min. & Mil. Co. v. Sharp, 23 Colo. 259: 211. V. Sharp, 5 Colo. App. 331 : 300. Monaghan v. State, 66 Miss. 513: 1277. Monat Lumber Co. v. Gilpin, 4 Colo. App. 534: 730. Monck V. Hilton, 3 Ex. Div. 368: 711. Monet V. Jones, 10 S. & M. 237: 457. Monett V. Beaty, 79 Ma App. 815: 1159, 1164. Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. 613: 19, 457, 463, 48a 484, 558, 561, 66a 681. Monk v. Jenkins, 2 Hill's Ch. 13: 1049, 1135. Mon Luck, Ex parte, 29 Ore. 421: 30a Monroe v. Douglass, 5 N. Y. 447: 612, 869. V. Paddock, 75 Ind. 483: 331. Monroe Co. v. McDaniel, 68 Miss. 203: 516. Monroe Co. Com'rs v. May, 67 Ind. 563: 872. Monson v. Chester, 23 Pick. 385: 1014, 1059. Montague v. Smith, 17 Q. B. 688: 77a V. State, 54 Md. 481: 633. Montana O. P. Co. v. Lindsay, 25 Mont. 24: 1154 Montolair v. New York, etc. Ry. Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 436: 43a 1195. V. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147: 19a 194, 301, 204. Montel V. Consolidated Coal Co., 39 Md. 164: 517. Montford v. Allen, 111 Ga. 18: 527. Montgomery v. Board of Education, 71 Ga. 41:465. V. Commonwealth, 83 111. 267: 402. V. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. St. 125: 401, 40a V. Deeley, 3 Wis. 709: 867. V. Hobson, Meigs, 437: 1330, 1331. V. Kasson, 16 Cal. 189: 1192. V. Plank R. Co., 31 Ala. 76: 627. V. State, 88 Ala. 141:377. V. State, 107 Ala. 373: 433. V. State, 2 Tex. App. 618: 555. Montgomery B. B. Works v. Gaston, 126 Ala. 425: 75, 80, 87. cliv TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1315. Montgomery Co. Com'rs v. Glass, 4 Kan. App. 286: 315, 749. Montgomery Co. Fiscal Ct. v. Trim- ble, 104 Ky. 629: 1301. Montgomery M. B. & L Ass'n v. Robinson, 09 Ala. 413: 185, 188, 190, 199, 204, 221. Montoursville Overseers v. Fair- field Overseers, 112 Pa. St. 99: 1142. Montpelier v. Senter, 72 Vt. 113: 11&7, 1160, Ilea Montrose Peerage, 1 Maoq. H. L. 0. 401: 63Q, 748. Montvllle v. Haughton, 7 Conn. 543: 935, 1134. Mooar v. Covington City Nat. Bank, SOKy. 305: 329. Moody V. Seaman, 46 Mich, 74: 444, 564. V. State, 48 Ala. 115: 53, 71, 78, 87, 605, 867, 881, 882. V. Threlkeld, 13 Ga. 55: 1075. Mooers v. Bunker, 29 N. H. 420: 930. Moog v. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597: 52, 71, 78, 87, 634, 893. Moon V. Durden, 3 Ex. 23: 641, 1162, 1170. Mooney v. Union Pao. R. R. Co., 60 Iowa, 346: 28. Moore, Ex parte, 63 Ala, 471: 201, 253, 581. Moore, In re, 81 Fed. 356: 240. Moore v. Beaman, HI N. C. 328: 1191. V. Brown, 11 How. (U. S.) 414: 1135. V. Burdett, 62 N. J. L. 163: 306. V. Chicago G. F. L. Soc, 178 IlL 202: 1158. V. Cooley, 3 Hill, 412: 1055. V. Gwynn, 5 Ired. 187: 633. V. Indianapolis, 120 Ind. 483: 1111. Moore v. Kenockee, 75 Mich. 333: 445. V. Luce, 29 Pa. St. 260: 1318. V. Mausert, 49 N. Y. 833: 443, 443, 459. V. Maxwell, 18 Ark. 469: 626. V. MoCIief, 16 Ohio St. 51: 1056. V. Minneapolis, 43 Minn, 418: 467, 527, 529. V. Moore, 23 Pa. Supr. Ct. 73: 239. V. New Orleans, 82 La. Ann. 726: 457, 601. V. People, 146 111. 600: 830. V. Police Jury, 32 La. Ann. 1013: 250. V. Railroad Co., 34 Wis. 178: 519. V. Ripley, 106 Ga. 556: 1169, 1225. V. State, 63 Neb. 345: 576, 579. V. State, 43 N. J. L. 203: 1178, 1211, 1318. V. Usher, 10 Eng. Ch. 107: 628. V. Western Union Tel. Co., 87 Ga. 613: 972. Moore's Lessee v. Vance, 1 Ohio, 1: 473. Moran v. St. Paul, 54 Minn. 379: 1019. Moraut v. Taylor, 1 Ex. Div. 194: 630, 648. Moreau v. Monmouth, 68 N. J. L. 480: 6, 8. Moreland v. Millen, 126 Mich. 381 : 579. Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 83: 203, 204, 231, 243, 376. Morgan, In re, 26 Colo. 415: 417. Morgan v. Bolles, 36 Conn. 175: 1062, 1294. V. Crawshay, L. R. 5 H. L. 304: 809, 886, 893. V. Davenport, 60 Tex. 230: 784. V. Des Moines, 54 Fed. 456: 304, 447. TABLE or CASES CITED. clv The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-1815. Morgan v. Des Moines, 60 Fed. 2Q8: 703, 744. V. Hedstrom, 164 N. T. 234: 444, 744. V. Monmouth P. R Co., 23 N. J. L. 99: 583. V. Nolte, 37 Ohio St. 33: 423. V. Smith, 4 Minn. 104: 684. V. Snell, 5 Bin. 318: 310. V. State, 12 Ind. 448: 873. V. State, 51 Neb. 673: 785, 786. V. Thorne, 7 M. & W. 400: 545, 553. Moilay V. Greenhalgh, 3 B. & S. 374: 837. V. Lake Shore & M, S. Ey. Co., 146 U. S. 163: 1311, 1313. Morlot V. Lawrence, 1 Blatch. 608: 472. Mormon Church v. United States, 186 U. S. 1: 43. Morrall v. Sutton, 11 Phila. 583: 464, 747. Morrill v. Smith Co., 89 Tex. 539: 1035. V. State, 38 Wis. 434: 083. Morris v. Barrett, 97 E. C. L. R. 139: 337. V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 65 Iowa, 727: 28. V. Davidson, 49 Ga. 361 : 606, 865. V. Hitchcock, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 565: 465. V. Ocean Tp., 61 N. J. L. 12: 427. V. People, 4 Colo. App. 136: 736, 797. T. State, 62 Tex. 728: 1230, 1333. V. Tripp, 111 Iowa, 115: 1283. T. Va. Ins. Co., 85 Va. 588: 304. V. Vanderen, 1 Dall. 64: 31. V. Van Voast, 19 Wend. 283: 1087, 1243. k Morris Aqueduct v. Jones, 36 N. J. L. 206: 645. Morris Canal, etc. Co. v. Central R. R. Co., 16 N. J. Eq. 419: 1033. Morris & Essex R. R. Co, v. Central R. R. Co., 31 N. J. L. 205: 1043. Moi-ris, etc. R. R. Co. v. Newark, 10 N. J. Eq. 352: 1044. Morrison v. Baohert, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 153: 404. V. Baobert, 112 Pa. St. 323: 406. V. Barksdale, Harper, 101: 893. V. Carey- Lombard Co., 9 Utah, 70: 731, 733. V. Fake, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 133: 1050. V. Fayette Co., 127 Pa. St. 110: 538, 536. V. Lawrence, S8 Mass. 319: 1139. V. People, 196 III. 454: 331. V. Pepperman, 113 Iowa, 471: 1158. V. Rice, 35 Minn. 436: 463. V. Springer, 15 Iowa, 304: 937. V. State, 40 Ark. 448: 577. V. Stevenson, 69 Ala. 448: 781. V. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 96 Mo. 603: 438. V. Tliistle, 67 Mo. 596: 941. Morrisse v. Royal British Bank, 1 C. B. (N. S.) 67: 443, 11J8, 1149. Morrow v. Rosenstihl Bros., 106 Ala. 198: 1306. V. Wood, 56 Ala. 1: 1090. Morse v. Goold, 11 N. Y. 231: 643, 1200. V. Presby, 25 N. H. 303: 1048. V. State, 6 Conn. 9: 755. V. Williamson, 35 Barb. 472: 1137. Mortimer v. Chambers, 63 Hun, 335: 444. Mortland v. State, 52 N. J. L. 521: 302, 404, 406. clvi TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Morton v. Broderick, 118 Cal. 474: 781. V. Ouion, 45 Vt. 145: 1397. Mosby V. Ins. Co., 31 Gratt. 629: 459. Moseley v. Mastin, 37 Ala. 216: 879. V. Tift, 4Fla. 402: 1000. Moser v. White, 39 Mich. 59: 635, Moses V. Mayor, etc., 52 Ala. 198: 208. V. United States, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 428: 741, 975. Mosier v. Hilton, 15 Barb. 657: 231, 340. Mosley v. Vt. Mut. F. Ins. Co., 55 Vt. 142: 880. Mostyn v. Fabrigas, 1 Cowper, 174: 611. Mott V. Hubbard, 59 Ohio St. 199: 401, 407. Moulton V, McLean, 5 Colo. App. 454: 971. Moulton V. Posten, 53 Wis. 169: 876. Mound City Construction Co. v. Macgurn, 97 Mo. App. 403: 1012. Mounsey v. Ismay, 3 H, & C, 497: 808. V, Ismay, 34 L. J. Ex. 56: 882. Mount V. Kesterson, 6 Cold. 453: 1116. Mountain Grove Bank v. Douglas Co., 146 Mo. 42: 907. Mouras v. A. C. Brewer, 17 La. Ann. 82: 555. Moutray v. People, 163 III. 194: 988. Movius V.Arthur, 95 U. S. 144: 463, 529. Moyce v. Newington, 4 Q. B. Div. 33: 729. Moyer v. Gross, 3 P. & W. 171: 882. V. Penn. Slate Co., 71 Pa. St. 293: 1019. Moyle V. Jenkins, 51 L. J. Q. B. 112: 666. V. Jenkins, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 116: 718. Moynihan's Appeal, 75 Conn. 358: 9. Mt. Holley Paper Co.'s Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 513: 845. Mt. Joy V. Turnpike Co., 183 Pa. St. 581: 232, 267. Mt. Vernon v. Evans, etc. Co., 204 111.32: 339,345. Mudgett V. Liebes, 14 Wash. 483: 524. Mugler V. Kansas, 123 U. S. 633: 1019. Muhl's Adm'r v. Mich. So. R. E. Ca, 10 Ohio St. 272: 1291. Muir V. Galloway, 61 Cal, 498: 337. V. Keay, L. R. 10 Q. B, 594: 804 Muldoon V. Levi, 25 Neb. 457: 233. Mulford V. Clewell, 31 Ohio St. 191: 1265, 1266, 1267. Mulkey v. State, 16 Tex. App. 53: 555. MuUaly v. Mayor, 6 T. & C. 168: 1246. MuUan v. State, 114 Cal. 578: 11.5. Mullen V. People, 31 III 444: 481, 484, 636. V. State, 34 Ind. 640: 224 Mulligan v. Cavanaugh, 46 N. J. L. 45: 516. MuUin V. McCreary, 54 Pa. St. 230: 862. MuUins V. Treasurer, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 170: 671, 674. Mulnix V. Spratlin, 10 Colo. App. 390: 1262. Multnomah Ca v. Kelly, 37 Ore. 1: 917, 1311. Munday v. Eahway, 43 N. J. L. 838: 1199. Mundy v. Monroe, 1 Mich. 68: 121ft TABLE OF OASES CITED. clvii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1315. Mnnford v. Peaver, 70 Ala. 452: 637. Municipal Bld'g Soc. v. Kent, L. E. 9 App. Cas. 273: 697, 1071. Municipality v. Hart, 6 La. Ann. 570: 1103. Municipality No. 8 v. Michoud, 6 La. Ann. 605: 190, 253, 581, 1317, 1318. Munn V. Burch, 25 111. 35: 868. V. Citizens' Bank, 107 Ky. 262: 191. V. Illinois, 94 TJ. S. 113: 1019. Munro v. Butt, 8 E. & B. 754: 916. Munroe v. Guilleaume, 3 Keyes, 30: 619. Munson v. Hallo well, 26 Tex. 475: 784. Murdock v. Franklin Ins. Co., 33 W. Va. 407: 1160, 1339. V. Memphis. 20 Wall. 590: 516, 621. -Murdock's Petition, 149 Pa. St. 341: 528, 536. -Murfree v. Carmack, 4 Yerg. 270: 327. Murnane v. St. Louis, 133 Mo. 479: 378, 375, 376, 397. Murphy, In re, 23 N. J. L. 180: 930. Murphy, In re, 1 Woolw. 141: 1178. Murphy v. Commonwealth, 172 Mass. 264: 1188. V. County Com'rs, 73 Minn. 28: 504. V. Leader, 4 Irish, L. 143: 1251. V. Louisville, 24 Ky. L. R. 1574: 301, 468. V. Paoiflo Bank, 119 Cal. 334: 578, 603. V. Pacific Bank, 130 Cal. 543: 435, 764. V. People, 120 111. 234: 791. V. Preston, 5 Maokey, 514: 1060. V. Preston, 16 Maokey, 514: 931. Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95: 43, 568. Murray v. Baker, 3 Wheat. 541: 1379. V. Board of Co. Com., 81 Minn. 359: 367.' V. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432: 1199. V. County Com'rs, 81 Minn. 359: 354, 404, 407. V. Gibson, 15 How. 421: 443, 664. V. Hoboken U L Co., 18 How. 284: 148. V. Hobson, 10 Colo. 66: 797. V. Keyes, 35 Pa. St. 384: 757; 778. V. Mattison, 63 Vt. 479: 1226. V. New York Cent. R. R. Co., 4 Keyes, 274: 1244. V. Railroad Co., 4 Keyes, 374: 693, 739. V. State, 113 Ga. 7: 300. Murray Hill Bank, Matter of, 153 N. Y. 199: 533. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken. etc. Co., 18 How. 273: 14. Muscogee R. R. Co. v. Neal, 26 Ga. 121: 447. Musgrove v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. Co., 50 Miss. 677: 456, 544, 545, 549, 553. Mushlit V. Silverman, 50 N. Y. 360: 1254. Music V. Kansas City, etc. Ry. Co., 114 Mo, 309: 530. Musick V. Kansas City, etc. Ry. Co., 114 Mo. 309: 745. Mutual Aid L. & 1 Co. v. Logan, 55 S. C. 394: 1160, 1161, 1191. Mutual Ass'n Society v. Watts, 1 Wheat. 279: 630. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Winne, 20 Mont 20: 453, 776, 1172, 1331, 1236. clviii TABLE OF CASKS CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Myer v. Car Co., 103 U. S. 1: 521, 523. Myers v. Boyd, 144 Ind. 496: 906. V. Commonwealth, 90 Va. 785: 1160. V. Conway, 55 Iowa, 166: 1268. V. Farrell, 47 Miss. 281: 1050. V. Kirt, 68 Iowa, 124: 1263. V. Manhattan Bank, 20 Ohio, 295: 17. V, Marshall Co., 55 Miss. 344: 518. V. MoGavock, 39 Neb. 843: 785. V. Perlgal, 2 D. Mac. & G. 619: 699. . V. State, 1 Conn. 502: 646. Mysiok v. Hasey, 27 Me. 17: 930. K Nalle V. Ven tress, 19 La. Ann. 373: 611. Nance v. Anderson Co., 60 S. C. 501: 343, 407. Nanz V. Park Co., 103 Tenn. 299: 1355. Napa State Hospital v. Yuba Co., 138 Cal. 378: 428. Napier v. Hodges, 31 Tex. 387: 853. Narragang v. Brown Co., 14 S. D. 357: 60. Nash V. Allen, 4 Q. B. 784: 654. V. Mitchell, 8 Hun, 471: 941. V. State, 3 Greene (Iowa), 386: 1353. V. Sullivan, 39 Minn. 206: 1026. V. White's Bank, 37 Hun, 57: 443, 443. Nashua Sav. Bank v. Anglo-Am. etc. Co., 189 U.S. 331: 618. Nashville, etc. E. R. Co. v. Foster, 10 Lea, 351:37. V. Jones, 100 Tenn. 513: 931, 1073. Nason v. Poor Directors, 136 Pa. SL 445: 303. National Bank v. Barber, 24 Kan. 534: 577. V. Bryant, 13 Bush. 419: 873. V. Commissioners, 14 Fed. 339: 2G3. v. Matthews, 98 U. S. 631: 923. V. Southern, etc. Co., 55 Ga. 36: 303. V. Whitney. 103 U. S. 99: 921. V. Williams, 38 Fla. 305: 560. V. Williams, 46 Ko. 17: 335, 336. V. Yankton Co., 101 U. S. 139: 159, 633. National Bank of Augusta v. Au- gusta Cotton Comp. Co., 104 Ga. 403: 438, 468. National Bank of Com. v. Ripley, 161 Mo. 136: 834, 835, 841. National Guard," In re, 71 Vt. 493: 711, 887, 890. National Land & Loan Co. v. Mead, 60 Vt. 357: 104. National Lead Co. v. Groto Paint Store Co., 80 Mo. App. 247: 935. National Mut. B. & L. Ass'n v. Pinkerton, 79 Miss. 468: 673. National Tel. Co. v. Baker, (1893) 3 Ch. 186: 146. Nations v. Lovejoy, 80 Miss. 401: 545, 1328. V. State, 64 Ark. 467: 444, 446, 956. Naught v. Oneal, 1 111. 36: 547. Nay lor v. Field, 39 N. J. L. 287: 507. Nazareth L. B. I. v. Commonwealth, 14 B. Mon. 266: 513. Nazro v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 14 Wis. 395: 651, 796. Neaderhouser v. State, 38 Ind. 357: 877. Neagle, In re, 39 Fed. 833: 943. Neal V. Burrows, 34 Ark. 491: 1116. TABLE OF CASES CITED. clix The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; VoL II, pp. 605-1315. Neal V. Moultrie, 12 Ga. 104: 1279. V. Roberts, 1 Bev. & B. L. 81: 937. V. Sawyer, 60 Ga. 353: 1098. V. State, 33 Neb. 120: 569. Neary v. Philadelphia, etc. E. R. Co., 7 Houst. 419: 693, 708. Neass v. Mercer, 15 Barb. 318: 1310. Neatherly v. People, 24 IlL App. 273: , 468. 'Nebraska L. & B. Ass'n v. Perkins, 61 Neb. 254: 186, 303, 448, 451. Neelds' Road, 1 Pa. St. 353: 844. Neelly v. Lancaster, 47 Ark. 175: 1061. Neely v. State, 4 Baxt. 174: 593. Neenan v. Smith, 50 Mo. 535: 910, 914 Neeves v. Barrage, 14 Ad. & EL (U. S.) 504: 605. Negro Bell v. Jones, 10 Md. 322: 710. Negrotts v. Monett, 49 Mo. App. 386: 510. Ne-ha-sa-ne Park Ass'n v. Lloyd, 7 App. Div. 359: 1236. Neifing v. Pontiao, 56 111. 173: 228. Neitzel v. Concordia, 14 Kan. 446: 687. Nelden v. Clark, 20 Utah, 382: 474. Nellia v. Clark, 4 Hill, 434: 938. - Nelson v. Allen, 1 Yerg. 360: 887, 891, 893. V. Fightmaster, 4 Okl. 38: 1259. V. Gibson, 92 111. App. 595: 1158. V. Haywood Co., 91 Tenn. 596: 72, 84, 90, 94. V. Kerr, 2 T, & C. 299: 687. V. McCrary, 60 Ala. 301: 29, 609, 643, 1200. V. State, 111 Wis. 394: 1376. V. Stull, 65 Kan. 585: 784. V. Sykes, 44 Minn. 68: 559. V. Troy, 11 Wash. 434: 158, 434. Neport M, Trustees, Ex parte, 16 Sim. 346: 939. N. E. Ry. V. Leadgate, L. E. 5 Q. B. 161: 1109. Nesbitt V. Lushington, 4 T. R. 783: 808. Nester v. Busch, 64 Mich. 657: 352. Neuendorfl v. Duryea, 69 N. Y. 557: 208, 353. Neuerberg v. Gaulter, 4 III. App. 348: 1375. Nevada School Dist v. Shoecraft, 88 CaL 372: 340. Nevil V. CliflFord, 63 Wis. 435: 403. New V. McKeohnie, 95 N. Y. 632: 1265. New Albany, etc. R E. Co. v, Con- nelly, 7 Ind. 33: 917. Newark v. Funk, 15 Ohio St. 463: 1103. V. Mt. Pleasant Cem. Co., 58 N. J. L. 168: 250, 469. V. Orange, 55 N. J. L. 514: 303, 271. Newark Plank R, Co. t. Elmer, 9 N. J. Eq. 754: 1033. Newbert v. Fletcher, 84 Me. 408: 707. New Brighton v. Biddell, 201 Pa. St. 96; 303. New Brunswick v. Williamson, 44 N. J. L. 165: 5aa Newburgh Turn Co. v. Miller, 5 John. Ch. 113: 1155. Newburyport Water Co. v. New- buryport, 113 Fed. 677: 1194. Newby's Adm'r v. Blakey, 3 H & M. 57: 1311. Newell V. People, 7 N. Y. 97: 91& V. Wheeler, 48 N. Y. 486: 862. Newgass v. Atlantic & D. Ry. Co., 66 Fed. 676: 176, 307. . New Hannover Co. v. Derosset, 129 N. C. 275: 82, 92, 93. clz TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-W3; Vol. H, pp. 605-1315. New Haven v. Whitney, 36 Conn. 373: 478, 638, 917, 920. New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranoh, 164: 1192. New Jersey So. E. R. Co. v. Long Branch Com'rs, 39 N. J. L. 38: 1044. Newland ▼. Marsh, 19 III 370: 757, 937, 928. New London v. Brainard, 23 Conn. 552: 1033, 1035. New London N. B. R, Co. v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 102 Mass. 886: 462, 551, 554 Newman, Ex parte, 9 Cal. 502: 925. Newman v. Emporia, 41 Kan. 583: 369, 385. Y. Heist, 5 W. & S. 171: 1233. V. Keffer, 1 Brunner, Col. Cas. 502: 614. V. People, 23 Colo. 300: 580. V. Samuels, 17 Iowa, 518: 1229. V. State, 101 Ga. 534: 199, 331, 236. V. Yakima, 7 Wash. 230: 789, 791. New Orleans v. Holmes, 13 La. Ann. 503: 313. V. f!ew Orleans Coffee Co., 46 La. Ann. 86: 1003. V. Poutz, 14 La. Ann. 853: 899. V. Salamander Ins. Co., 35 La. Ann. 650: 710, 928. V. St. Homes, 9 La. Ann. 578: 644, 1129. • New Orleans Canal, etc. Co. v. Templeton, 30 La. Ann. 141: 873. New Orleans City & L. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 44 La. Ann. 738: 1024. New Orleans, etc. R. R Co. v. Hemp- hill, 35 Miss. 17: 695, 699. V, Municipality, 7 La. Ann. 148: uoa Newport v. Horton (R. S.), 50 L. It A. 330: 140. New Portland v. New Vineyard, 16 Ma 69: 318, 634. Newport Marsh Trustees, Ex parte, 16 Sim. 346: 1036. Newsom v. Cooke, 44 Miss. 353: 937. V. Greenwood, 4 Ore. 119: 550i 1337. Newton v. Bergbower, 63 111. APP- 201: 936.' V. Cocke, 10 Ark. 169: 869. V. Commissioners, 100 U. S. 548r 1194, 1195. V. Cowie, 4 Bing. 234: 1142. New Whatcom v. Roeder, 33 Washi 570: 1166, 1233, New York v. Dry Dock, etc. R R. Co., 47 Hun, 199: 509, 1023. V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 143 N. Y. 1: 241,577,694,703,707. V. Miln, 11 Pet. 102: 631. New York & B. Bridge, Matter of, 73 N. Y. 527: 731. New York Board of Fire Under- writers V. Whipple, 2 App. Div. 361: 268. New York Cent. etc. R. R Co., Mat- ter of, 60 N. Y. 113: 1018. New York Elevated R. R. Co., Mat- ter of, 70 N. Y. 327: 608. New York, etc. R R. Co. v, Bridge- port Traction Co., 65 Conn. 410, 527. V. Montclair, 47 N. J. Eq. 591: 314, 244. V. Van Horn, 57 N. Y. 473: 443, 550, 1219, 1330. New York Institution, Matter of, 121 N. Y. 234: 518. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cuya- hoga Co. Com'rs., 106 Fed. 133: 1171. V. Cuyahoga Co. Com'rs, 99 Fed, 846: 1170. TABLE OF OASES OITED. clxi The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol II, pp. 605-1315. New York & L. 1 Bridge Co., Mat- ter of, 54 Hun, 400: SSli New York & Long Island Bridge Co., Matter of, 148 N. Y. 540: 131, 135, 231, 579. New York Prot E. Pub. School, Matter of, 47 N. Y. 556: 1133. New York, The, 108 Fed. 102: 509, 650. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Cornell, 110 Fed. 816: 11. Niantic Sav. Bank v. Douglas, 5 111. App. 579: 1047. Niblaok v. Goodman, 67 Ind. 174: 435, 563. Nichol V. Nashville, 9 Humph. 252: 1009, 1033. V. U. S. etc. Agency, 74 Mo. 457: 635. Nicholas v. Phelps, 15 Pa. St. 36: 914 Nicholl V. Allen, 1 B. & S. 934: 640. Nichols V. Bertram, 3 Pick. 343: 1198. V. Burlington, etc. Ry. Co., 78 Minn. 43: 33. V. Cass, 65 N. H. 213: 1133, 1218, 1389. V. Levy, 5 Wall. 433: 616. V. Norfolk, etc. E. R Co., 130 N. C. 495: 1283, 1284. V. Squire, 5 Pick. 168: 481. V. State, 127 Ind. 406: 815, 825. V. State, 33 Tex. Crim. 391: 240. V. Walter, 37 Minn. 264: 369, 386. V. Wells, Sneed (Ky.), 255: 709. Nicholson v. Fields, 7 H. & N. 817: 961. V. Fields, 31 L. J. Ex. 235: 960. V, Thompson, 5 Rob. (La.) 367: 1158. Nickey v. Stearns Ranches Co., 126 CaL 150: 468. Niool V. Paul, L. R. 1 Scotch App. 131: 892. Niemeyer v. Wright, 75 Va. 239: 93& Niles V. Ransford, 1 Mich. 338: 1047. V. Steere, 102 Mich. 338: 239. Nixon V. Pififet, 16 La. Ann. 379: 466, 511, 636. Noble V. State, 1 Greene (Iowa), 325: 848, 853. Nobles V. Georgia, 168 U. a 398: 614. V. State, 38 Tex. Crim, App. 330: 440. Noecker v. Noecker, 66 Kan. 347: 707. Noel V. Ewing, 9 Ind. 37: 643. V. Fisher, 3 Call, 215: 1105. V. People, 187 111. 587: 157. Nolan V. Milwaukee, etc. E. R. Co., 91 Wis. 16: 650, 758, 775. Nolen V. Harden, 43 Ark. 307: 677. Noll V. Morgan, 83 Mo. App. 112: 1010. Noonan v. Del. etc. R. R. Co., 68 Fed. 1:613. Norfolk V. Chamberlaine, 29 Gratt. 584: 643. Norfolk, etc. R. R. Co. v. Old Do- minion Baggage Co., 99 Va. Ill: 784. V. Prindle, 82 Va. 133: 757, 1396. Norfor v. Busby, 19 Wash. 450: 510. Norman v. Heist, 5 W. & S. 171: 1217. V. Ky. Board of Managers, 93 Ky. 537: 66, 83, 93, 93. Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429: 20, 481, 483. v. Hall, 124 Mich. 170: 1159, 1166. V. Harris, 15 CaL 336: 610, 612. v. Hundred of Gawtry, Hob. 139: 329. clxii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. J, pp. 1-603; Vol. 11, pp. 605-1315. Norris v. Tripp, 111 Iowa, 115: 1217, 1384, 1286. V. Trustess, etc., 7 G. &. J. 7: 1193. V. Wrenschall, 34 Md. 493: 1198. Norristown v. Norristown Pass. Ry. Co., 148 Pa. St. 87: 340. North Am. Trading & Trans. Co. V. Smith, 93 Fed. 7: 470. North Bridgewater Bank v. Cope- land, 7 Allen, 189: 641. North British, etc. Ins. Co. v. Craig, 106 Tenn. 631: 711. North Canal St. Road Case, 10 Watts, 351: 473,553,1169. North Chicago Hebrew Cong. v. Garibaldi, 70 111. App. 33: 1003. North Chicago R. M. Co. v. Morris- sey, 111 111. 646: 1393. Northoutt V. Eager, 133 Mo. 265: 781, 785. Northern Cent. E. R. Co. v. Mary- land, 187 U. S. 358: 1195, 1196. Northern Counties Trust v. Sears, 30 Ore. 388: 200, 447. Northern Pac. Ex. Co. v. Metschan, 90 Fed. 80: 234, 335, 356. Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Barnes, 2N. D. 310: 346. 353, 356. V. Soderberg, 188 U. S. 526: 1026. Northern R. R. Co. v. Manchester, etc. E. R. Co., 66 N. H. 560: 158. Northern Trust Co. v. Palmer, 171 111. 383: 846, 1076. North Hempstead v. Hempstead, 3 Wend. 109: 939. North Milwaukee, In re, 93 Wis. 616: 6, 7. 155. North River Boom Co. v. Smith, 15 Wash. 138: 306. Northrop, Ex parte, 41 Ore. 489: 419. Northrop v. Cooper, 23 Kan. 432: 384. Northrup v. Hoyt, 31 Ore. 524: 135, 584, 1261. V. Maneka, 126 Mich. 550: 10. North Springs Water Co. v. Tacoma, 21 Wash. 517: 1024. North Towanda v. Bradford Co., 3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 517: 491, 528. Northwestern, etc. Bank v. State, 18 Wash. 73: 1340. Northwestern Masonic Aid Ass'n V. Waddell, 138 Mo. 638: 415. Northwestern Mfg. Co. v. Wayne Circ. Judge, 58 Mich. 381: 393. Northwestern Mfg. Ca v. Wayne Ciro. Judge, 58 Mich. 381: 393. Northwestern M. L. Ins. Co. v. Lewis & Clark Co., 28 Mont. 484: 510, 579. Northwestern Nat. Bank v. Super- ior, 103 Wis. 43: 13, 132. Northwestern Tel. Ex. Co. v. Chi- cago, etc. Co., 76 Minn. 334 774. V. Minneapolis, 81 Minn. 140 774, 884. Norton. Matter of, 39 App. Div. 369 758, 793. Norton v. Shelby Co., 118 U. S. 425 177. Norton Co. Com'rs v. Snow, 45 Kan. 333: 852. Norwegian Street, 81 Pa. St. 349: 1139, 1140. Norwich Gas Light Co. v. Norwich City Gas t o., 25 Conn. 18: 1033, 1024. Notley V. Buck, 8 B. & C. 164: 699, 701. Nottage V. Portland, 35 Ore. 539: 200, 268, 290, 1230, 1232, 1237. Nowlen v. Hall, 128 Mich. 274: 1159, 11G6. Noyes v. Marston, 70 N. H. 7: 689, 779. TABLE OF OASES OITED. clxiii The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1815. .'Noyes v. South worth, 55 Mich. 173: 1297. ^ Nudgett V, Liebes, 14 Wash. 483: 442. Nugent V. Jackson, 72 Miss. 1040: 124, 955. Nunes v. Wellisoh, 12 Bush. 363 : 788. INunn V. Citizens' Bank, 107 Ky. 262: 288. V. Fabian, L. R. 1 Ch. 35: 1101. rNunnally v. White, 3 Met. (Ey.) 584: 924 rNusser v. Commonwealth, 35 Pa. St. 126: 483, 486, 531, 584 T^uth V. Tamplin, L. R. 8 Q. B. Div. 253: 663,705,708. .Nutter V. Aoorington Local B. S., L. R. 4Q. B.D. 375: 686. 'INymph, The Schooner, 1 Sumn. 516: 982. . Nystrom v. London, etc. Mortg. Co., 47 Minn. 31: 1258. o. "Oakland Tp. v. Martin, 104 Pa. St. 303: 932. Gates V. National Bank, 100 tJ. S. 239: 729, 939. 'Oath Before Justices, Matter of, 18 Coke, 130: 945. Oatman v. Bond, 15 Wis. 20: 1206. •O'Brian v. County Com'rs, 51 Md. 15: 1330, 1333. -O'Brien v. Ash, 169 Mo. 383: 386, 1159. V, Baltimore Co. Com'rs, 51 Md. 15: 1237. V. Dillon, 9 Ir. C. L. (N. S.) 318: 938. V. Moss, 131 Ind. 99: 1076, 1240. •V. State, 109 Ga. 51: 341. O'Brien v. St. Croix B. Co., 75 Minn. 343: 803. V. Young, 95 N. Y. 438: 1211. O'Byrnes v. State, 51 Ala. 35: 781, 929, 930. Oconee E. L. & P. Co. v. Carter, 111 Ga. 106: 1041. O'Connell v. Menominee Bay Shore Lumber Co., 113 Mich. 124; 415. O'Connor, In re, 31 R. 1. 465: 784 O'Connor v. Com'rs, 61 Minn. 370: 464 V. Fond du Lac, 109 Wis. 253: 317, 319, 327. V. Towns, 1 Tex. 107: 330. V. Warner, 4 W. & S. 227: 19. Odell V. DeWitt, 53 N. Y. 643: 944 O'Donnell v. Mclntyre, 37 Hun, 615: 1141. V. Sweeney, 5 Ala. 467: 938. Oellers v. Hoon, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. 537: 1001. O'Ferrall v. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 400: 29, 609. OflE V. Trapp, 109 IlL App. 49: 758. Offield V. Davis,. 100 Va. 350: 707, 847, 931, 985. O'Flaherty v. McDowell, 6 H. L. Cas. 143: 463, 490, 636, 637, 6G9. Ogbourne v. Ogbourne's Adm'r, 60 Ala. 616: 517. Ogden V. Blackledge, 8 Cranch, 272: 19, 31, 459, 635, 640, 6§3. V. Folliott, 3 T. R. 733: 25. V. Saunders, 18 Wheat. 313: 576, 938, 1174, 1190, 1193, 1197, 1310, 1311. V. Strong, 2 Paine, 684: 649, 659, 693, 695, 701, 709. V. Witherspoon, 3 Haywood, 404: 460. Ogden City v. Boreman, 30 Utah, 98: 859. V. Hamer, 13 Utah, 337: 529. Clxiv TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-«08; Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. O'Hanlon v. Myers, 10 Kich. L. 128: 460. O'Hara v. State, 121 Ala. 28: 9a O'Hare v. National Bank, 77 Pa. St. 9G: 939. Ohio, etc. R R. Co. v. McClelland, 35 111. 140: 1194. Ohio Life Ins. etc. Co. v. Mer- chants' Ins. etc. Co., 11 Humph. 1: 1037. Ohio Life Ins. & Tr. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416: 906, 1032. Ohio, Steamb&at, v. Stunt, 10 Ohio St. 582: 1020. O'Kane v. State, 69 Ind. 183: 291. Olcott V. Frazier, 5 Hill, 562: 1140. Oldham v. Mayor, 103 Ala. 357: 470. Old Town Bank v. McCormick, 96 Md. 341: 39. O'Leary v. Cook Co., 28 111. 534: 261. V. Frisbey, 17 111. App. 553: 1275. Oleson V. Railway Co., 36 Wis. 883: 457, 519. V. Wilson, 30 Mont 544: 785, 786. Olin V. Denver & R. G. R. E. Co,, 25 Colo. 177: 683, 785. V. Fox, 79 Minn. 459: 1258. V. Meyers, 55 Iowa, 209: 1139. Olive V. Walton, 33 Miss. 114: 662, 723, 1063. Olive Cem. Co. v. Philadelphia, 93 Pa. St. 129: 716. Oliver, In re, 17 Wis. 681: 148, 167. Oliver v.'Lewis, 9 Wash. 573: 1330. V. Morton Co., 117 Iowa, 43: 1167, 1337. Olmstead, Matter of, 17 Abb. N. C. 320: 689. Omaha v. U. P. Ry. Co., 73 Fed. 1013: 186, 236. Omaha Real Est. & T. Co. v. Krags- cow, 47 Neb. 592: 462, 514 Omaha & R. V. Ry. Ca v. Hale, 45^ Neb. 418: 986. O'Mahoney v. Bullock, 97 Ky. 774: 340, 468. O'Mara v. Wabash E. Co., 150 Ind. 648: 341, 432. O'Meara v. Com'rs, 3 T. & C. 236: 263. Omit V. Commonwealth, 21 Pa. St. 426: 538. O'Neil V. Tyler, 3 N. D. 47: 1140. O'Neill V. Am. Fire Ins. Co., 166 Pa. St. 72: 154. Ong V. Sumner, 1 Cinn. Supr. Ct. 424: 505. Openheim v. Wolf, 3 Sandf. Cb. 571: 879. Opening House Ave., Matter of, 67 BarU 350: 1057. Opinion of Judges, 6 Sheply, 458 133. Opinion of Justices, 7 Mass. 533 710, 753, 914, 958. Opinion of Justices, S3 Pick. 573 937. Opinion of Justices, 13 Gray, 618 1188. Opinion of Justices, 117 Mass. 603 1194 Opinion of Justices, 136 Mass. 551 886, 888." Opinion of Justices, 136 Mass. 578 910, 1313. Opinion of Justices, 160 Mass. 580 165, 174 Opinion of Justices, 35 N. H. 579: 72, 83, 84, 87. Opinion of Justices, 41 N. H. 555: 584. 939. Opinion of Justices, 45 N. H. 607: 110, 867. TABLE OF CASES CITED. clxr The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. Opinion of Justices, 52 N. H. 622: 72, 83, 84, 87. Opinion to Governor, 24 E. I. 603: 417. Orange Co. v. Harris, 97 Cal. 600: 458, 577, 593. Orange etc. R. R Co. v. Alexandria, 17 Gratt. 176: 664, 710, 723. Ordenstein v. Bones, 2 Ariz. 329, 1261. Ordway v. Central National Bank of Baltimore, 47 Md. 317: 990. O'Rear v. Crum, 135 111. 294: 1155. V. Jackson, 124 Ala. 298: 436. Oregon City v. Moore, 30 Ore. 315: 429. Oregon & C. R. R. Co. v. United States, 67 Fed. 650: 649. Oregon, etc. Co. In re, 3 Sawyer, 614: 457. Oregon Ry. Ca v Portland, 9 Ore. 331: 1044. Oregon Short Line v. Standing, 10 Utah, 452: 504. O'Reilly •!. Bard, 105 Pa. St. 569: 1019. V. Utah, etc. Stage Co., 87 Hun, 406: 1159. Oriental Bank v. Freeze, 18 Me. 109: 18, 545. V. Wright, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 843: 998. Ornamental Woodwork Ca v. Brown, 3 H. & C. 63: 702, 705. O'Rourka v. O'Rourke, 43 Mich. 58: 611. Orr V. Bailey, 59 Neb. 128: 1145, 1390. V. Baker, 4 Ind. 86: 1003. V. Rhine, 45 Tex. 343: 633, 1160. Orvil V. WoodcIifB, 61 N, J. L. 107: 735, 797. V. Woodoliff, 64 N. J. L. 286: 694, 696, 697, 735. Orvis V. Board of Park Com'rs, 88 Iowa, 674: 1029. Osborn, Ex parte, 24 Ark. 479: 463, 483. Osborn t. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. 738: 1194: V. Blaokbnrne, 78 Wis. 209: 6-23. V. Charelvoix Circuit Judge, 114 Mich. 655: 135, 295, 323, 707. V. Nicholson, 13 Wall. 654: 1S06. Osborne, Ex parte, 24 Ark. 479: 567. Osborne v. Huger, 1 Bay. 170: 831, 640. V. Lindstrom, 9 N. D. 1: 1283, 1286, 1287. Osburn v, Staley, 5 W, Va. 86: 73, 74, 78, 91, 92. Osburne v. Blackburne, 78 Wis. 209: 22. Oshe V. State, 37 Ohio St. 500: 188. Oshkosh Water Works Co. v. Osh- kosh, 187 U. S. 487: 120U V. Oshkosh, 109 Wis. L'08: 1201. Oster V. Rabeneau, 46 Mo. 595:1255. Oswego Bridge Co. v. Fish, 1 Barb. Ch. 547: 548. Otero Canal Co v. Fosdiok, 30 Colo. 523: 1139. Otis V. People, 196 III. 543: 235, 340. Ott V. Lowery, 78 Miss. 487: 694, 711, 725, 733. V. Soulard, 9 Mo. 581: 606, 86a V. Young, 78 Miss. 487: 730. Ottman v. Hoffman, 7 Misc. 714: 321, 322, 562, 607. Otto Gas Eng. Works v. Hare, 64 Kan. 78: 191, 399. Otto Tp. Road, 181 Pa. St. 390: 303. Otto Tp. Road, 2 Pa. Supr. Ct. 20: 303. Overfield v. Sutton, 1 Met, (Ky.) 621, 778. Overmyer v. Williams, 15 Ohio, 31, 1035. clxvi TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-60S; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Overseers v. Overseers, 18 John. 407, 949. V. Overseers, 20 John. 1 : 934. V. Smith, 2 S. & R. 303: 931. Owen V. Baer, 154 Mo. 434: 360, 370. 376. V. Boyle, 15 Me. 147*: 618, 619, 622. V. Sioux City, 91 Iowa, 190: 385. V. Slatter, 26 Ala. 551: 339. Owen Co. Com'rs v. Spangler, 159 Ind. 575: 406. Owens V. Owens, 100 N. C. 240: 743. V. Withee, 3 Tex. 61: 1347. Owensboro & N. Ry. Co. v. Todd, 91 Ky. 175: 1.57. Owings V. Hull, 9 Pet 607: 40, 618, 866. Oxford Poor Rate, 8 E. & B. 181: 867. Oxley V. Bridge, 1 Doug. .67: 330. P. Pacific V. Seifert, 79 Mo. 810: 124, Pacific, etc. Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450: 20. Pacific, etc. Tel. Co. v. Common- wealth, 66 Pa. St. 70: 558. Pacific Express Co. v. Cornell, 59 Neb. 864: 451. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Jolliffe, 3 Wall. 450: 521, 547. Pacific Postal TeL Cable Co. v. Dalton, 119 Cal. 604: 433. Pacific R. R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo. 17: 527. V. The Governor, 23 Mo. 334: 96, 117. Pack V. Barton, 47 Mich. 520: 85, 112, 113. Packard v. Richardson, 17 Mass. 143: 886,893. Packer v. Noble, 103 Pa. St. 188: 730. V. Sunbury, etc. R. R Co., 19 Pa. St. 311: 668. Packet Co v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80: 581, 585. Paddock v. Cameron, 8 Cow 213: 910. V. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 155 Mo. 534: 857. Padelford v. Mayor, 14 Ga. 488: 681. Padgett V. Post, 106 Fed. 600: 1199. Paducah & M. R R Co. v. Stovall, 12Heisk. 1: 357. Page V. Allen, 57 Pa. St. 338: 933. V. Suspender Co., 191 Pa. St. .511: 303. V. Utah Com., 11 Utah, 119: 731, 890. V. Weymouth, 47 Me. 238: 828. Paget V. Curtis, 15 La. Ann. 451: 611. Paine v. Ins. Co., 11 R. I. 411: 866. V. Spratley, 5 Kan. 525: 1033, 1045,1046. Palmer, Matter of, 40 N. Y. 561: 550. Palmer v. Aldridge, 16 Barb. 131: 869. V. Conly, 4 Denlo, 374: 556, 1237. V. Cross, 1 S. & M. 48: 1168. V. Danville, 166 111. 43: 443. V. Hickory Grove Cem. Ca, 84 App. Div. 600: 1031. V. Hicks, 6 John. 133: 1039. V. Laberee, 33 Wash. 409: 1313. V. Lacock, 107 Pa. St. 346: 946. V. McMaster, 8 Mont 186: 1058, 1060. V. Palmer, 36 Mich. 487: 1016. V. State, 7 Cold. 82: 747. V. State, 88 Tenn. 553: 1003. TABLE OF CASES CITED. clxvii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-1315. Palmer v. York Bank, 18 Me. 166: 646, 986. V. Zumbrota, 72 Minn. 266: 72, 131, 264, 846. Palms V. Shawano Co., 61 Wis. 211 : 693, 797. Palo Alto Road, 160 Pa. St. 104: 503. Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529: 519. Panaud v. Jones, 1 Gal. 488: 899. Panooast v. Addison, 1 H. & J. 350: 1279. V. Ruffin, 1 Ohio, 177: 1076. Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa, 546: 939. V. Young, 33 N. J. L. 29: 59, 61, 608, 609, 867. Panter v. Attorney-General, 6 Brown, N. C. 486: 311, 313. Papin V. Ryan, 32 Mo. 31: 606. Papworth v. State, 103 Ga. 36: 841, 591. Paqueta Habana, The, 175 tl. S. 677: 519, 523. Parfitt V. Ferguson, 3 App. Div, 176: 234, 243, 582. Park V. Candler, 113 Ga. 647: 135. V. Candler, 114 Ga. 466: 954. V. Modern Woodmen, 181 111. 214: 191, 290, 1330. Park Bank v. Remsen, 158 U. S. 337: 791. Parker, Ex parte, 35 Tex. Crim. Rep. 12: 1303. Parker v. Bogardus, 5 N. Y. 309: 1168. V. Commonwealth, 6 Pa. St. 507: 145, 172. V. Elmira, etc. R. R. Co., 165 N. Y. 274: 259, 528, 537. V. Fassit, 1 Har. & J. 837: 1278. V. Great W. Ry. Co., 7 M. & Gr. 253: 1033. V. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 303: 463. Parker v. Parker, 103 Iowa, 500: 980. V. Pomeroy, 2 Wis. 112: 908. V. Powell, 132 Ind. 419: 136. V. State, 183 Ind. 178: 133. V. Taswell, 2 DeG.:& J. 559: 777. Parkhurst v. Capital City Ry. Co., 23 Ore. 471: 1033, 1034. Parkinson v. Brandenburg, 35 Minn. 394: 319, 331. V. State, 14 Md. 184: 1S5, 190, 303, 204, 319, 308, 313, 660, 708, 747, 753. Parkland v. Gaines, 88 Ky. 563: 268. Parks V. Soldiers, etc. Home, 83 Colo. 86: 924. V. State, 110 Ga. 760: 176, 306. V. State, 159 Ind. 211: 205, 300, 427. Parlin Orendorf Co. v. Hord, 78 Mo. App. 279: 436, 439. Parmelee v. Lawrence, 48 111. 331. 550. Parmenter v. New York, 135 N. Y. 154: 1383, 1287. Parramore v. Taylor, 11 Gratt. 320; 778, 784. Parrott v. Stevens, 37 Conn. 93: 479. Parsons v. Bedford, 8 Pet. 433: 754. V. Circuit Judge, 37 Mich. 287: 695. V. Durham, 70 N. H. 44: 781. V. McCraoken, 9 Leigh, 495: 1283. V. MoGavook, 3 Tenn. Cb. 581: 1103. T. Paine, 36 Ark. 134: 642. V. Thompson, 1 H. Bl. 332: 1105. V. Tuolumne Co. W. Co., 5 Cal. 43: 1053. Partington, Ex parte, 6 Q. B. 649: 673, 811. Partington v. Attorney-General, L. R 4 I-I. L. 132: 961, 999. clxviii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to tke pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1815. Parton v. Hervey, 1 Gray, 119: 939. Partridge v. Badger, 25 Barb. 146: 1037. V. Dorsey, 8 Har. & J. 307: 627. V. Ins. Co., 15 Wall. 573: 613. V. Nay lor, Cra Eliz. 480: 970. V. Strange, 1 I'low. 79: 311. Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 338: 341, 373, 390. Passaic Sewer Assessment, In re, 54 N. J. L. 156: 271, 379, 380, 391. Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Caro- lina, 171 U. S. 345: 135. Patohin v. Brooklyn, 2 Wend. 877: 94a Paterson vj Society, 24 N. J. L. 385: 173.- Pattee v. Greely, 13 Met. 284: 938. Patten v. Rhymer, 3 B. & B. 1: 914. V. Smith, 4 Conn. 450: 1099. Patterson v. Bark Eudora, 190 U. S. 169: 651. V. Brindle, 9 Watts, 98: 1096. V. Caldwell, 1 Met. (Ky.) 489: 460. V. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 610: 517, 519. V. McClausland, 3 Bland's Ch. 71: 878. V. Tatum, 3 Sawy. 164: 533, 923. V. Winn, 5 Pet. 333: 29. Pattison v. Bankes, 3 Cowper, 543 : 655. Patty V. Colgan, 97CaL 251: 130. Paul, In re, 94 N. Y. 497: 203, 345, 581. Paul V. Stone, 113 Mass. 37: 333. Paulk V. Sycamore, 104 Ga. 728: 1031. Pausch V. Guerrard, 67 Ga. 319: 533. Piuiska V. Daus, 31 Tex. 67: 611. Pavey v. Utter, 132 111. 489: 463, 500. Pawlet V. Clark, 9 Cranoh, 393: 1193. Paxton & Hershey Irr. C. & L. Co. V. Farmers' & M. Irr. & L. Co., 45 Neb. 884: 381, 741, 798. Payne v. Conner, 3 Bibb. 180: 460. V. School District, 168 Pa. St. 386: 277. V. Thompson, 44 Ohio St. 192: 139a V. Tread well, 16 Cal. 330: 868, 872, Peables v. Hannaford, 18 Me. 106: 330. Peabody v. School Com., 115 Mass. 383: 1039. Peachee v. State, 63 Ind. 399: 205. Peacock v. Bawks, Minor (Ala.), 387: 612. V. Pratt, 121 P'ed. 772: 430. V. Regina, 93 E. C. I* R. 262: 335, 336. Peake v. Yeldell, 17 Ala. 636: 621. Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 324: 854. V. Bank of Mobile, 33 Ala. 693: 671, 673. V. Langflt, 101 Pa. St. 507: 879. V. Mason, 99 Ky. 857: 340, 540. V. Vittum, 193 111. 192: 574. Pearl v. Conley, 7 Sm. & M. 358: 1015. Pearpont v. Graham, 4 Wash. C. C. 233: 328. Pearsall v. Supervisors, 71 Mich. 438: 1139. Pearson v. Darrington, 33 Ala, 237: 908. V. Flanagan, 52 Tex. 266: 1131. V. International Distillery, 73 Iowa, 348: 459. V. Lovejoy, 53 Barb. 407: 644, 1305. V. Steven^, 56 Ohio St. 186: 854, 407. TABLE OF CASES CITED. clxix The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 805-1315. '>Pease v. Howard, 14 John. 479: 1018. V. L. Fish. Furn. Co., 176 111. 220: 741, 793. V. L. Fish F. Co., 70 IlL App. 138: 741, 793. V. Peck, 18 How. 595: 134, 893, 895. V. Eyan, 7 Ohio'C. C. 44: 467. *Peate v. Dioken, 1 C. M. & R 423: 817. iPeavy v. Goss, 90 Tex. 89: 293. "Peck V. Pease, 5 McLean, 486: 621. V. Weddell, IT Ohio St. 371 : 797. ■Pecot V. Police Jury, 41 La. Ann. 708: 566, 1161. ^Pecquet v. Pecquet, 17 La. Ann. 204: 86a Peed V. McCrary, 94 Ga. 487: 449. ^Peeler v. Peeler, 69 Miss. 141: 749, 761. Peet V. Nalle, 30 La. Ann. 949: 668. Peik V. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 94 U. a 164: 614. iPeiser v. GrifEea, 125 Cal. 9: 1318, 1288. Pelham v. Messenger, 16 La. Ann. 99: 1014. V. Woolsey, 16 Fed. 418: 219. 'Pell V. Newark, 40 N. J. L. 71: 368. V. Ulmar, 18 N. Y. 139: 1054. Pellew V. Wonsford, 9 Barn. & C. 134: 329. Pells, Ex parte, 28 Fla. 67: 468. ;Peltier v. Bradley, 67 Conn. 43: 557. Peluson V. Emmerson, 135 III. 55: 1283. Pemble v. CliflFord, 3 McCord, 81: 610. Penberthy v. Lee, 51 Wis. 261 : 1137. ^Pendleton v. Bank of Kentucky, 3 J. J. Marsh. 148: 1064. V. Perkins, 43 Mo. 565: 1103. Penfleld, Matter of, 3 App. Div. 30: 1328. Penick v. High Shoals Mfg. Co., 113 Ga. 593: 674. Peninsular Lead & Color Works v. Union Oil, etc. Co., 100 Wis. 488: 1S08. Pennie V. State, 80 Cal. 266: 800, 462. Penniman v. Cole, 8 Met. 496: 336. Pennington v. Coxe, 3 Cranch, 83: 659. V. Gibson, 16 How. 65: 41, 613, 865, 866. V. Hare, 60 Minn. 146: 1290. V. Townsend, 7 Wend. 276: 93a V. Woolfolk, 79 Ky. 13: 188, 327, 350. Pennook v. Dialogue, 3 Pet. 1: 930. Pennoyer v, McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1:887,890, 119a Pennsylvania v. Baltimore, 1 Ves. Sr. 454: 637. Pennsylvania Co. v. Frana, 13 IlL App. 91: 879. V. State, 143 Ind. 438: 140, 141, 339, 916. Pennsylvania Hall, In re, 5 Pa. St 304: 553. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Burling- ton, 58 N. J. Eq. 547: 891, 397, 1336. V. Butler, 57 Pa. St. 385: 1293. V. Canal Com'rs, 21 Pa. St. 9: 54a 1035. V. Keller, 67 Pa. St. 300: 1292. V. State, 143 Ind. 428: 413. Penny wit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 600: 37. Penobscot Lumbering Ass'n, In re, 93 Me. 391:713,731,734. Penobscot R. R. Co. v. Bartlett, 13 Gray, 344: 620, 633. Penrose v. Martyr, E. B. & E. 499; 1345, clxx TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. U, pp. 605-1315. Pensacola v. Louisville, etc. R. E. Co., 21 Fla. 493: 1046. V. Reese, 20 Fla. 437: 1140. Pensacola Tel. Co. v. Western U. T. Co., 96U. S. 1: 1037. Penwell v. County Com'rs, 23 Mont. 351: 813. Peonage Cases, 133 Fed. 671: 967. People V. Abraham, 16 App. Div. 58: 981. V. Adirondack Co., 57Barb. 656- 1141, V. Allen, 1 Lans. 248: 633. V. Allen, 20 Misc. 120: 979, 1397. V, Allen, 42 N. Y. 404: 188, 208. V. Allen, 6 Wend. 486: 471, 6C7, 1117, 1118. V. Ames, 27 Colo. 12o: 517. V. Arensberg, 105 N. Y. 123: 293. V. Atchison, etc. Ey. Co., 301 111. 365: 703, 1010. V. Backus, 11 App. Div. 147: 223. V. Banks, 67 N. Y. 568: 233, 454. V. Barry, 98 Mich. 542: 331. V. Bartleson, 14 Utah, 258: 512. V. Bellett, 99 Mich. 151: 304, 419. V. Berberrich, 11 How. Pr. 333: 671. V. Bigler, 5 CaL 23: 935. V. Blue Mt. Joe, 139 111. 370: 191, 230. V. Board of Education, ICo 111. 388: 517, 519. V. Board of Equalization, 20 Colo. 220: 445. V. Board of State Auditors, 9 Mich. 327: 1194. V. Board of Suprs., 56 Barb. 452: 1150. People V. Board of Trustees, 71 Hun,- 188: 1150, 1152. V. Bond, 10 Cal. 563: 1199. V. Bo wen, 30 Barb. 24: 340. V. Bo wen, 21 N. Y. 520: 102, 103, 340. V. Brady, 49 App. Div. 238: 533. V. Bray, 105 Cal. 344: 744. V. Bremer, 69 App. Div. 14: 577,. 928, 1070. V. Bridges, 142 111. 30: 811. V. Briggs, 47 Hun, 266: 722. V. Briggs, 50 N. Y, 553: 84, 201,. 203, 237, 251, 261, 265, 266,. 581, 926, 944. V. Brislin, 80 111. 423: 205, 221,. 258, 276. V. Broadway Ry. Co., 126 N. Y. 29: 1023. V. Brooklyn, 69 N. Y. 605: 51&- V. Brooks, lOi Mich. 98: 225. V. Brown, 189 111. 619: 537. V. Bull, 46 N. Y. 68: 927. V. Buroh, 84 Mich. 408: 72, 75,. 80, 84, 85. 587. V. Burns, 5 Mich. 114: 167, 171,. 659. 731, 914. • V. Burridge, 99 Mich. 343: 993. V. Burt, 43 Cal. 560: 53, 462, 464, 474, 638. V. Burtleson, 14 Utah, 358: 468- V. Bussell, 59 Mioh. 104: 481. V. Butler, 3 Cow, 347: 1185. V. Butler, 16 John. 203: 634 V. Butler, 147 N. Y. 164: 323. V. Butler St. Foundry & Iron< Co., 201 111. 236: 416, 426, 458, 514, 952. V, Butte, 4 Mont. 174: 164, 172. V. Calder, 30 Mich, 87: 619,620. V. Campbell, 59 Cal. 243: 1184. V. Campbell, 80 Hun, 95: 885. V. Canal ComTS., 3 Scam. 153:. 1073. TABLE OF CASES CITED. clxxi The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1313. People V. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 32: 10. Peopl V. Canvassers, 77 Hun, 372: 436, 463. V. V. Canvassers, 143 N. Y. 84: 437. V. V. Carlock. 198 111. 150: 186. V. Can-, 36 Hun, 488: 518. V. V. Carson, 10 Misc. 387: 366, 538. V. V. Central Pacific R. R. Co., 43 V. Cal. 433: 350. V. Central Pac. R. R. Co., 83 V. Cal. 393: 354, 413. V. ■V. Central Pac. R. R. Co. 105 V. Cal. 576: 413. V. V. Chapin, 105 N. Y. 309: 945. V. V. Chase, 165 111. 527: 5,6, 12. V. Ckee Kee, 61 Cal. 404: 876. V. V. Chew, 6 Cal. 636: 946. V. Chicago, 152111. 546: 693, 706, V. 717, 722, 913, 933. V. Chicago Theological- Semi- V. nary, 174 111. 177: 1003,1008, 1070. V. V. Cicott, 16 Mich. 283: 899. V. V. Circuit Judge, 124 Mich. 664: V. 427. V. V. Clark, 1 Cal. 406: 308, 321. V. Y. Clayton, 4 Utah, 421 : 579. V. V. Cleary, 13 Misc. 546: 518. V. V. Clute, SON. Y. 451: 797. V. Cobb, 133 Cal. 74: 300. V. V. Coleman, 131 N. Y. 543: 650. V. V. Coler, 173 N. Y. 103: 303. V. Collins, 3 Mioh. 348: 145,166. V. V. Com'rs, 3 Hill, 601: 663, 708, V. 944. V. V. Comr's, 47 N. Y. 501: 321. V. Com'rs, 54 N. Y. 276: 62, 96, V. 101, 133. V. Com'rs, 59 N. Y. 93: 1195. V. V. Com'rs of Highvcays, 58 Barb. V. 70: 308. V. Com. Council, 13 App. Pr. V. (U. S.) 131: 353, 1 lie V. Common Council, 23 Barb. 404: 1137. . Common Council, 85 Cal. 369: 400. . Common Council, 140 N. Y. 300: 547, 1150, 1151, 1231. . Conistock, 78 N. Y. 356: 927. , Congdon, 77 Mich. 351: 2521 . Cook, 14 Barb. 259: 1117, 1134. 1139. . Cook, 96 Mich, 368: 741. 767. , Cook, 8 N. Y. 67: 1139. . Cook, 148 U. S. 397: 614, 119.\ , Cooper, 6 Hill, 516: 941. . Cooper, 83 111. 585: 356, 580, 595, 601. . Coyle, 55 App. Div. 233: 1170, 1225. . Craycroft, 111 Cal. 544: 731, 913. , Croton Aqueduct Board, 26 Barb. 348: 1305. Cummings,88Mich. 849: 157. Curry, 130 Cal. 82: 111. Dalton, 158 N. Y. 175: 588. Dane, 81 Mich. 36: 1188. Dauiell, 50 N. Y. 874: 1051. Daniels, 6 Utah, 388: 43. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574: 649, 651, 733. Davis, 78 App. Div. 570: 455. Davis, 61 Barb. 456: 345, 563, 638. Daytcn, 55 N. Y. 877: 891. Deming, 1 Hilt. 371: 466, 778. Denahy, 20 Mioh. 349: 192, 245. Dettenthaler, 118 Mioh. 595: 122. Devlin, 33 N. Y. 369: 63, 101. De Wolf, 63 111. 253: 73, 87, 98, 605, 867. District Ct, 38 Colo. 161: 1325. clxxii TABLE OF CASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-131b. People v.Doe, 1 Mich. 451: 11?1. V. Dolan, 5 Wyo. 245: 815, 838, 964. V. Dooley, 69 App. Div. 512: 458. V. Draper, 15 N. Y. 533: 925, 1051. V. Dunn, 80 Cal. 211: 85, 157, 300, 935. V. Dunn, 157 N. T. 528: 404. V. Eddy, 57 Barb. 593: 943, 947. V. Edwards, 56 Hun, 377: 528. V. Eiohelroth, 78 Cal. 141: 693, 719. V. England, 91 Hun, 152: 358. V. English, 139 111. 632: 693, 724, 740, 798. V. Fidelity & 0. Co., 153 N. Y. 25: 650, 890. V. Fire Ass'n, 92 N. Y. 311: 169. V. Fishbough, 184 N. Y. 393: ^ 1398. V. Fitch, 147 N. Y. 355: 302. V. Flagg. 46 N. Y. 401: 133. V. Fleming, 7 Colo. 230: 185, 188, 837, 353, 458. V. Freeman, 80 Cal. 233: 7. V. Frisbie, 36 Cal. 185: 643. V. Furman, 85 Mich. 110: 533. V. Gad way, 61 Mich. 285: 253. V. Gardner, 59 Barb. 198: 1163. V. Gates, 57 Barb. 291: 1141. V. Gaulter, 149 111. 39: 138, 692, 724, 738, 797. V. Gill, 7 Cal. 356: 557, 678. 683. y. Gilroy, 83 Hun, 500: 1152. V. Glassoo, 308 111. 353: 789. V. Glenn, 207 111. 50: 1010. V. Glenn County, 100 Cal. 419: 96, 136. V. Goddard, 8 Colo. 432: 231. V. Grant, 70 Hun, 233: 689. V. Green, 58 N. Y. 395: 1162, 1194. V. Grippen, 30 Cal. 677: 463. People V. Grover, 203 111. 24: 757. V. Hadden, 8 Denio, 330: 1059. V. Hall, 8 Colo. 485: 252,577, 581. V. Hamill, 134 111. 666: 358. V. Harnor, 1 App. Div. 459: 419. V. Harper, 91 111. 357: 633. V. Harris, 123 N. Y. 70: 532. V. Harrison, 191 111. 257: 706, 708, 713, 732, 885, 914. V. Harrison, 93 III. App. 613: 722. V. Hasbrouck, 11 Utah, 391: 10, 437. V. Hatch, 33 111. 9: 47, 110. V. Hawker, 152 N. Y. 234: 1179. V. Hayes, 140 N. Y. 484: 1174, 1175, 1189. V. Hayne, 83 Cal. Ill": 10. V. Henshaw, 76 Cal. 436: 347. V. Hess, 85 Mich. 128: 1031. V. Hicks, 15 Barb. 160: 945. V. Hicks, 98 Mich. 86: 981, 992. V. Hill, 8 N. Y. 449: 345. V. Hill, 3 Utah, 334: 793, 796. V. Hiller, 113 Mich. 209: 443, 554. V. Hilliard, 85 App. Div. 507: 707, 739. V. Hills, 35 N. Y. 449: 188, 241, 638. V. Hillsdale, etc. T. Co., 2 John. 190: 1141. V. Hinrichsen, 161 111. 228: 71i, 729, 939. V. Hobson, 48 Mich. 37: 484,555. V. Hoffman, 97 111. 234: 797. V. Hoffman, 116 111. 587: 164. V. Holley, 12 Wend. 481: 1118. V. House of Refuge, 22 App. Div. 354: 467. V. Hoym, 20 How. Pr. 76: 1071. V. Hulse, 3 Hill, 309: 644, 755, 983, 1059, 1253. V. Huntley, 112 Mich. 569: 199, 297, 469. TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. H, pp. 605-1815. e V. Hurst, 41 Mich. 338: 265. People v. Lawrence, 36 Bar clxxiii People V. Hurst, 41 Mich. 338: 265. V. Hutchinson, 173 111. 486: 530, 745, 921, 9,55. V. Illinois State Keformatory, 148 111. 413: 578. V. Institute, 71 111. 329: 185. V. Insurance Co., 19 Mich. 393: 190, 228. V. Irvin, 21 Wend. 138: 784 V. Jackson, etc. Plank Road Co., 9 Mich. 285: 1193, 1198. V. Japinga, 115 Mich. 323: 391; 438. V. Jobs, 7 Colo. 475: 577. T. Johnson, 95 Cal. 471: 409. V. Johnson, 23 Colo. 150: 113, 044, 1304. V. Keller, 81 App. Div. 348: 538. V. Keller, 35 App. Div. 493: 538. V. Kelly, 99 Mich. 83: 296. V. Kemp, 76 Mich. 410: 760. V. Kenney, 96 N. Y. 294 : 577, 583. V. Kent, 83 App. Div. 554: 303. V. Ketohum, 103 Mich. 443: 771. V. King, 38 Cal. 365: 796. -V. King, 127 CaL 570: 300, 428. v. Kinney, 110 Mich. 97: 469. V. Kinsman, 51 Cal. 92: 641. V. Kipley, 171 111. 44: 10, 360. T. Kirk, 162 111. 138: 13, 133. V. Knight, 18 Mich. 424: 1069. ■V. Knopf, 183 111. 410: 396, 446, 449, 576, 578. V. Knopf, 186 111. 457: 538. V. Knopf, 198 111. 340: 72, 84,93, 603. v. Koenig, 9 App. Div. 436: 483. V. Lake Co., 83 Cal. 487: 1119. v. Lambert, 5 Mich. 340: 620, 622. -V. Lambier, 5 Denio, 9: 1038, 1040. V. Lane, 53 App. Div. 531 : 383. •V. Latham, 303 IlL 34: 757. V. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 177: 114, 133, 188, 203, 658, 950. 1071. Lawrence, 41 N. Y. 137: 305, 224. Leubischer, 34 App. Div. 577: 10. Levee District, 131 CaL 30: 1237. Linda Vista Irr. Dist. 128 Cal. 477: 40, 800, 616. Livingston, 6 Wend. 526: 545. Lodi High School Dist., 124 CaL 694: 157, 42a Loewenthal, 98 IlL 191: 84, 87, 358, 886, 898. Lohnas, 54 Hun, 604: 803. Long Island R R. Co., 134 N. Y. 506: 8. Lord, 9 App. Div. 458: 797, 800. Lorillard, 135 N. Y.285: 454. Luby, 56 Mich. 551: 581. Luby, 99 Mich. 89: 95, 100. Lyman, 2 Utah, 80: 873, 881. Lyons, 39 App. Div. 174: 1226. Lyttle, 1 Idaho, 143: 457. Mahaney, 18 Mich. 481: 48, 72, 78, 91, 93, 184, 185, 190, 204, 481, 447, 605, 866, 867. Mallary, 195 111. 583: 6, 13. Manhattan Co., 9 Wend. 351, 1193. Marquiss, 193 IlL 377: 527, 586. Martin, 178 111. 611: 396. Marx, 99 N. Y. 377: 1019. Maxwell, 78 Hun, 157: 5r,7. May, 3 Mich. 598: 754, 887, V. Mayor, 130 IlL 406: 537. V. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 82 Barb. 103: 473, 474 clxxiv TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. People V. McAllister, 10 Utah, 357: Peoph 491. V. McCain, 51 Cal. 360: 6«. V. V. MoCallum, 1 Neb. 182: 203, 204, 433, 43a V. V. MoCann, 16 N. Y. 58: 252,345. V. V. MoClave, 99 N. Y. 83: 916. V. McClellan, 31 CaL 101: 946. V. V. McClellan, 137 UL 352: 1158, V. 1163. V. McDonald, 69 N. Y. 363: 1230, V. 1832. V. V. McDonald, 5 Wyo. 536: 1174, V. 1181. V. McElroy, 73 Mich. 446: 314, V. 925. V. MoFadden, 81 Cal. 489: 171, V. 339. V. V. Meighan, 1 Hill, 298: 1134. V. Merrick, 61 Hun, 897: 914. V. V. Metzker, 47 Cal. 534: 1089. V. Miller, 88 Mich. 383: 330. V. V. Miner, 47 111. 33: 333. V. V. Mitchell, 35 N. Y. 551: 1330, 1233. V. V. Mitchell, 4 Sandf. 466: 1184. V. V. Molyneux, 53 Barb. 9: 651. V. Molyneux, 40 N. Y. 113: 651, V. 849. V. V. Morino, 85 CaL 515: 1139. V. V. Morris, 13 Wend. 325: 708. V. V. Mount, 186 111. 560: 467. V, V. Mount, 87 111. App. 194: 467, V. 537. V. Mullender, 132 Cal. 217: 800, V. 339. V. V. Murphy, 202 111. 493: 456, 487. V. V. Nelson, 183 111. 565: 133, 135, V. 325. V. V. Nelson, 156 III. 364: 535. V. V. Neumann, 85 Mich. 98: 1376. V. Normal, 170 111. 468: 393. V. V. N. Y. Central, etc. R. R. Ca. V. 156 N. Y. 570: 557. lie V. N. Y. etc. R. K. Co., 84 N. Y. 565: 833. . O'Brien, -38 N. Y. 1C3: 266, 633. , O'Brien, HI N. Y. 1: 649. . O'Grady, 46 App. Div. 318: 528. , Olsen, 304 IlL 494: 603. , Onahan, 170 III. 449: 13, 133, 398, 404, 405, 406. O'Neil, 51 Cal. 91: 641. O'Neil, 54 Hun, 610: 648, 651. , Orange Co. Road Co., 175 N. Y. 84: 427. , Pacific Imp. Co., 130 Cal. 443: 465, 467, 527, 539. , Palmer, 53 N. Y. 83: 463, 528. , Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110: 572, 863, 1060. Parks, 58 Cal. 635: 188, 215, 351. Parvin, 74Cal. 549: 239: Peacock, 98 111. 172: 641, 964, 965, 1286. Peck, 11 Wend. 604: 1130. People's Gas, Light & C. Co., 205 111. 483: 191, 364. Peralta, 3 Cal. 379: 1051 Perry, 79 Cal. 105: 587. , Pico, 63 Cal. 50: 1066. Pierson, 59 Hun, 450: 528. , Piatt, 17 John. 195: 640, 1192. Police Com'rs, 79 App; Div. 82: 518. Pond, 67 Mich. 98: 265. , Porter, 90 N. Y. 68: 579, 593. .Power, 85 III. 187: 1104 , Prillen, 173 N. Y. 67: 730. ,Pugh, 57Hun, 181: 469. , Purdy, 3 Hill, 31: 63, 123, 866, 867. Quigg, 59 N. Y. 83: 538. Raymond, 186 111. 407: 466, 467. TABLE OF OASES CITED. clxxv The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. People V. Recorder, 6 Hill, 429: 645. V. Reed, 5 Denio, 554: 1136. V. Reis, 76 Cal. 269: 749. V. Reynolds, 5 Gilm. 1: 164, 171. V. Rice, 138 N.Y. 151: 757. V. Richards, 108 N. Y. 137: 820. V. Richmond, 16 Colo. 274: 13, 133. V. Rio Grande Ca, 7 Colo. A pp. 229: 1154. V. Ritchie, 13 Utah, 180: 784 V. River Raisin, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Mich. 389: 867, 1033. V. Robinson, 17 Cal. 368: 873. V. Rochester, 5 Lans. 11: 1119. V. Roosevelt, 34 App. Div. 17: 454. V. Rose, 167 111. 147: lOa V.Rose, 174111. 310: 703. V. Rosenburg, 138 N. Y. 410: 813, 964. V. Ryan, 138 111. 263: 1003. V. Ryder, 124 N. Y. 500: 1817. T. Salomon, 51 III. 37: 164, 170, 313. V. Sands, 103 Cal. 12: 537, 703. V. San Francisco, eta R. R. Co., 28 Cal. 254: 462. V. San Francisco, etc. R. R. Co., 35 CaL 606: 927. V. Seannel, 62 App. Div. 249: 5G3. V. Schemerborn, 19 Barb. 540: 1137, 1138. V. Schoonmaker, 63 Barb. 44: 695, 698, 704. v. Sliepard, 36 N. Y. 285: 925. v. Sheriff, 19 Wend. 87: 332. V. Simon, 176 111. 165: 158, 360. v. Sloan, 3 Utah, 326: 558. ■V. Smith, 78 Hun, 179: 883. V. Smith, 108 Mich. 527: 438. V. Squire, 14 Daly, 154: 386, 399. T. Stanley, 47 Cal. 113: 1185. People V. Starne, 85 111. 131: 72, 73, 91. V. Stevens, 13 Wend. 341: 708. V. Stowl, 23 Barb. 349: 145. V. Superior Ct., 100 Cal. 105: 300,463. V. Supervisor, 14 Mich. 836: 1095. V. Supervisors, 18 Abb. N. C. 431: 698. V. Supervisors, 3 Barb. 333: 30. V. Supervisors, 63 Barb. 83: 1336. V. Supervisors, 6 Hun, 304: 645, 1045. V. Supervisors, 40 Hun, 358! 53a V. Supervisors, 49 Hun, 33: 1150, 1151. V. Supervisors, 185 111. 288: 42a V. Supervisors, 16 Mich. 254: 315. V. Supervisors, 30 Mich. 95: 1330. V. Supervisors, 8 N. Y. 317: 60," 101, 123. V. Supervisors, 16 N. Y. 424: 635, 643, 683. V. Supervisors, 34 N. Y. 268: 1129. V. Supervisors, 43 N. Y. 10: 253, 253, 628, 633. V. Supervisors, 67 N. Y. 109: 442, 444, 459, 511, 564. V. Sutphin, 166 N. Y. 163: 221, 208, 290. V. Sweetser, 1 Dak. 295: 756, 797. V. Syracuse, 59 Hun, 258: 1154. V. Tanner, 128 N. Y. 416: 966. V. Taylor, 96 Mich. 576: 141, 79a V. Terry, lOS N. Y. 1: 135. V. Thompson, 67 Cal. 627: 1124. V. Thompson, 155 III 451: 5, 12, 132. V. Thornton, 186 IlL 163: 467, 517, 530. clxxvi TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-1815. People V. Tibbetts, 4 Cow. 38 1: 1226, 1249. V. Tighe, 5 Hun, 25: 752, 754 V. Tiphaine, 3 Parker, 341: 458. V. Tisdale, 57 Cal. 104: 481, 482. V. Trustees, 26 Hun, 488: 563. V. Turner, 49 Hun, 466: 1230, 1232. V. Tyler, 36 Cal. 523: 565. V. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161: 658. V. Upson, 79 Hun, 87: 436, 518. V. Utah Com'rs, 7 Utah, 279: 530, 536, 661, 955. V. Utica Ins. Co., 15 John. 358: 713, 1033, 1351. V. Van Pelt, 130 Mich. 631: 492. V. Vosburgh, 76 Hun, 563: 469. V. Wabash Ry. Co., 138 111. 85: looa V. Walker, 17 N. T. 502: 330. V. Wallace, 70 111. 680: 94, 368, 423. V. Warden, 6 App. Div. 520: 1170. V. Warden, 81 Hun, 434: 429. V. Warden, 39 Misc. 113: 158. V. Waters, 4 Misc. 1: 6, 9. V. Watseka Camp Meeting Ass'n, 160 111. 576: 1003, 1007. V. Webster, 8 Misc. 133: 303, 493, 788. V. Wells, 52 App. Div. 583: 736. V. Wemple, 115 N. Y. 303: 694. V. Weston, 3 Neb. 312: 844, 849 V. Whipple, 47 Cal. 593: 95. V. Whitney's Point, 103 N. Y. 81; 1048. V. Williams, 64 Cal. 87: 871. V. Willsea, 60 N. Y. 507: 231. V. Wilmerding, 136 N. Y. 303: 444, 565, 572, 573. V. Wintermute, 1 Dak. 63: 562. People V. Wood, 71 N. Y. 371: 651. V. Woods, 7 CaL 579: 1199. V. Worden Grocery v Co., 118 Mich. 604: 298. V. Wright, 30 Colo. 439: 231, 463. V. Wright, 70 111. 388: 356, 446,. 634, 633. V. Yancey, 167 IlL 255: 464. V. Young, 18 App. Div. 163: 13, 133. Peoples' B. & L. Ass'n v. Billing, 104 Mich. 186: 416. Peoples' G. L. & C. Co. v. Chicago,. 114 Fed. 384: 1195. Peoples' S. B. & T. Co. v. Batchel- der Egg Case Co., 51 Fed. 130: 732. Peoria, etc. R. R. Co. v, Duggan, 109- 111. 537: 413, 420. v. People, 144 111. 458: 724. 736, v. People, 198 111. 318: 1010. Pepperell v. Burrell, 3 Dowl. P. C. 674: 330. Perohard v. Hey wood, 8 T. R 473; 628. Percifleld v. Aumiok, 116 Iowa, 383: 1158. Percival v. Cowychee, etc. Dist., 15 Wash. 480: 268, 290. Perdicaris v. Bridge Co. 29 N. J. L. 367: 627. Pei-eria v. Wallace, 129 Cal. 397: 761. Ferine v. Forbush, 97 Cal. ^05: 1145. Perkins v. Heert, 158 N. Y. 306: 302. V. Ledbetter, 68Miss.327: 1153. V. Lyons, 111 Iowa, 193: 1158. V. Perkins, 62 Barb. 531: 845, -862. V. Philadelphia, 156 Pa. St. 539r 306, 353, 401. V. Philadelphia, 156 Pa. St. 554r 306, 353, 401. V. Scales, 3 Tenn. Cas. 235: 19. V. Sewell, 1 W. Black. 659: 881.. TABLE OF CAS3S CITED. clxxvii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-131B. Perkins v. Smith, 116 N. Y. 441: 75a V. St. Louis, etc. R. R Co., 103 Mo. 52: 430. V. Thornburgh, 10 Cal. 189: 638, 922. Perrault v. Minn, etc., E. R. Co., 117 Wis. 520: 1312. Perrine v. Chesapeake etc. Canal Co., 9 How. 173: 1035. Perry v. Commonwealth, 8 Gratt. 633: 643. V. Denver, 37 Cola 93: 1171. V. Gross, 35 Neb. 836: 331. V. Minneapolis St. Ry. Co., 69 Minn. 16r): 1225. V. Mitchell, 5 Denio, 537: 947. V. New Orleans R. R. Co., 55 Ala. 413: 627. V. Newsom, 1 Ired. Eq. 28: 627, 634, 658. V. State, 87 Ala. -30: 1183. Perry County v. Jefferson Co., 94 111. 214: 929. V. R. R. Co, 58 Ala. 546: 52,71, 78, S3. Perry man v. Greer, 39 Ala. 133: 1063, 1394. Persons v. Gardner, 42 App. Div. 490: 1169, 1227. Peterman v. Northern Pac, Ry. Co., 105 Fed. 335: 78.5. Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670: 613. V. Condron, 3 S. & R. 80: .1113, V. State, 96 Tenn. 682: 432, 1298. V. Vawter, 10 Mont. 201: 847. Petersburg v. Metzker, 21 111. 205 1033. Peterson v. Bingham, 13 Wash. 178 767. V. Currier, 62 111. App. 163: 763. V. Gittings, 107 Iowa, 306: 861 V. State, 104 Tenn. 137: 200, 231, 404, 406, 430. Peto V. West Ham, 2 E. & E. 144: 809. tetri V. Commercial Nat. Bank, 143 U. S. 644: 731, 733. Petrie v. Columbia, etc. R. R. Co., 39S.C. 303: 1392, 1293. Petterson v. Berry, 125 Fed. 902: 1197. Pettit V. Fretz, 33 Pa. St. 118: 1062. Petty, In re, 33 Kan. 477: 1187. Peugnet, Matter of, 67 N. Y. 444: 443, 444. Peyton v. Mosely, 3 T. B. Mon. 77: 473, 513. V. Smith, 4 McCord, 476: 19. Pferrmann, Ex parte, 134 Cal. 143: 316, 249. Phelan v. Johnson, 7 Ir. L. 535: 929, 930. Phelps V. Hawley, 53 N. Y. 23: 1155. V. Racey, 60 N. Y. 10: 1297. V. Rightor, 9 Rob. (La.) 531: 845. V. Rooney, 9 Wis. 70: 1199. * V. Wood, 9 Vt. 399: 1280. Phelps-Bigelow Windmill Co. v. North Am. Trust Co., 62 Kan. 529: 1215. Philadelphia v. Cbristman, 6 Pa. Supr. Ct. 29: 1348. V. Haddington, 115 Pa. St 391: 391. V. Kates, 150 Pa. St. 30: 464. V. Market Co., 161 Pa. St. 522: 239. V. Masonic Home, 160 Pa. St. 573: 1006. V. Pepper, 18 Phila. 419: 303, 384, 391. V. Ridge Ave. Ry. Co., 103 Pa. St. 190: 929. V. Ridge Ave. Ry. Co., 143 Pa. St. 484: 305, 3S1. V. Westminster, 163 Pa. St. 105: 393. clxxviii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Phila. Bank V. Lambeth, 4 Rob. 463: 611. Philadelphia, etc. Ca's Petition, 200 Pa. St. 352: 394, 464. Philadelphia, etc. E. R. Co. v. Cata- wissa E. R. Co., 53 Pa. St. 20: 684, 687, 886, 1065. . V. Lehman, 56 Md. 209: 876. Philadelphia, M. & St. Ry. Co., Pe- titioner, 203 Pa. St. 354: 579. Philips V. Christian Co., 87 111. App. 481: 814, 827. Phillips V. Ash, 63 Ala. 414: 473, 1056. V. Bridge Co., 3 Met. (Ky.) 222: 199. V. Commonwealth, 44 Pa. St. 197: 933. V. Covington, etc. Bridge Co., 3 Met. (Ky.) 319: 188, 331. V. Freyer, 80 Mich. 354: 1358. V. Hopwood, 10 B. & C. 39: 544, 551. V. Hunter, 3 a Black. 403: 37. V. Lewis, 3 Term. Cas. 330: 13, 133, 304. V. Mayor, 1 Hilt. 483: 334, 345, 582. V. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 86 Mo. 540: 413, 413. V. Phillips, L. R. 1 P. & D. 173: 1109. V. Poland, K R. 1 0. P. 204: 819. V. Pope's Heirs, 10 B. Men. 173: 693. V. Schumacher, 10 Hun, 405: 401. V. State, 15 Ga. 518: 733. Philpott V. St. George's Hospital, 6 H. L. Cas. 338: 748, 754. Phinizy v. Eve, 108 Ga. 360: 8. Phinney v. Phinney, 81 Me. 450: 1306, 12ia Phinney v. Sheppard, etc. Hospital, 88 Md. 633: 301. Phoenix Ass'n Co. v. Fire Dept., 117 Ala. 631: 451,493, 787, 788. Phoenix lus. Co. v. Welch, 29 Ean. 672: 169. Picken v. Post, 99 Fed. 659: 304. Pickering v. Arrick, 9 Mackey (D. C), 169: 650. V. Fisk, 6 Vt. 107: 33, 24 Pickett V. Pipkin, 64 Ala. 530: 637. Pickle V. Finley, 91 Tex. 484: 586. Pickton V. Fargo, 10 N. D. 469: 1117, 1123, 1139. Piedmont Ave., In re, 59 Minn. 523: 248. Pier V. Oneida Co., 102 Wis. 338: ■1160, 1166. Pierce, Ex parte, 87 Ala. 110: 436. Pierce v. City Clerk, 7 Wash, 132: 1133. V. Commercial Invest. Co., 30 Wash. 272: 491. V. County Com'rs, 117 Ala. 569: 304. V. Delamater, 1 N.. Y. 17: 463. V. Dillingham, 96 111. App. 300: 963. V. Kimball, 9 Me. 54: 576, 624. V. Toley, 5 Met. 168: 1287. V. Van Dusen, 78 Fed. 693: 694, 723, 734. Pierce Co. v. Spike, 19 Wa^h. 652 529. Pierpont, v. Crouch, 10 Cal. 315 188, 500. Pierson v. People, 204 111. 456 1153. Piggott V. Rush, 4 Ad. & El. 913 1278, 1282. Pignoz V. Burnett, 119 Cal. 157 1158, 1168. Pike V. Hoare, 2 Eden, 184: 701. T. Megoun, 44 Mo. 491: 684. TABLE OF CASES CITED. clxxix The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Piloher v. Fairoloth, 135 Ala. 311: 766. •-Pilkington v. Cooke, 16 M. & W. 615: 533. Pillow V. Bushnell, 5 Barb. 156: 095. Pirn V. Nicholson, 6 Ohio St. 178: 96, 188. Pinokney, In re, 47 Kan. 89: 134 191, 317. Pinckney v. Burrage, 31 N. J. L. 31: 1383. ~ Pingree v. Snell, 43 Me. 58: 516, 759. Pinkerton v. Ea-ston, L. R. 16, Eq. 493: 1109. v. Penn. Traction Co., 193 Pa. St. 229: 259. ' Pinkham v. Dorothy, 55 Me. 135: 1014. •Pinkura v. Eau Claire, 81 Wis. 301: 1317, 1383, 1384. Pioche V. Paul, 32 Cal. 110: 899. Pioneer, The, Deady, 73: 938. Piper V. Gunther, 95 Ky. 115: 340. tPiscataqua Bridge Co. v. New Hampshire Co., 7 N. H. 35: 576, 1033. Pitman v. Bump, 5 Ore. 17: 80, 1388. V. Commonwealth, 3 Rob. (Va.) 813: 481, 484, 55& V. Flint, 10 Pick. 504: 931. /Pitte V. Shipley, 46 Cal. 154: 724, 758. Pitts, Ex parte, 35 Fla. 149: 578. Pitts V. Daly, 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 538: 303. V. State, 29 Tex, Ct App. 374: 981. Pittsburg V. Reynolds, 48 Kan. 360: 585, 653. V. Walter, 69 Pa. St. 365: 1140. -Pittsburgh v. Kennedy, 18 Pa. Dist. Ct. 317: 303. Pittsburgh, etc. Ry. Co. v. Martin, 53 Ohio St. 386: 383. V. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1: 199, 263, 417, 587. V. S. W. Pa. Ry. Co., 77 Pa. St 173: 914. V. Vining's Adm'r, 27 Ind. 513: 1393. Pittsl)urgh's Appeal, 115 Pa. St 4: 1033. Pittsburgh's Petition, 138 Pa. St 401: 384, 390. Plainfleld, Treas. of, v. Hall, 61 N. J. L. 437: 306. Planche v. Fletcher, 1 Doug. 257: 25. Plantation No. 9 v. Bean, 36 Me. 359: 554. Planters' Bank v. Sharp, 6 How. 301: 1193, 1196. V. State, 6 S. & M. 628: 462, 63a Piatt V. Craig, 66 Ohio St 75: 382, 401, 424. V. Lock, 1 Plowd. 35: 1083. V. Stewart 10 Mich. 860: 104a Plattsburg v. People's Telephone Co., 88 Mo. App. 306: 473. Pleasant Hill v. Dasher, 120 Mo. 675: 535. Plsimann v. Hartung, 84 Mo. App^ 283: 766. Plowman, Ex parte, 53 Ala. 440: 1344 Plum V. Kansas City, 101 Mo. 535: 769. Plumb V. Christie, 103 Ga. 686: 330. V. Sawyer, 81 Conn. 351: 641. Plumbly V. Commonwealth, 8 Met 413: 1185. Plummer v. Borsheim,, 8 N. D. 565: 394, 76a V. People, 74 111. 361: 315, 648, 649. clxxx TABLE OF CASES CITED, The rfcferenoes are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-603;JVol. H, pp. 605-1816. Plummer v. Plummer, 37 Miss. 185: 887, 893. Flumstead Board of Works v. Spaekman, K E. 13 Q. B. D. 878: 664, 911, 912. Plymouth Borough, 167 Pa. St. 612: 470. Pochin V. Buncombe, 1 H. & N. 856: 888. Poe V. State, 85 Tenn. 495: 759. Poindexter v. Barker, 2 Hayw. 173: 619. Point Roberts Fishing Co. v. George & B. Co., 28 Wash. 200: 909. Poling V. Parsons, 38 W. Va. 80: 1001, 1078. Polk's Lessee v. Wendall, 9 Cranoh. 87: 616, 620. Pollard, Ex parte, 40 Ala. 99: 199, 446, 648, 1200. Pollard V. Wegener, IB Wis. 569: 1050. PoUook V. Farmers' L, & T. Co., 158 U. S. 601: 595, 602. Pomeroy v. Ainsworth, 23 Barb. 118: 611. V. Beach, 149 Ind. 511: 1258. V. Gregory, 66 Cal. 574: 1197. V. Pomeroy, 93 Wis. 262: 784. Pomfret v. Windsor, 3 Ves. 480: 628. Ponoin v. Furth, 15 Wash. 201: 242. Pond V. Maddox, 38 Cal. 573: 435. V. Negus, 3 Mass. 330: 1117, 1119. Pons V. State, 49 Miss. 1: 482. Poook V. Lafayette Bldg. Ass'n, 71 Ind. 357: 796. Pool V. Brown, 98 Mo. 675: 535, 544. V. Simmons, 134 Cal. 631: 721, 730. V. Wedemever, 56 Tex. 387: 1071. Pooley V. Buffalo, 13.3 N. Y. 593: 309. Poor V. Watson, 93 Mo. App. 89: 661, 955. Poor Directors v. Bailroad Ca, T" W. & S. 236: 562. Poor District v. Poor District, 109 Pa. St. 579: 644. Pope V. Phifer, 3 Heisk. 701: 343, 357. Porter v. Glenn, 87 III App. 106: 1158. V. Innes, 79 Cal. 183: 1197. V. Kingfisher Co. Com'rs, 6 Okl. - 550: 458. V. Waring, 69 N. Y. 250: 879. Porterfleld v. Clark, 2 How. 76: 616. . Porter's Lessee v. Coobe, Peck, 30: 010. Portland v. Gaston, 38 Ore. 533 :-- 661, 955. V. Stock, 3 Ore. 69: 433. Portland Bank v. Apthorp, 12 Mass. - 353: 888. V. Maine Bank, 11 Mass. 304: 337. Portland Nat. Bank v. Scott, 30 Ore. 421: 39, 016. Portland R. R. Extension Co., Ap- pellants, 94 Me. 565: 469. Portsmouth Livery Co. v. Watson, 10 Mass. 91: 635. Port Wardens of N. Y. v. Cart- wright, 4 Sandf. 286: 1019. Posey V. Pressley, 60 Ala. 243: 759, 780. Post V. Garrow, 18 Neb. 682: 337. V. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667: 70, 91, 99, 605. Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Farmville- & P. E. R. Co., 96 Va. 661: 902. V. Southern Ry. Co., 89 Fed. 190: 788, 790. Postal Tel. Co. v. Lenoir, 107 Ala.- 640: 963. TABLE OF CASES CITED. clxxzi The rererences aro to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Postmaster General v. Early, 12 Wheat. 136: 635. Potter V. Ajax Min. Co., 19 Utah, 421: 1329. V. ColMs, 19 App. Div. 392: 303. V. Hull, 189 U. S. 292: 890. V. National Bank, 103 U. S. 163: 677. V. SaflEord, 50 Mich. 46: 659, 731. Potter Co. W. Co. v. Austin, 206 Pa. St. 297: 306. Potwin V. Johnson, 108 111. 70: 164. Poughkeepsie Bridge Co., Matter of, 108 N. Y. 483: 1041. Poulson V. Union Nat. Bank, 40 N. J. L. 563: 462. Poulsum V. Thirst, L. R. 2 C. P. 449: 716. Pound V. Plumbstead, L. E. 7 Q. B. 183: 1067. Pounds V. Rogers, 52 Kan. 558: 1208. Powder Riv. Cattle Co. \< Custer Co. Com'rs, 9 Mont. 145: 759. Powdrell v. Jones, 3 Sra. & G. 407: 723. Powell V. Brandon, 24 Miss. 363: 610. V. Burden, 61 Ark. 21: 339. V. Jackson, 51 Mich. 129: 112. V. King, 78 Minn. 83: 525. V. Sherwood, 163 Mo. 605: 135, 417, 1064. V. Smith, 74 Miss. 142: 909. V. Spaokman, 7 Idaho, 692: 702. V. State. 69 Ala. 10: 577, 593. V. Supervisors, 88 W. Va. 707: 191, 203, 258. V. Tuttle, 3 N. T. 396: 645, 997, 1046, 1047. Power V. Co. Com'rs, 7 Mont. 82: 501, 694. V. Hafley, (Ky.) 4 S. W, 683: 770. V. Kitching, 10 N. D. 354: 186, 191, 303. Power V. Penny, 59 Miss. 5: 1231. Powers V. Barney, 5 Blackf. 303: 541, 999. V. Bergen, 6 N.Y. 358: 637. V. Commonwealth, 90 Ky. 167: 634, 632. V. Inferior Ct.. 23 Ga. 65: 17a V. McKenzie, 90 Tenn. 167: 213. V. Shepard, 48 N. Y. 540: 442, 443, 494. Powers' Appeal, 29 Mioh. 504: 330, 335, '644. Powlter's Case, 11 Coke, 33: 648, 650. Praigg V. Western Paving & Sup- ply Co., 143 Ind. 358: 137. Prangley, In re, 4 Ad. & El 781: 330. Prather v. United States, 9 App. Cas. (D. C.) 82: 991, 992, 993. Pratt, In re, 19 Colo. 138: 230, 970. Pratt V. Brown, 135 CaL 649: 274 409. V. Brown, 80 Tex. 608: 771. V. Miller, 109 Mo. 78: 784, 785. V. Short, 79 N. Y. 437: 939. V. Street Commissioner, 139 Mass. 559: 518, 521. V. Swan, 16 Utah, 483: 534. Prell V. McDonald, 7 Kan. 426: 617, 624. Prentiss v. Danaher, 30 Wis. 311: 684. Presbrey v. Williams, 15 Mass. 193: 328, 339, 332. Prescott V. Beebe, 17 Kan. 320: 298. President, etc. of L. v. Harrison, 9 B. &C. 524:. 556. Preston v. Finley, 72 Fed. 850: 304 V. Louisville, 84 Ky. 118: 369, 385. V. Surgrine, Peek, 80: 610. Pretty v. Solly, 36 Beav. 606: 66L clxxxii TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-803; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Price V. Blair Co., 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 313: 500. V. Forrest, 173 U. S. 410: 634, 655. V. Hopkin, 13 Mich. 318: 313, 313, 1287. V, Lancaster Co., 189 Pa. St 95: 890, 891. V. Lush, 10 Mont. 61: 784, 1145. V. Moundsville, 43 W. Va. 523: 73, 84, 86, 88, 215. V. Nesbitt, 39 Md. 263: 553. V. Society for Savings, 64 Conn. 362: 644, 1258, 1260. V. White, 27 Mo. 275: 625, 633. V. Whitman, 8 Cal. 417: 329, 335. Prieger v. Excliange, etc. Ins. Co., 6 Wis. 89: 873. Prigg V. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539: 631, 762. Prigge V. Adams, Skin, 350: 633. Prime, Matter of, 64 Hun, 50: 1159, 1166. Prime, Matter of, 136N. Y. 347: 1166. Prime v. McCarthy, 93 Iowa, 569: 1313. Prince v. Crocker, 166 Mass. 847: 607. V. Lamb, Breese, 378: 611. Prince Georges Ca v. Mitchell, 97 Md. 330: 9. Prine's Estate, Matter of, 136 N. T. 347: 445, 534, 1038. Pringle V, Carter, 1 Hill (S. C.) 53: 1051. Prison Ass'n v. Ashby, 93 Va. 667: 13, 133, 137, 304, 909. Pritchard v. Savannah, etc. R. R. Co., 87 Ga. 394: 1333. Pritchett v. Stanilaus Co., 73 Cal. 310: 347. Pritz, Ex parte, 9Iovca, 30: 401, 439. Probasco v. Raine, 50 Ohio St. 378: 13, 137, 138. Probasco Ca v. Moundsville, 11 W. Va. 501 : 1003. Proctor V. Cascade Ca, 30 Mont. 315: 518. Proprietors of Locks, etc. v. Lowell, 7 Gray, 233: 1044. Proprietors of Mills v. Randolph, 157 Mass. 345: 649, 650. Prospect Park, etc. R. R. Ca, In re, 67 N. Y. 371: 219. Protection Life v. Palmer, 81 III. 88: 337. Protector, The, 1 W. Rob. 45: 1005. Protestant Epis. School, Matter of, 58 Barb. 161:641, 1163. Providence v. Union R. R. Co., 13 R. L 473: 528. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514: 1033,1194. Providence, etc. R. R. Co. v. Nor- wich, etc. R R. Co., 138 Mass. 277: 1044. Provident Life & Trust Co. v. Mer- cer Ca, 170 U. S. 593: 1030. Pryce v. Monmouthshire Canal & Ey. Ca, L. E. 4 App. Cas. 197: 998. Pryor v. Rochester, 57 App. Div. 486: 1118. V. Ryburn, 16 Ark. 671: 1015, 1283. Public School Trustees v. Trenton, 30 N. J. Eq. 667: 463. Puckett v. Springfield, 97 Tenn. 234: 518, 530, 1133. V. Young, 113 Ga. 578: 434 Pue V. Hetzell, 16 Md. 539: 769. Puget Sound Nat. Bank v. Seattle, 9 Wash. 608: 707. Pugh V. Duke of Leeds, 2 Cowp. 714: 339. V. State, 3 Head, 227: 872. PuUan V. Cincinnati, etc. E. E. Co., 4 Biss. 35: 103a TABLE OF CASES CITED. clxxxiii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. PuUis Bros. Iron Co. v. Boemler, 91 Mo. App. 85: 1361. Pullman v. Hungate, 8 Wash. 519: 394. Pultzer V. New York, 48 App. Div. 6: 781. Pump V. Lucas Co., 69 Ohio St. 448: 355. Purdon v. Seligman, 78 Mich, 132: 1016. Purdy V. People, 4 Hill, 884: 62, 605, 607. Purnell v. Mann, 105 Ky. 87: 132, 134, 137, 447. Pursell V. New York Life Ins. etc. Co., 43 N. Y. Super. Ct 888: 533, 923. Purvis V. Ross, 158 Pa. St. 20: 433. Pushor V. Morris, 53 Minn. 835: ' 573. Putnam v. Longley, 11 Pick. 487: 911, 1072. V. St. Paul. 75 Minn. 514: 191, 200. Pyle V. Maulding, 7 J. J. Marsh, 202: 337, 339. , Q. Quackenbush v. Banks, 1 Denio, 138, 641, 1200. V. Danks, 3 Denio, 594: 641. V. United States, 177 U. S. 20 671. Quain v. Russell, 8 Hun, 819: 1266. Quarrier v. Colston, 1 Phil. 147: 25. Quarterbaum v. State, 79 Ala. 1 937. Queen v. Castro, L. R. 9 Q. B. 860 747. v. Champneys, L. R. 6 C. P. 884 529. V. Clarence, L. R. S3 Q. B. 23 911. Queen v. Griffiths (1891), 2 Q. B. 145: 1160. V. Hopkins (1893), 1 Q. B. 631: 703, 909. V. Justices, 8 Ad. & El. 933: 830. V, Justices, 7 Jurist, 396: 336. V. Pearce, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 386: 686, 687. V. St. Giles, 3 E. & E. 334: 444. Quejn, The, 98 Fed. 834: 1161, 1192. Quick V. Miller, 103 Pa. St. 67: 103), 1294. V. Whitewater Tp., 7 Ind. 570: 668. Quigley v. Gorham, 5 Cal. 418: 747. Quilkien v. Doe, 8 Blackf. 581: 544. Quilter v. Mapleson, L. R. 9 Q. B. D. 672: 1160. Quin V. O'Keeffe, 10 Ir. 0. L. (N. S.) 893: 663, 665, 724, 797, 910, 914. Quincy v. O'Brien, 24 111 App. 591: 466, 527. Quinlon v. Rogers, 13 Mich. 168: 593. Quinn v. Cumberland Co., 163 Pa. St 55: 273, 534, 539. V. Fidelity, etc. Ass'n, 100 Pa. St. 382: 644, 1252. V. Lowell Electric L. Co. 140 Mass. 106: 813. V. New York, 68 App. Div. 175: 469. E. Rabun Co. v. Habersham Co., 79 Ga. 248: 739, 797. Rachel, The Schooner, v. United States, 6 Cr. 329: 545, 546, 549, 552. Racho V. Detroit, 90 Mich. 92: 498. Radclifife v. Bartholomew, L. R. (1892). 12 B. 161: 327. Rader v. Union Tp., 89 N. J. L. 509: 252, 581, 601. clxxxiv TABLE OF OASES CITED. l^he references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Eadley v. Seider, 99 Mich. 431: 1267. Radnorshire Co. Boad Board v. Evans, 3 B. & S. 400: 816. Rafael v. Verelst, 2 W. Black. 1058: 26. Eafferty v. Buckman, 46 Iowa, 195: 1268. Ragio V. State, 86 Tenn. 273: 250, 257, 343, 357, 419. Ragland v. Justices, 10 Ga. 65: 714, 1077, 1095. Ragland v. Wynn, 37 Ala. 33: 871. Rah way Sav. Inst. v. Rahway, 53 N. J. L. 48: 231. Railroad v. Hurst, llHeisk. 625: 38. V. McKaskill, 94 N. C. 746: 1056. V. Merrell, 11 Heisk. 715: 1160. Railroad Co. v. Barron, 5 Wall. 90: 1293. V. Crider, 91 Tenn. 489: 200, 225, 420, 447. V. Governor, 33 Mo. 353: 53. V. Hughes, 94 Tenn. 450: 741, 1313. Railroad Co.'s v. Sohutte, 103 U. S. 118: 585. Railwaj- Co. v. Board of Pub. Works, 28 W. Va. 264: 20. V. B' Shears, 59 Ark. 237: 702, 744. Railroad Tax Cases, 13 Fed. 723: 58. Rails Co. Ct. V. United States, 105 XJ. S. 733: 1213. Ralston v. Lothain, 18 Ind. 303: 18. Eamchander v. Hammond, 3 John. 200: 1015. Eamish v. Hartwell, 126 Cal. 443: 788. Ramognano v. Crook, 85 Ala. 336: 229. Ramsay v. Whitbeck, 81 111. App. 310: 749. RamsHen v. Gibbs, 1 B. & C. 319: 1108. Ramsey v. Glenn, 33 Kan. 371: 28. V. Tod, 95 Tex. 614: 891. Ranch v. Commonwealth, 79 Pa. et. 490: 607. Rand v. Commonwealth, 9 Gratt. 738: 1185. V. Rand, 4 N. H. 267: 327. Randall v. Butler Co., 65_Kan. 20: 466, 467, 501. V. Pryor, 4 Ohio, 424: 947. V. Richmond & D. R. R. Co., 104 N. C. 410: 703, 744. V. Richmond & D. R. R. Co., 107 N. C. 748: 703, 705, 909. V. Van Rensselaer, 1 John. 95 : 25. Rand, McNally & Co. v. Hartranft, 29 Wash. 591: 1161, 1191. Eandol v. Garoutte, 78 Ma App. 609: 749, 760. Randolph v. Bayne, 44 Cal. 366: 689. V. Builders & P. Supply Co., 106 Ala. 501: 190, 457, 577, 592, 593. V. State, 9 Tex. 521: 645, 835, 962. Rankin v. Colgan, 92 Cal. 605: 130. V. Cowden, 66:111. App. 137: 530, 536. V. Pine, 4 Abb. Pr. 309: 918. V. Schofield, 70 Ark. 83: 1158, 1283, 1284, 1386. V. Tenbrook, 6 Watts, 388: 1005. Eanoul v. Griffe, 3 Md. 54: 853. Ransome v. State, 91 Tenn. 716: 434. Rantz V. Barnes, 40 Ohio St. 43: 1275. Rape V. Heaton, 9 Wis. 328: 611, 869. Easmussen v. Baker, 7 Wyo. 117: 955. RatclifE V. People, 23. Colo. 75: 442. Ratcliflfe v. Marrs, 87 Ky. 26: 1191. TABI-E OF OASES CITED. clxxxv The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-i VoL n, pp. 605-1315. ■ Rathbone v. Bradford, 1 Ala. (N. S.) 313: 18, 308. V. Hamilton, 4 App. Cas. (D. C.) 475: 855. V. Hopper, 57 Kan. 240: 316, 273, 1030. V. Kiowa Co. Com'rs., 78 Fed. 395: 341, 1030. V. Kiowa Co. Com'rs, 83 Fed. 135: 339. V. Wirth, 150 N. T. 459: 577. ■Rathoon v. White, 16 Colo. 41: 468. Ratzkjr V. People, 39 N. Y. 134: 1183,' 1187. Raubold v. Commonwealth, 31 Ky. L. R, 1135: 199, 301, 468. 'Raudebaugh v. Shelley, 6 Ohio St. 807: 498, 636. Rauer v. Williams, 118 Cal. 401: 373, 891. 'Eaught V. Lewis, 24 Wash. 47: 1313. Eaverty v. Fridge, 3 McLean, 330: 1339. Rawley v. Rawley, 13 B. D. 406: 648. 'Rawlings v. Jennings, 13 Ves. 46: 824. Eawlins v. Vidvard, 34 Hun, 205: 1365. Rawls V. Kennedy, 33 Ala. 340: 671. Eawson v. Parsons, 6 Mich. 401: 1131. Ray V. Lake Superior, etc. Ry. Co., 99 Wis. 617: 552. -Raymond v. Sheboygan, 76 Wis. 335: 1335. V. State, 54 Miss. 563: 1039. Raynard v. Chase, 1 Burr. 2: 646. Rayuham v. Canton, 3 Pick. 293: 630. uEead v. Clearfield Co., 13 Pa. Supr. Ct. 419: 375, 418. V. Edwards, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 245: 778. Read v. Frankfort Bank, 33 Me. 318: 18, 1200. V. Levy, 30 Tex. 738: 92a V. Stewart, 139 Mass. 407: 986. V. Storey, 6 H. & N, 423: 471. Reading v. Savage, 124 Pa. St. 328: 377, 386. V. Shepp, 3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 137: 491, 538, 530. Ready v. Chamberlin, 52 How. Pr. 123: 335. Reagan v. Farmers' L. & S. Co., 154 U. S. 362: 579. Reals V. Smith, 8 Wyo. 159: 430. Reamer v. Morrison Express Co., 93 Mo. App. 501: 1018. Reavis v. Farmers' Mut. F. Ins. Co., 78 Mo. App. 14: 766. Redell v. Moores, 68 Neb. 319: 140, 606. Redmond, Ex parte, 3 App. Cas. (D. C.) 817: 710, 846. Redmond v. State, 36 Ark. 58: 1276. Eedpath v. People, 84 111. App. 509: 846. Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596: 463, 466, 516, 539. Red Wing v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 72 Minn. 240: 1031, 1232. ' Reed v. Clark, 3 McLean, 480: 123. V. Davis, 8 Pick. 514: 645, 987. V. Dunbar, 41 Ore. 509: 7, 463, 518. V. Madison, 83 Wis. 171: 1168. V. McCloud,38W. Va.701: 1361. V. McCrary, 94 Ga. 487: 128, 249. v. Northfield, 13 Pick. 94: 646, 986, 991. V. Ownby, 44 Ma 204: 899. V. Rawson, 3 Litt 189: 643. V. Rogan, 94 Tex. 177: 399. V. State, 136 Ala. 91: 1313. V. State, 13Ind. 641:205. V. Swan, 188 Mo. 100: 1159, 1191. clxxxvi TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 60S-1315. Reed V.Thompson, 88111. 245: 1267. V. Toledo, 18 Ohio, 161: 1009. V. Wilson, 41 N. J. L. 29: 868. Reel V. Livingston, 34 Fla. 377: 1101. V. Overall, 89 Ala. 138: 1062. Reelfoot Lake Levee Dist. v. Daw- son, 97Tenn. 151: 160. Reese v. W. U. T. Co., 123 Ind. 294: 466, 467, 963. Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505: 427. Reeves v. Anderson, 13 Wash. 17: 134. V. Gay, 92 Ga. 309: 440. V. Phila. Traction Co., 153 Pa. St. 153: 414. V. White, 17 Q. B. 995: 1052, Regina v. Adanison, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 201: 1149. V. Allen, L. R. 1 C. C. 367: 758. V. Arnold, 5 B. &. S. 323: 1112. V. Badcock, 6 Q. B. 787: 789. V. Barclay, L. R. 8 Q. B. Div. 306: 999. V. Bennett, 14 Cox, C. C. 45: 977. %'. Bishop, 5 Q. B. Div. 259: 976. V. Bishop of Oxford, L. R 4 Q. B. D. 525: 1149. V. Boteler, 4 B. & S. 989: 1149. V. Brqwn, 17 Q. B. 833: 804. V. Bullock, L. R. 1 C. 0. 117: 777. V. Buttle, L. R. 1 C. C. 250: 777. V. Cambridgeshire Justices, 7 Ad. & E. 491: 1066, 1067. V. Chantrell, L. R. 10 Q. B. 587: 899. V. CharlesvForth, 2 Lowndes, M. &P. 117: 804. V. Cleworth, 4 B. & S. 927: 817. V. Cohen, 8 Cox, C. C. 41 : 977. V. Colling wood, 12 Q. B. 681: 1089. Regina v. Cumberworth Half, 5< Q. B. 484: 844. V. Cut bush, L. R. 2 Q. B. 379: 893. V. Dean, 13 M. & W. 39: 979-, 1108. V. Doubleday, 8 El. & El. 501 : 839. V. Edmundson, 3 EL & El. 77: 838. V. Edmundson, 28 L, J. M. C. 215: 814. V. Fordham, 11 A. & El. 73: 471; V. Frost, 9 C. & P. 129: 777,887. V. Gibbons, 13 Cox, C. C. 237-: 977. V. Harden, 2 Ellis & B. 188: 487. V. Harvey, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 284: 979, 1108. V. Haughton, 1 EL & Bl. 501 : 658. V. Horton, 11 Cox, C. C. 670t 977. V. Ingall, L. R. 3 Q. B. Div. 199: 1117. V. Ingham, 5 B. & S. 257: 777. V. Inhabitants, 3 Q. B. 84: 467. V. Ipswich Union, 3 Q. B. D.' 269: 641. V. Justices, 7 Ad. & E. 480: 685,. 687. V. Kershaw, 6 E. & B. 1007: 1067. V. Lichfield, 3 Q. B. 693: 818. V. Llangian,. 4 B. & S. 249; 488; 799. V. Mallow Union, 12 Ir. C. L, (N. S.) 35: 641, 649, 708,911. 923, 1063. V. Manchester, etc. Water- works Co., 1 B. & C. 630i 805. V. Mayor, eta 7 E. & B. 910-: 1117. TABLE OF CASES CITED. Ihe references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. clxxxvii Eegina v. Mayor of Harwich, 8 Ad, & E. 919: 1149. V. Mews, L. R. 8 App, Cas. 339: 511. V. Mews, 6 Q. B. D. 47: 511. V. Midland E. Co., 4 E. & B. 958: 809. V. Moore, 13 Uox. U. C.544: 977. V. Most, L. E. 7 Q. B. D. 251: 867. V. O'Brien, 15 L. T. (N. S.) 419: 977. T. Overseers, 5 B. & S. 391: 1155. V. Payne, L. R 1 C. C. 37: 838. V. Pearce, L. E. 5 Q. B. Div. 389: 1065. V. Phillips, L. E. 1 Q. B. 648: 799. V. Pilkington, 3 E. & B. 546: 1089. V. Pratt, 4 E. & B. 860: 759, 778. V. Price, L. E. 6Q. B. 411: 777. V. Prince, L. E. 2 0. C. R. 154: 977. V. Scaife, 17 Q. B. 238: 893. V. Seale, 5 E. & B. 1: 921. V. Siiiles, 1 Q. B. 919: 799. V. Skeen, Bell, C. C. 134: 1085. V. Sleep, L. & C. 44: 976, 979, 1108. V. Smith, 1 L. & 0. 131: 683. V. South Weald, 5 B. & S. 391: 778. V. Spratley, 6 E. & B. 363: 730, 824. V. St. Luke's, L. E. 7 Q. B. 153: 1341. V. Stock, 8 Ad. & E. 405: 788. V. Stock, 3 Nev. & Perry, 420: 493. V. Sykes, L. E. 1 Q. B. D. 53: 933. V. Tithe Com'rs, 14 Q. B. 459: 1148. m Eegina v. Tolson, 40 Alb. L. J. 250: 975. V. Tolson, L. E. 28 Q. B. Div. 168: 975, 977. V. Tonbridge Overseers, L. E, 13 Q. B. Div. 343: 854, 916. V. Turner, 9 Cox, C. C. 145: 977. V. Vine, L. E. 10 Q. B. 195: 642, 643. V. Watford, 9 Q. B. 635: 929. V. Wilcock, 7 Q. B. 317: 650. V. Williams, 3 C. & K. 1001: 1149. V. Willmett, 3 Cox, C. 0. 381: 977. V. Wood, L. E. 4 Q. B. 559: 755. V. Wymondham, 3 Q. B. 541: 1089. V. Youle, 6 H. & N. 758: 481. V. Zuluetta, 1 C. & K. 815: 884. Eegistration of Campbell, In re, 197 Pa. St. 501: 430. Rehoboth v. Hunt, 1 Pick. 334: 1192. Eeiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall. 163: 664, 665, 714, 810. Reid V. Colorado. 187 U. S. 137: 134 V. Murlai, 119 111. 118: 583. V. Panska, 56 Neb. 195: 434 V. Smoulter, 128 Pa. St. 334: 443. V. State, 20 Ga. 681: 643. V. Strider, 7 Gratt. 76: 19. V. Supervisors, 60 Hun, 315: 1283. Eeighart v. Harris, 6 Kan. App. 339: 883. Eeilly v. Gray, 77 Hun, 403: 439. Eeimer v. Newel, 47 Minn. 237: 579. Eeinhardt v. Fritzache, 69 Hun, 565: 467. Eeis V. Graff, 51 Cal. 86: 635, 641. Reiser v. Wm. Tell, etc. Ass'n, 39 Pa. St. 147: 14, 19, 635. clxxxviii TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Eeithmiller v. People, 44 Mich. 380: 659, 697, 731, 1071. Relyea v. Tomahawk Paper & Pulp Co., 102 Wis. 301: 1283, 1384, 1385. Remillard v. Blaokman, 49 Minn. 490: 844. Remington v. Hlggins, 6 S. D. 313: ,566. V. State, 1 Ore. 281: 970. Eemsen's Petition, 59 Barb. 317: 1228. Eenackowsky v. Water Com'rs, 123 Mich. 613: 112. Renfroe v. Colquitt, 74 Ga. 619: 963, 967, 989. Renfrew, Ex parte, 112 Mo. 591: 86, 12a Reniok v. Boyd, 99 Pa. St. 555: 820. Renner v. Bennett, 31 Ohio St. 481: 670. Reno S. M. & R. Works v. Steven- son, 20 Nev. 269: 31. Rensselaer, etc. E. R. Co. v. Davis, 43 N. Y. 137: 1041. Renter v. Bauer, 3 Kan. 505: 563. Renwiok v. Morris, 3 Hill, 631: 686, 1057. V. Morris, 7 Hill, 575: 1057. Report of County Auditors, In re, 1 Woodw. 370: 933. Requa v. Graham, 187 IlL 67: 784. V. Graham, 86111. App. 566: 784. Eeser v. Wm. Tell S. F. Ass'n, 39 Pa. St. 147: 3. Respublica v. Mesca, 1 Dall. 73: 31. V. Sparhawk, 1 Dall. 357: 1019. Restall V. London, etc. Ry. Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 141: 545. Rex V. Abbot, 2 Drug. 553: 1053. V. Archbishop of Canterbury, 11 Q. B. 665: 748. V. Banks, 1 Esp. 144: 977. V. Banbury, 1 Ad. & E. 148: 701, 705. Rex V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. Barbara, 8 B. & C. 99: 916. Barlow, 2 Salk. 609: 1147, 1149. Bond, 1 B. & Aid. 392: 966. Bristol Dock Co., 6 B. & C. 191: 844. Buggs, Skin. 428: 625, 633. Bullock, 1 Taunt. 80: 717. Cator, 4 Burr. 2026: 481. Cornforth, 3 Str. 1163: 710. Covvell, 3 East, P. C. 617: 809. Cunningham, 5 East. 478: 809. Davis, 1 Leach, 371: 4S3, 555. Denbyshire, 4 East, 143: 1117. Dorsetshire, 15 East. 200: 914. Downs, 3 T. R 569: 482. Elkins, 4 Burr. 2130: 336. Great DrifiSeld Inhabitants, 8 B. & C. 690: 892. Handy, 6 T. R. 386: 963. Havering Atte Bower, 5 B. & Aid. 691: 1147. Heath, 2 East. P. C. 609: 555. Hodnett, 1 T. R. 96: 695. Hogg, 1 T. R. 721: 888. Hymen, 7 T. R. 536: 970. Inhabitants, 1 T. R. 96: 711. Inhabitants of Shipton, 8 B, & C. 94: 795. Jefferies,l Strange, 446: 123. Justices, 2 B. & Ad. 818: 310, 669. Justices, 4 B. & Ad, 388: 1149. Justices, 3 Burr. 1456: 554, 678. Justices, 4 Nev. & M. 378: 339, 331. Leek Woolton, 16 East, 132: 887. TABLE OF OASES OITED. clxxxix The references are to the pages: Vol t, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Rex V. Leicester, 7 B. & C. 6: 1117. V. Leicester, 9 D. & R. 772: 471. V. Liverpool, 4 Burr. 2344: 1009. V. Loom, 1 Mro. C. C. 160: 809. V. Luffe, 8 East, 193: 878, 1089. V. Manchester & S. W. "Works, 1 B. &O.630: 833. V. Marks, 8 East, 160: 655. V. MasliJta, 6 Ad. & E. 158: 865. V. Mayor of London, 9 B. & C. 27: 1052. V. MoKenzie, R. & R. C. C. 429 484, 555. V. Middlesex, 2 B. & Ad. 818 457, 542. V. Middlesex, 1 Dow. P. C. 117 463. V. Midland Ry. Co., L. R 10 Q. B. 889: 666. V. Uovj^&a, Str. 1066: 456. V. Mortlake, 6 East, 397: 797. V. N8wark-upon-Trent,3B. &0. 71: 673. V. Newcomb, 4 T. R 368: 471, 637. V. Northleaoh & W. Road, 5 B. & Ad. 978: 473, 490, 493. V. Palmer, Leach 0. C. 353: 845. V. Poor Law Com'r, 6 A. & E. 17: 699, 703, 703, 758, 916. V. Eamsgate, 6 B. &C. 712: 916. V. Robinson, 3 Burr. 803: 917. V. Rogers, 10 East, 573: 459. V. Sadi, 1 Leach, C. C. 468: 861. V. Sedgley, 2 B. & Ad. 65: 809. V. Shrewsbury, 3 B. & Ad. 316: 833. V. Simpson, 1 Str. 45: 863. •V. Sparrow, 3 Str. 1133: 1117. V.St. George's Hannover Square, 8 Camp. 323: 636. -V. Stoke Damerel, 7 B. & C. 570: 843. Rex V. St. Peter & St. Paul in B., 1 Bott. 443: 654. V. Sutton, 4 M. &S. 533: 658. V. Swiney, Aloook & Napier, 131: 456. V. Taunton St. James, 9 B. & C. 831: 671. V. Trustees, etc., 5 Ad. & E. 563: 967. V. Wallis, 5 T. R. 375: 818. V. Wells, 4 Dowe. 563: 461. V. Whiteley, 3 H.&N. 143: 513. V. "Williams, 1 "W. Bl. 93: 630, 648, 1075. V. "Woodrow, 15 M. & "W. 404: 979. V. "Worcestershire, 5 M. & S. 457: 688. V. "Wright, 1 Ad. & El. 437: 981. V. Yorkshire, 1 Doug. 193: 914 V. Younger, 5 T. E. 453: 893. Rex Lumber Co. v. Reed, 107 Iowa, 111: 303,389. Rexroth v. Schein, 206 111. 80: 1390. Rey mond v. Newcomb, 10 N. M. 151 : 784. Reynolds, Ex parte, 87 Ala. 138: 238. Reynolds v. Blue, 47 Ala. 711: ISO. V. Board of Education, 66 Kan. 673: 399, 436, 510. V. Commonwealth, 93 Pa. St. 458: 1398. V. Haines, 83 Iowa, 343: 1360. V. Holland, 35 Ark. 56: 666, 693, 705, 739. V. Niagara Falls, 81 Hun, 353: 528. V. Oneida Co., 6 Idaho, 787: 157. V. Orvis, 7 Cow. 269: 933, 1045, 1046. V. Robinson, 64 N. Y. 589: 1062, 1294. cxc TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Reynolds v. State, 1 Ga. 222: 641. V. State, 53 Neb. 761: 434 Rhea v. Greer, 86 Tean. 59: 1076. V. State, 63 Neb. 461: 469, 786, 814. R. H. Herron Co. v. Supr. Court, 136 Cal. 279: 39. Rhoades v. Delaney, 50 Ind. 253: 334. Rhoads v. Hoesnerstown B., etc. Ass'n, 82 Pa. St. 180: 531. Rhodes v. Iowa, 170 U. S. 413: 707, 711, 721, 732. V. Smethurst, 4 M. & W. 42: 1279. V. Weldey, 46 Ohio St. 334, 20 N. E. 461: 758. Rhone v. Loomis, 74 Minn. 200: 815, 843. Ricard v. Smith, 87 Miss. 644: V. Williams, 7 Wheat. 59: 910. Rice V. Ashland Co., 108 Wis. 189: 703, 725, 914. V. Carmichael, 4 Colo. App.'84: 1254. V. Colorado Smelting Co., 38 Colo. 519: 437; V. Commonwealth, 22 Ky. L. R 1793: 562. V. Darrian, 57 Ark. 541 : 774. V, Foster, 4 Harr. 479: 145, 172. V. Goodwin, 3 Colo. App* 267: 527. V. Hosking, 105 Mich. 303: 301, 447. V. Kirkman, 3 Humph. 415: 1050. V. McCaully, 7 Houst. 236: 559. V. Montgomery, 4 Biss. 75: 879. V. Parkman, 16 Mass. 33G: 636. V. Railroad Co., 1 Black, 358: 547, 659, 710, 724, 861, 863, 864, 1038, 1033, 1035. V. Rice, 104 Mich. 871: 1295. Rice V. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 125: 313, 541. V. Shook, 37 Ark. 187: 871. V. Wright, 46 Miss. 679: 553. Rice's Succession, 31 La. Ann. 614: 606. Rich V. Chicago, 50 111. 287: 1139. V. Chicago, 152 III. 18: 467. V. Flanders, 89 N. H. 304: 641, 927. V. Keyser, 54 Pa. St. 86: 759, 778. V. People, 153 111. 18: 466. V. Rayle, 2 Humph. 404: 930. Richard v. Stark County, 8 N. D. 892: 290. Richards v. Billingham B. L. Co., 54 Fed. 209: 286. V. Bagget, 4 Mass. 537: 911. V. Dyke, 3 Q. B. 256: 1053. V. Emswiler, 14 La. Ann. 658: 1014. V. McBride, L. R. 8 Q. B. Div. 119: 665, 793, 799. V. Richards, 76 N. Y. 188: 251,- 353. V. Rote, 68 Pa, St. 248,: 1333. Richardson, In re, 2 Story, 571: 308. Richardson, Matter of, 3 Story, 571 : 330, 331. Richardson v. Crandall, 48 N. Y. 356: 936. V. Fletcher, 74 Vt. 417: 1327. V. Mass. Charitable Ass'n, 181 Mass. 174: 1087. V. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 37 W. Va. 641: 1110, 1254 V. Pulver, 63 Barb. 67: 9i0. V, Richardson, 6 Ohio, 125r 1279. V. St. Albans, 73 Vt 1: 1002. V. U. S. M. & S. Co., 194111. 259: 1158, 1191, 1200, 1306. V. U. S. Mortgage & T. Ca, 8» HI. App. 679: 1191. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CXCl The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vdl. H, pp. 605-1316. Rioliland Co. v. Eichland Center, 69 Wis. 591: 1194. Bichman v. Muscatine Co. Sup'rs, 77 Iowa, 513: 248, 340, 1230, 1232, 1237. Richmond v. Chicago, etc. Ry. Ca, 87 Mich. 374: 1293. V. Shickler, 57 Iowa, 486: 1273. V. Smith, 15 Wall. 429: 615. V. Supervisors, 83 Ya. 204: 765, 88k Richmond R. R. Ca v. Louisa R. R Co., 13 How. 71: 548, 1083, 1035. Richter v. Bohnsack, 144 Mo. 516: 1261. V. Merrill, 84 Mo. App. 150; 1003. V. Prillon, 173 N. Y. 67: 741. Ricketson v. Richardson, 26 Cal. 149: lO-O. Rico Reduction & Min. Co. v. Mus- grave, 14 Colo. 79: 1258. Ridge Ave. Ry. Co. v. Philadelphia, 124 Pk. St. 219: 223. Ridgefield Park, In re, 54 N. J. L. 288: 6, 7. Ridgeway v. Gallatin Co., 181 111. 531: 511,527,539. Ridout V. Pain, 3 Atk. 493: 669. Rieker v. Danville, 304 111. 191 : 1306. Riggih V. Collier, 6 Mo. 568: 880. Eiggins V. State, 4 Kan. 173: 642, 1228. Riggs V. Brewer, 64 Ala. 283: 463, 638. V. Martin, 5 Ark. 506: 18. V. Palmer, 115 N. Y. 506: 694, 742. Right V. Martin, 11 Ind. 133: 547. Rigney v. Plaster, 88 Fed. 686: 694, 713, 733. Rigoney v. Neiman, 73 Pa. St. 330: 756. Riley v. Garfield Tp., 54 Kan, 463: 1030. Rio Grand Irr. & Col. Co. v. Gilder- sleeve, 9 N. M. 12: 1027. Ripley v. Evans, 87 Mich. 217: 199, 362, 416. Ripple V. Ripple, 1 Rawle, 386: 869. RisewioTi v. Davis, 19 Md. 82: 808, 1048, 1049. Rison V. Farr, 24 Ark. 161: 1206. Ritchie v. People, 155 III. 98: 191, 203, 33y, 578, 583, 597. V. Richards, 14 Utah, 345: 73, 86, 386. Rivers v. Cole, 38 Iowa, 677: 643, 1326. River Wear Com'rs v. Adainson, L. R 3 Ap. Cas. 743: 911. v. Adamsoh, L. R. 1 Q. B. D. 546: 884. Rives V. Guthrie, 1 Jones' "L. 88: 757. Rixhe V. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 Mo. App. 406: 81, 952, 965. Roach, Ex parte, 104 Cal. 273: 1038, 1033. Road in Green & G. Tps., 31 Pa. Supr. Ct. 418: 470. Eoahe v. Innis, Wythe (Va.), 63: 1343. Roane Iron Co. v. Wisconsin Trust Co., 99 Wis. 273: 430. Robb V. Gurney, 3 Rich. (N. S.) 559: 511. Robbins v. State, 8 Ohio St. 131: 528, 530. Robei-g, Matter of, 18 Ohio C. C. 367: 407. Eoberg's Assignment, 18 Ohio C. C. 367: 458. Roberts, Ex pairte, 166 Mo. 207: 13, 133. Roberts, In re, 5 Colo. 525: 72, 75, 84, 85, 96. Roberts v. Brooks, 78 Fed. 411: 304. v. Cain, 97 Ky. 722: 6. CXCll TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1815. Roberts v. Cannon, 4 Dev. & Bat. L. 267: 1072. V. Cohen, 60 App. Div. 259: 1191. V. Detroit, 102 Mich. 64: 815. V. Fargo, 10 N. D. 230: 1145. V. First Nat. Bank, 8 N. D. 504: 1208. V. Fowler, 3 R D. Smith, 633: 1055, 1354. V. Hackney, 109 Ky. 265: 6, 10. V. Missouri, etc. Ry. Ca, 43 Kan. 102: 437. V. State, 30 App. Div. 106: 19. V. State, 2 Overt 423: 554. V. Yarboro, 41 Tex. 449 : 674, 677, 92^ Robertson v. Detuoss, 33 Miss. 298: 459. V. Land Commissioner, 44 Mich, 274: 1192. V. People, 20 Colo. 379: 73, 130. V. Preston, 97 Va. 396: 595. V. Robertson, 100 Ky. 696: 703. V. State, 130 Ala. 164: 71, 78, 96. V. State, 13 Tex. App. 541: 435. Roberts' Will, 8 Paige, 446: 620. Robey v. Prince George's Co., 83 Md. 150: 6, 9. Robinius v. State, 63 Ind. 235: 1276. Robinson, Ex parte, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 511: 671, 796. Robinson v. Belt, 3 Ind, Ter. 360: 785. v. Belt, 187 U.S. 41:785. V. Bidwell, 23 Cal. 379: 582, 601. v. Canadian Pao. Ry. Co. (1892), A.'C. 481:855. V. Dauchy, 3 Barb. 30: 611. V. Emerson, 4 H. & C. 355: 484. V. Fair, 128 U. S. 53: 1052. V. Ferguson, 119 Iowa, 325: 1227. V. Foster, 13 Iowa, 186: 330. V. Gilman, 20 Me. 299: 6ia Robinson v. Goldsboro, 122 N. C. 311: 534. v. Howe, 13 Wis. 341: 1310. V. Lane, 19 Ga. 337: 33a V. People, 23 Colo. 133: 965. V. Perry, 17 Kan. 248: 433, V. Schmidt, 48 Tex, 13: 1049, 1050. V. Skipworth, 23 Ind. 311: 185, 254. v. State, 59 Ark. 341:974. V. State, 15 Tex. 311: 928. V. Varnell, 16 Tex. 382: 664, 756, 911. V. Waddiugton, 13 Ad. & EI. (N. S.) 753: 329. Robinson's Case, 131 Mass. 376: 910, 1313. Robison v. Miner, 68 Mich. 549: 197. Roby V. Shepard, 42 W. Va. 286: 86, 129, 232, 242, 451. Roche V. Jersey City, 40 N. J. L. 257, 518. V. Mayor, 40 N. J. L. 257: 638. V. Waters, 72 Md. 364: 19. Rochester, Matter of, 77 App. Div. 28: 268, 290. Rochester v, Barnes, 26 Barb. 657: 473. V. Campbell, 123 N.T.405: 917, 1311. Rochester, etc. W. Co. v. Rochester, 84 App. Div. 71: 1194. Rockhill V. Nelson, 24 Ind. 422: 900. Rook Hill College v. Jones, 47 Md. 1: 547. Rockhold V. Blevins, 6 Baxt. 115: 37. V. Canton Masonic Mut. Ben. Soc. 129 111. 440: 846, 1065. Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Thom,p- son, 173 111. 593: 1158, 1164. V. Thompson, 74 111, App. 54: 1158, 1164, TABLE OF CASES CITED. CXCUl The references are to the pages: ToL I, pp. 1-603; VoL It, pp. 605-1816. Rockwell y. Clark, 44 Conn. 534: 640. V. Hubbell, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 197: 1201, 1236. Roddam v. Morley, 1 De G. & J. 1: 1015. Roddy V. Brooklyn City, eta R. R. Ca 33 App. Div. 311: 1159. Rode V. Phelps, 80 Mich. 598: 87. V. Siebe, 119 Cal. 518: 423. Rodebaugh v. Phila. Trao. Co., 190 Pa. St, 358: 329, 350, 508, 699, 703, 1283. Rodgers v. Morrill, 55 Kan. 737: 380. V. United States, 185 U. S. 83: 515, 529. Rodger's Petition, 193 Pa. St. 97: 231. Rodman v. Washington, 133 N. C. 39: 93. Rodman-Heath Cotton Mills, v. Waxhaw, 130 N. C. 293: 83, 176, 603. Roe V. Ferrars, 2 B. & P. 547: 1016. V. Hersey, 3 Wils. 275: 308. Roff V. Johnson, 40 Ga. 555: 854. Rogers, Ex parte, 7 Cow. 526: 1046. Rogers v. Goodwin, 2 Mas.s. 475: 893, 894, 899. V. Hillhouse, 3 Conn. 398: 1283. V. Jacob, 88 Ky. 503: 199, 286, 743, 1290. V. Kennard, 54 Tex. 30: 930. V. Kneeland,10V\?^encl. 218: 933. V. Lynch, 44 W. Va 94: 1160, 1165, 1295. V.Murray, 3 Paige, 890: 1137. V. Nashville, etc. Ry. Co., 91 Fed. 299: fll9. V. Rogers, 3 Wend. 508: 660, 666. V. State, 6 Ala. 31: 433. V. State, 6Ind. 31: 433. V. Stephens, 86 N. Y. 623: 290. Rogers v. Trumbull, 82 Wash, 211: 1325. V. Union Ry. Co., 10 Misc, 57: 290, V, VasB, 6 Iowa, 405: 325, 673. V. Watrous, 8 Tex, 62: 515, 516. V. Windoes, 48 Mich. 628: 189. Rogers' Case, 3 Greenlf. 303: 625, 626. Rogers- Ruger Ca v. Murray, 115 Wis, 367: 136, Rohrbacker v. Jackson, 51 Miss. 735: 47, 703. Roland Park Ca v. State, 80 Md. 448: 649, 694, 726, 773, 885, 909. Roles V. Rose well, 5T. R. 538: 1149. Rolfe V. McComb, 3 Head, 558: 610. Rolland v. Commonwealth, 83 Pa. St. 306: 757, 797. Rolle V. Whyte, L. R. 33 B. 305: 778. Rollins V. Wright, 93 Ca!. 395: 1208. Romaine v. Kinshiner, 3 Hilt. 519: 899. Rood V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 43 Wis. 146: 555. V. McCargar, 49 CaL 117: 583, 595. Roose V. Perkins, 9 Neb. 304: 1365, • 1368, 1869. Roosevelt v. Godard, 53 Barb. 533: 937, 928. V. Maxwell, 3 Blatchf. 391: 755. Root V. Sinnook, 34 111. App. 537: 731. Rose V. Beaver Ca, 204 Pa. St. 373: 171, S03, 408. V. Rose, 104 Ky. 48: 1220, 1294, V, Wortham, 95 Tenn. 505: 694, 717, 721, 723, 733. Rosecrants v. Shoemaker, 60 Mich. 4: 1269. Rose Hill I. & C. Ca v. Fulton Co., 204 Pa. St. 44: 303. CXCIV TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-003; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Roselle v. Harmon, 103 Mo* 339: 1059. Rosenberg v. Frank, 58 Cal. 887: 1052. Eosenberger v. Mallerson, 92 Mo. App. 27: 847, 857. Rosenbloom v. State, 64 Neb. 342: 198, 485. Eosenorans v. United States, 165 U. S. 257: 1052. Eosenfield v. S warts, 22 R. I. 315: 1156. Rosenplaenter v. Roessle, 54 N. Y. 863: 701, 705. Ross V. Aguirre, 191 U. S. 60: 239. V. Anstill, 8 Cal. 183: 878. V. Barland, 1 Pet. 655: 1343. V. Boswell, 60 Ind. 2.S5: 870. V. Davis, 97 Ind. 79: 202, 221, 254. V. Duval, IS Pet. 45: 146, 1326. V. Jones, 22 Wall. 576: 1016. V. Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co., Ill Mo. 18: 889. V. M'Lung, 6 Pet. 283: 616. V. New Eng. M. S. Co., 101 Ala. 363: 313. V. Passaic City, 64 N. J. L. 488: 363. v.Reddiok, 3111. 73:634. V. Supervisors, 12 Wis. 26: 883. V. Winsor, 48 N. J. L. 95: 378. Ross' Case, 3 Pick. 165: 1185. Rossev. St. Paul & DaluthBy. Co., 68 Minn. 216: 899, 906. Roth V. Gabbert, 123 Mo. 21 : 707, 745. V. State, 7 Ohio C. C. 63: 1897. V. State, 51 OIilo St. 809: 1897. Rothermel v. Meyerle, 136 Pa. St. 350: 579, 580. Rothgerber v. Dupuy, 64 III. 453: 1013, 1055, 1854. Rothshielrl w Ne* York Life Ins. Ca, 97 III. App. 547: 749, 1153. Rottenberty v. Pipes, 53 Ala. 447: j 643. Roundtree, Ex parte, 51 Ala. 25: 781. Rouse, Hazard & Co., In re, 91 Fed. 96: 515, 538, 745. Rowan v. Runnels, 5 How. 134: 906. Rowa, The, 7 Prob. Div. 247: 8U Rowberry v. Morgan, 9 Exdh. 730: 335. Eowe V. Hibernia S. & L. Soc, 184 Cal. 403: 508. Rowell V. Janorin, 151 N. Y. 60: 671. Rowels V. State, 39 Neb. 659: 424. Rowley v. Stray, 32 Mich. 70: 910, 1072. Eoy V. Henderson, 132 Ala. 175: 587. Royle V. Hamilton, 4 Ves. 437: 761. Ruan St. Opeiiing, 132 Pa. St. 257: 88t, 388. Ruckei-t V. Grand Ave. Ry. Co. 163 Mo. 260: 134, 605, 751, 764, 815. Ruokmaboye v. Lulloobhoy Mat- tichand, 8 Moore P. C. 4: 758. Rtickman v. Ransom, 35 N. J. L. 565: 498. Rudderow v. State, 31 N. J. L. 513: 695. Ruddy's Goods, L. R. 3 P. & D. 330: 1093. Rude V. Mitchell, 97 Mo. 365:1056. Rue V. Alter, 5 Denio, 119: 862, 1003, 1005. Ruffin, Ex parte, 119 CaL 487: 453. Ruffner v. Hamilton Co., 1 Disvey, 39: 463. Ruggles V. Illinois, 108 U. S. 526: 695, 711, 864, 884, 885, 1035. V. Washington Co., 8 Mo. 496: 660, 711. TABLE OF CASES CITED. cxcv The references are to the pages: Vol, I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. B^SrlSlS. -Rumsey v. New York, etc. R. E. Co., 130 N. Y. 88: 63, 131, V, People, 19 N. Y. 48: 605, 60a V. Territory, 3 Wash. Ter. 333: 343. Rundlett v, St. Paul, 64 Minn. 223: 442, 518. Ruohs V. Athens, 91 Tenn. 20: 565, 566. 'Ruschenberg v.' Southern Eleo. R. R. Co., 161 Mo. 70: 538. Rushing t. Sebree, 13 Bush, 198: 853. -Rushville v. Rushville, 33 III. App. 320: 527. V. Rusliville Natural Gas Co., 133 Ind. 576: 651, 929, 1024. Rushville Gas Co. v. Rushville, 131 Ind. 206: 199, 300. s^Russel V. Mayor, etc., 3 Denio, 461, 1019. y, Transylvania University, 1 Wheat. 433: 1046. 'Sussell V. Akeley Lumber Co.. 45 Minn. 371: 1283, 1285, 1337. V. Cage, 66 Tex. 428: 1030. ▼. Farquhar, 55 TeJc 359: 695, 713, 730, 1103. V. Juby, 13 Ala. 131: 1058. V. Martin, 15 Tex. 238: 880. V. Wheeler, Hempst. 3: 1048, 1349, 1305. Eustad V. Bishop, 80 Minn. 497: 1258. "Rutgers v. New Brunswick, 43 N. J. L. 51: 368, 377. Ruther v. Harris, I* R. 1 Ex. Div. 97: 794. .Rutherford v. Greene, 2 Wheat. 196: 643. V. Green's Heirs, 2 Wheat. 196: 795. V. Hamilton, 97 Mo. 543: 369, 376, 386, 389. Rutherford v. Heddens, 83 Mo. 3S8: 376, 889, 401. V. Maynes, 97 Pa. St. 78: 1045. V. Swink, 96 Tenn. 564: 558. Rutland v. Mendon, 1 Pick. 154: 759, 930. Ryalls V. Mechanics Mills, 150 Mass. 190: 784, 860, 861. Ryan, In re, 30 Mont. 64: 325. Ryan, In re, 80 Wis. 414: 100, 126. Ryan v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 101 Wis, 506: 1161, 1168, 1217. V. Commonwealth, 80 Va. 385: 1051. 1160. V. Couch, 66 Ala. 244: 860. V. Johnson, 5 Cal. 86: 351. V. Lynch, 68 III. 160: 72, 87,91. 605. V. Maxey, 14 Mont. 81: 1159. V. Outagamie Co., 80 Wis. 336: 158. V. State, 5 Neb. 376: 668. V. State, 33 Tex. 380: 645. V. Terminal Co., 103 Tenn. Ill: 200, 260. Ryans v. Boogher, 169 Mo. 673; 1283. Ryan's Case, 45 Mich. 173: 466. Ryder v. Cohn, 37 Cal. 69: 37. Ryegate v. Wardsboro, 30 Vt. 746: 660, 704, 709. Ryers, Matter of, 72 N. Y. 1: 577. Ryerson v. Laketon, 52 Mich. 509: 1009. V. XJtley, 16 Mich. 269: 185, 190, 199, 203, 203, 204, 256. Ryle V. Wilkinson Co., 104 Ga. 473: 434. Rymer v. Luzerne Co., 143 Pa. St. 108: 530, 537. Ryno V. State, 58 N. J. L. 238: 293. CXCVl TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to tlte pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-003; Vol. D, pp. 60B-1815. s. Sabin ▼. Anderson, 31 Ore. 487: 1261. V. Curtis, 3 Idaho, 663: 134 Sabine Tram Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 170: 1038. Sacalaris v. Eureka, etc. R. E. Co., 18 Nev. 155: 879. Saoia v. De Graaf, 1 Cow. 856: 645, 1015, 1383. Saokett v. Sackett, 8 Pick. 309: 29, 31, 610. Sackett, etc. Sts., Matter of, 74 N. Y. 95: 203, 204, 347, 254, 577, 581. Sackrider v. Supervisors, 79 Mich. 59: 73, 78, 113. Saco V. Gurney, 34 Me. 14: 553, 555. Sacramento v. Bird, 15 Cal. 294: 516, 638. Sadler v. Langham, 34 Ala. 311: 937. Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Frucke, 152 Pa. St. 231: 384, 528, 538. Sage V. Brooklyn, 89 N. Y. 189: 916. Saginaw Gas Light Co. v. SaginaXv, 28 Fed. 529: 1023, 1029. St. Charles v. Hackman, 133 Mo. 634: 694, 964. V. Nolle, 51 Mo. 123: 1009, 1010. St. Croix Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 6 Dak. 215: 1235, 1357. St. Cross V. Howard, 6 T. R. 338: 748. St. George v. Rockland, 89 Me. 43: 778, 780. St. Joseph V. Landis, 54 Mo. App. 315: 1010. St. Lawrence, etc. R. R. Co. v. Lett, 36 Am. & Eng. R. R Cas. 454: 1292. St. Louis V. Alexander, 23 Mo. 509: 544. V. Dorr, 145 Mo. 466: 375. St Louis T. Goebel, 33 Mo. 295:- 974. V. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468: 215>- 222. V. Howard, 119 Mo. 41: 1032. T. Laughlin, 49 Mo. 559: 823?, 1009, 1010. V. R. J. Gunning Co., 138 Mo.- 347: 768, 789, 790. V. Shields, 62 'Mo. 247: 339. V. Teifel, 42 Mo. 578: 185, 19(^,. 202, 307, 321, 231. St. Louis Co. Ct. V. Sparks, 10 Ma.- 117: 1117. St. Louis Dalles Imp. Co. v. Nelson Lumber Co., 43 Minn. 130: 140, 141. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Berry, 41- Ark. 509: 1002. V. Clark, 53 Mo. 214: 701. V. Fowler, 143 Mo. 670: 907. V. Gill, 54 Ark. 101: 126. V. Gracey, 126 Mo. 473: 694, 695!. V. Loftin, 98 U. S. 559: 1003. ., V. Paul, 64 Ark. 83: 446. V. Southwestern Tel. & Tel. Ca,. 131 Fed. 876: 455. V. Wilder, 17 Kan. 344: 1134. St. Louis G. L. Co. v. American F- Ins. Co., 33 Mo. App. 348: 877. St. Louis Loan & Invest. Co., In re^ 194 III 609: 300. St. Louis National Bank v. Hoffi-- man, 74 Mo. App. 203: 784, 785. St. Louis River Dalles Imp. Co. v.- Nelson Lumber Co., 51 Minn. 10: 1013, 1058. St. Martin v. New Orleans, 14 La. . Ann. 113: 662. St. Paul v. Colter, 13 Minn. 50: 205., V. Johnson, 69 Minn. 184: 931. ». Lewis, 4 Watts, 402: 888. St. Paul, etc. R. R Co. v. Greeu- lialgh, 36 Fed. 563: 1036. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CXCVU The reforences are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. St. Paul, etc. Ey. Co., In re, 34 Minn. 327: 1041. St. Paul, etc. Ey. Co. v. Phelps, 36 Fed. Eep. 569: 1025, 1049. V. Phelps, 137 U. S. 528: 891. Salem Tp. Eoad, 103 Pa. St. 350: 1136. Sales V. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 166 Mo. 671: 568, 846, 860, 933. Salisbury v. Lane, 7 Idaho, 370: 999, 1003. Salkeld v. Johnson, 2 C. B. 756: 881. V. Johnson, 3 Ex. 356: 648. V. Johnstone, 1 Hare, 196: 655. Sallee v. Ireland, 9 Mich. 154: 330. V. Waters, 17 Ala. 483: 1098, 1099. Sailing V. MoKinney, 1 Leigh, 43: 1105. Salonian v. People, 89 111. App. 374: 963. Salomon v. State, 38 Ala. 83: 878. Salter v. Burt, 20 Wend. 205: 337. Salters v. Tobias, 8 Paige, 338: 635. Saltoun V. Advocate-General, 3 Macq. 659: 747. Saramis v. Bennett, 33 Fla. 458: 1158, 1168. Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Pet. 223: 643, 1326. Sams V. King, 18 Fla. 557: 665, 668, 670. V. St Louis & M. E. E. Co., 174 Mo. 53: 417. Sam Slick, The, 3 Curtis, C. C. 480: 1015, 1383. Samuels v. Commonwealth, 10 Bush. 491: 914. San Antonio v. Gould, 34 Tex. 49: 188. V. Mehaffy, 96 U. S. 312: 258. Sanborn v. People'slce Co., 82 Minn. 43: 605. Sanders, In re, 63 Ean. 191: 298, 1076, 1340. Sanders v. Cambria Co., 4 Pa, Dist. Ct. 241: 235. V. County Com'rs, 117 Ala. 543: 304. V. State, 77 Ind. 227: 513, 558, 561, 681, 683. V. St. Louis, etc. Line, 97 Mo. 36: 31, 33. Sanderson v. Com'rs, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 343: 303. San Diego v. Granniss, 77 Cal. 511: 709, 723, 733, 731, 913. San Diego Co. v. Soutliern Pac. R. E. Co., 108 Cal. 46: 517. Sandiman v. Breach, 7 B. & C. 96: 817. Sands v. Campbell, 31 N. Y. 345: 1383. Sanford v. Hampden Paint & C. Co., 179 Mass. 10: 1383, 1284. V. Marsh, 180 Mass. 210: 1058, 1060. V. Thompson, IS Ga. 554: 37. San Francisco v. Broderick, ~125 Cal. 188: 135, 409. V. Hazen, 5 Cal. 169: 659, 709. V. Kiernan, 98 Cal. 614: 281. V. Mooney, 106 Cal. 586: 683. V. Sharp, 125 Cal. 534: 1031. Sangamon Co. v. Springfield, 63111. 66: 1194. Sanger v. Flow, 48 Fed. 152: 785. Sanitary District v. Martin, 173 111. 343: 1003. V. Ray, 199 111. 63: 339. San Joaquin, etc. Co. v. Stanislaus Co., 113 Fed. 930: 1195. San Luis Obispo Co. v. Graves, 84 Cal. 71: 409. San Mateo v. E. R. Co., 13 Fed. 733: 87. cxcvni TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. San Mateo v. Railroad Co., 8 Saw- yer, 238: 70. San Pedro, The, 3 Wheat. 133: 65a Sansom v. Greenough, 55 Iowa, 137: 1264. Santa v. State, 2 Iowa, 165: 145, 163,601, 937. Santa Barbara v. Eldred, 95 Cal. 378, 533. Santa Cruz Rock Paving Ca v, Lyons, 133 CaL 114: 445, 468. Santa Cruz W. Co. v. Kron, 74 Cal. 333: 313. Santa Maria, The, 10 Wheat. 431: 873. Santissima Trinidad, The, 7 Wheat. 383: 869. Sarahass v. Armstrong, 16 Kan. 193, 869. Sarazin v. Union R. R, Co., 153 Mo. 479: 1058, 1060. Sarlls V. United States, 153 U. S. 570, 973. Sasscer v. Farmers' Bank, 4 Md. 409: 868. Sasser v. State, 99 Ga. 54: 308, 393. Satterlee v. Mathewson, 16 S. & R. 191, 1218. V. Matthewson, 3 Pet. 380: 1174, 1198, 1337, 1339. Sauers v. Giddings, 90 Mich. 50: 1315. Saul V. His Creditors, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 569: 23, 462, 486, 620. Saunders v. Carroll, 13 La. Ann. 793: 641. V. Holburn District Board of Works (1895), 1 Q. B. 64: 1020. v. Provisional Municipality, 34 Fla. 226: 231, 435. V. Savage, 108 Tenn. 340: 183, 384 Saunders v. St. Louis, etc. Line, 97 Mo. 36: 781. Savage v. O'Neil, 44 N. Y. 398: 611. V. State, 18 Fla. 970: 330. V. Walshe, 36 Ala. 619: 1132. Savanna v. Robinson, 81 111. App. 471:1023. Savannah v. Kelley, 108 U. S. 184: 529, Savannah, etc. Ry. Co. v. Daniels, 90 Ga. 608: 750. V. Geiger, 21 Fla. 669: 582, V, Jordan, 113 Ga 687: 954. V. Savannah, 113 Ga. 164: 1011. Savings Bank v. Allen, 38 Conn. 97: 550. V. Burns, 104 Cal. 437: 570,650. V. United States, 19 Wall. 237: 671, 673. Savings Bank's Petition, 69 N. H. 84: 1300. Savings Inst. v. Makin, S3 Me. 360: 670. Sawyer v. Dooley, 21 Nev. 3S0: 137, 413. Sawyers v. Baker, 73 Ala, 49: 517. Saxton National Bank v. Bennett, 138 Mo, 494: 1123. Sayers v. Wilmington & N. R. R. Co., S Penn. Del. 349: 177. Sayre v. Elyton Land Co., 73 Ala. 85: 1050, 1051, V. Pollard, 77 Ala, 608: 71, 87, 113. V. Wheeler, 32 Iowa, 550: 612. Sayre-Newton Lumber Co. v. Pai'k, , 4 Colo. App. 483: 1254. Scaggs V. Baltimore, etc. R. R Co., 10 Md. 368: 665, 699, 816, 934, 1055, nil. Soaife v. Stovall, 67 Ala. 237: 863, 863, 1055, 1254. Scales V. Marshall, 96 Tex, 140: 325. V. Otto, 127 Ala. 582: 1218. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CXCIX The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. It, pp. 605-1315. Scales V. State, 47 Ark. 476: 446. Scanlon v. Childs, 33 Wis. 663: 890. Soariitt v. County Ct., 89 Mo. App. 585: 707, 914. SohaefJfer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 516: 40, 614. Schaezlein v. Cabaniss, 135 Cal. 466: 156. Sohafer v. Eneu, 54 Pa. St. 304: 1233. V. Smith, 63 Ind. 326: 1265. V. State, 49 Ind. 460, 1266. Soharf v. Tasker, 73 Md. 378: 306. Scharfl v. Meyer, 133 Mo. 428: 1058, 1060. Soharpf v. Schmidt, 172 111. 255: 89. Schawacker v. McLaughlin, 139 Mo. 333: 694, 730, 1307. Soheftels v. Tabert, 46 Wis. 439: 445. Scheibler v, Mundinger, 86 Tenn. 674: 703. Schell's Ex'rs v. Fanohfe, 138 tJ. S. 562: 890. Schenok v. States, 60 N. J. L. 381: 264 Schenley v. Commonwealth, 36 Pa. St. 29: 1232. Schenley's Appeal, 70 Pa. St. 98: 806. Schimmele v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 34 Minn. 216: 414. *" Sohintgen v. La Crosse, 117 Wis. 158: 392, 1232. Schlandeoker v, Marshall, 73 Pa, St. 200: 788. Schlegel v. Am. Beer, etc. Ca, 12 Abb. N. C. 280: 698. -V, Am. Beer, etc. Co., 64 How. Pr. 196: 698. Schlicht V. State. 56 Ind. 173: 876; Sohmalz v. Wooley, 56 N. J. Eq. 649: 426. Schmidt, Ex parte, 24 S. C. 863: 528. Schmidt v. Hoyt, 1 Edw. Ch. 653: 1066. V. Lewis, 68 N. J. L. 565: 464. Schmidt v, Mitchell, 84 III. 195: 1265. Schniqk v. Jeffersonville, 152 Ind. 204: 1337, 1238. Schneider v. Hosier, SI Ohio St. 98: 1265, 1266. V. Hussey, 3 Idaho, 8: 835. V. Staples, 66 Wis. 167: 460, 487, 519. Schoenberg v. Adier, 105 Wis. 645: 22. School Board Election, In re, (1894), IQ. B. 725: 1160. Schoolcraft v. Louisville & N. E. R. Co., 92 Ky. 233: 413. School Directors, In re, 5 Pa. Dist. Ct. 750: 1109. School Directors v. School Direct- ors, 73 111. 349: 433, 796. V. School Directors, 135 111. 464: 446. School District v. Coleman, 39 Neb. 391 : 673. V, Eokert, 84 Miss. 417: 516, 518. V. Fairchild, 10 Wash. 198: 789. V. Pittsburgh, 184 Pa. St. 156: 470. V. Prentiss, 66 N. H. 145: 469. V, School District, 63 Ark. 543- 758, 761. V. Smith, 195 Pa. St. 515: 410. V. Wallace, 73 Mo. App. 317- 1124. • School Districts, In re, 36 Colo. 136 411. School Inspectors v. People, 20 111 525: 1051. School Trustees v. Com'rs, 1 Nev. 333: 106. CO TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Schooner Pauline's Cargo v. United States, 7 Cranch, 153: 699. Schooner Rachel, The, v. United States, 6 Or. 329: 545, 546, 549, 558. Schooner Thompson v. Martin, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 322: 1076. Sohoonover v. Galarnault, 45 Minn. 174: 1166. Schopp V. St. Louis, 117 Ma 131: 1031. Sohriefer v. Wood, 5 Blatchf. 215: 747, 753. Schroder v. Crawford, 94 III. 357: 1265, 1366, 1268, 1269. Schulenburg v. Harriman, 31 Wall. 44:1026. Schulherr- v. Bordeaux, 64 Miss. 59: 164, 171. Schultz V. Schultz, 144 111. 290: 438. Schumacher v. McCallip, 69 Ohio St. 500: 409, 597. Schuremann v. Union Cent. L. Ins. Co., 165 Mo. 641: 1336. Schuster v. Supervisors, 37 Minn. 353: 941. Schut V. Ey. Co., 70 Mich. 483: 420. Schuykill Nav. Co. v. Loose, 19 Pa. St. 15: 644. Schuyler v. Mercer, 4 Gilm. 20, 473. Sohwaoker v. Ludingfcon, 77 Mo. App. 415: 766. Schwarz v. Dover, 68 N. J. L. 576: 6. Schweiss v. District Court, 23 Nev. 226: 408. Schwenke v. Union Depot & R. R. Co., 7 Colo. 512: 493, 527, 534. Soidmore v. Smith, 13 John. 333: 1057. Scoginsv. Perry, 46 Tex. Ill: 1049, 1050. Scorpion S. M. Ca v. Marsano, 10 Nev. 370: 1050. Scotia, The, 14 Wall. 170: 865, 868. Scott, In re, 126 Fed. 981: 1160. Scott. Matter of, 148 N. Y. 588: 1159, 1164. Scott V. Chope, 33 Neb. 41: 1368. V. Duke, 3 La. Ann. 353: 1327. V. Flowers, 61 Neb. 620: 586. V. Jersey City, 68 N. J. L. 687: 707. V. Lunt's Adm'r, 7 Pet. 603: 609. V. Mills, 7 Colo. App. 155: 1259. V. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 38 Mo. App. 533: 441, 986. V. Seai-less, 1 S. & M. 590: 844. V. Simons, 70 Ala. 352: 517, 10.59. V. State, 32 Ark. 369: 660, 683. Scottish Drainage & Investment Co. v. Campbell, L. R 14 H. L. 139: 10^1. Scovern v. State, 6 Ohio St. 288: 922. Scoville V. Canfield, 14 John. 338: 35. Scowden's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 423: 395, 397. SciafFord v. Supervisors, 41 Mich. 647: 335. Scranton- v. Whyte, 148 Pa. St. 419: 387, 384, 389. Scruggs V. Brackin, 4 Yerg. 528: 874, 886. Scudder v. Trenton Del. Falls Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 694; 576. Scutt's Case, 3 Va. Cas. 54: 554. Seaboard Nat. Bank v. Woeston, 176 Mo. 49: 429. Seabolt v. Commonwealth, 187 Pa. St. 318: 370. V. Com'rs, 187 Pa. St. 318: 223, 381. Seal v. State, 13 S. & M. 386: 1246. Seale v. Mitchell, 5 CaL 403: 899: 900. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CCl The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol 11, pp. 605-1315. •Seaman v. Washington, 173 Pa. St. 467: 503. Seamans v. Carter, 15 Wis. 548: 641. ^eanor v. County Com'rs, 13 Wash. 48: 603. Searcy v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. App. 460: 185,419. Searight's Estate, 163 Pa. St. 210: 447. Searles v, Aerhoff, 28 Neb. 668: 1308. V. Kanawha, etc. R. R. Co., 32 W. Va. 370: 1293. Sears v. Burnham, 17 N, Y. 445: 1125. V. Cottrell, 5 Mich. 351: 13, 88, 631. V. Mahoney, 66 Fed. 860: 1160. Seattle v. Clark, 38 Wash. 717: 464. Seattle & M. Ry. Co. v. O'Meara, 4 Wash. 17: 529, 537, 1139. Seaving v. Brinkerhoff, 3 John. Ch. 329: 645. •Seay v. Bank of Rome, 66 Ga. 609: 231, 262. "Second Ave. M. E. Church,, Matter of, 66 N. Y. 395: 670, 1009. Second German Am. B. Ass'n v. Newman, 50 Md. 63: 331. Second Municipality v. Morgan, 1 La. Ann. Ill: 593. "Second Ward Savings Bank v. Schranck, 97 Wis. 250: 1308. -Security Title & T. Co. v. West Chi- cago St. Ry. Co., 91 III. App. 333: 1291. 'Sedalia v. Gold, 91 Mo. App. 32: 907. -Sedgwick v. Bunker, 16 Kan. 498: 643. : Sedgwick Co. v. Bailey, 13 Kan. 607: 188. Seekouk v. Rehoboth, 8 Cush. 371: 337, 331. tSeely v. State, 11 Ohio, 501: 933. Segars, Ex parte, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep. 553: 304. Segars v. Parrott, 54 S. C. 1: 135. Sego V. Stoddard, 136 Ind. 297: 1145, 1391. Seideu bender v. Charles, 4 S. & R. 159: 938. Selden v. Preston, 11 Bush, 191: 37. Selking v, Hebel, 1 Mo. App. 340: 611. Sellars v. Carpenter, 27 Me. 497 : 946. V. Fite, 3 Baxt. 131: 1117. V. Foster, 27 Neb. 118: 1268. Selma, etc. R. R. Co., Ex parte, 45 Ala. 696: 893. Selma, etc. R. R. Co. v. United States, 189 U. S. 560: 676. Selman v. Wolfe, 27 Tex. 68: 1039. Semmes v. Hartford Ins. Co., 13 Wall. 158: 1015. Semple v. Hagar, 87 Cal, 1C3: 606. Senate of Happy Homes v. Super- visors, 99 Mich. 117: 146. Sener v. Bphrata, 176 Pa. St. 80: 443, 797, 801. Sequestration Cases, 30 Tex. 688: 1310. Sessions v. Romadka, 145 U. S. 39; 781. V. State, 115 Ga. 18: 191, 268. Seton V. Hoyt, 34 Ore. 266: 958, 951, 1159, 1191. Seven Hickory v, Ellery, 103 U. S. 423: 104.. Bewail V. Jones, 9 Pick. 413: 1000. 1014. Seward Co. Com'rs v. .^tna L. Ins. Co., 90 Fed. 223: 340. Sewell v. Taylor, 39 L. J. N. C. 50: 804. Sewer Assessment for Passaic, In re, 54 N. J. L. 156: 380. Seymour, Ex parte, 14 Pick. 48: 993. ceil TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-131B. Seymour v. Judd, 2 N. Y. 464: 1140. V. Marvin, 11 Barb. 80: 869, 880. V. Phillips, etc. Co., 7 Biss. 460 : 946. V. Tacoma, 6 Wash. 138: 271. Shaaber v. Beading, 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 230: 668. Shadewald v. Phillips, 73 Minn. 520: 442, 776. Shaknian v. Sohlueter, 77 Wis. 402: 1145. 'shallow V. Salem, 136 Mass. 136: 635. Shank v. Eavenswood, 43 W. Va. 242: 1145. Shankwiler's Assignment, 104 Iowa, 67: 744. Shannon v. Peoi>Ie, 5 Mich. 71: 85, 518. V. State, 39 Neb. 658: 434. Sharp, Ex parte, 10 Jur. (N. S.) 1018: 1113. Sharp V. Johnson, 4 Hill, 93: 645, 863, 1009, 1046, 1140. V. Mayor, 31 Barb. 573: 190, 287, 990, 1353. V. Spier, 4 Hill, 76: 645, 863, 1001, 1009, 1010, 1040, 1046, 1061, 1137. V. Warren, 6 Price, 131: 463, 498. Sharpe v. Spengler, 48 Miss. 360: 1355. Shattiick v. Byford, 63 Ark. 431: 1334. V. Daniel, 52 Miss. 834: 37. V. Kincaid, 31 Ore. 379: 1313. V. Lyons, 62 Ark. 388: 1231. Shaver v. Penn. Co., 71 Fed. 931: 428. Shaw V. Brown, 85 Miss. 346: 23, 617. V. Chicago Sash, etc. Co., 144 111. 530: 1254. Shaw V. Clark, 49 Mich. 384: 96^- 969. V. Dodge, 5 N. H. 465: 110. V. Morley, L. E. 3 Ex. 137: 837.. V. Morley, 89 Mioh. 313: 11.59. V. Orr, 30 Iowa, 355: 1119. V. Eailroad Co., 101 U. S. 557: 863. V. Eudder, 9 Ir. C. L. (U. S.) 219: 649. Shaw & E. Mfg. Co. v. Kilbourne^., etc. Co., 80 Minn. 125: 1227. Shawnee Co. v. Carter, 3 Kan. 115: 999. Shawnee Co. Com'rs v. State, 49 Kan. 486: 437. Shea V. Muncie, 148 Ind. 14: 467,- 527, 536. Shear v. Columbia Com'rs, 14 Fla. 146: 568. V. Com'rs, 14 Fla. 146: 493. , Shearer f. Board of Sup'rs, 128- Mich. 552: 301, 1302. Sheasley v. Keens, 48 Neb. 57: 306>.- Shedd V. Moran, 10 111. App. 618: 28. Sheets v. Selden, 3 Wall. 177: 32^ 329. Sheetz v. Hanbest, 81 Pa. St. 100: . 730. Shehane v. Bailey, 110 Ala, 308: 177. Sheibler v. Mundinger, 86 Tenn.- 674: 747. Shelby V. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361: 614>. 615, 620, 1211, 1279. Shelby Co. v. Exposition Co., 96- Tenn. 653: 1038. Sheldon v. Boston & A. E. Co., 173 Mass. 180: 848. Sheley v. Detroit, 45 Mich. 431: 697, 1071. Shellenberger v. Eanson, 31 Neh.. 61: 743. TABLE OF OASES CITED. com The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Shelton v. State, 86 Tenn. 530: 435. Shenk v. MoKennon, 11 Pa. Supr. Ct. 84: 303. Shepards v.' Milwaukee, etc, R. R. Co., 6 Wis. 578: 458. Shepherd v. People, 25 N. Y. 406: 1187. Shepherd v. Shepherd, 4 Kan, App. 546: 237. Slieppard v. Bowling, 127 Ala. 1: 13, 133, 300. V. Gosnold, Vaughan, 169: 887. V. Johnson, 2 Humph. 296: 357. V. State, 1 Tex. App. 532: 552. Slierborn v. Wells, 3 B. & S. 784: 778. Sheridan v. Stevenson, 44 N. J. L. 371: 528. Sheriff v. Caddo Parish, 37 La. Ann. 788: 884. V. Kershaw Co., 56 S. a 400: 525. Sherman v. Des Moines, 100 Iowa, 88: 468, 731, 1300. V. Dodge, 6 John. Ch. 107: 1137. V. Langham, 92 Tex. 13: 553, 685, 1070. V. State, 17 Fla. 888: 481, 483. V. Story, 30 Cal. 276: 50, 51. 53, 609. Sherman Co. v. Simons, 109 U. S. 735: 626. Sherwin v. Bugbee, 16 Vt. 489: 894, 923. Sherwood v. Atlantic & D. Ry. Co., 94Va.291: 694.749, 750. V. Grand Ave. Ry. Co., 132 Ma 339: 404, 406. V. Judd, 3 Bradf. 419: 27. V. Reade, 7 Hill, 481: 645, 997, 1037, 1047. She well Ave., 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 278: 673. n Shiel V. Mayor, etc. 6 H. & N. 796: 1019. Shields v. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 88: 184, 188, 190, 193, 203, 204, 222, 447, 581. V. Clifton Hill L. Co., 94 Tenn. 133: 1237. V. Johnson Co., 144 Mo. 76: 1159. V. Perkins, 2 Bibb, 230: 898. Shillito V. Thompson, L. E. 1 Q. B. D. 13: 837. Ship Cotton Planter, 1 Paine, 28: 310. Shipley v. Terre Haute, 74 Ind. 397: 231, 258. Shipraan v. Forbes, 97 CaL 572: 1145. V. Henbest, 4T.R. 109: 563, 1052. Shively v. Lankford, 174 Mo. 535: 283. Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469: 199, 200, 202, 203, 255. V. Wilson, 5Har.& J. 130: 1048, 1049. Shoemaker, In re, 2 Okl. 606: 557, 1184. v. Lansing, 17 Wend, 327: 663, 708. V. Smith, 37 Ind. 122: 351. V. State, 20 N. J. L. 153: 484. Shonk V. Brown, 61 Pa. St. 330: 1239, 1338. Shonkwiler's Assignment, 104 Iowa, 67: 703. Shot well V. Covington, 69 Miss. 735: 781. V. Harrison, 23 Mich. 410: 86& Shotwell's Ex'r v. Dennman, 1 N. J. L. 174: 986. Shrader, Ex parte, 33 Cal. 283: 21. Shreve v. Cicero, 139 IIL 226: 174. Shrewsbury v. Boylston, 1 Pick. 105: 79a CCIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-13U Shrewsbury v. Scott, 6 C. B. (N. S.) 1: 630. Shriedley v. State, 23 Ohio St. 130: 688. Shroder v. Lancaster, 170 Pa. St. 136: 528. Shropshire v. State, 13 Ark. 100: 880. Shugart v. Egan, '88 El. 56: 1265, 1370. ShuUv. Barton, 58 Neb. 741: 493, 788. Shumaker v. Johnson, 85 Ind. 83: 1143. Shumats V. Williams, 34 Ga. 351: 1077. Shumway v. Bennett, 29 Mich. 465: 13. Shute V. Wade, 5 Yerg. 8: 911. Shuttuok.v. Smith, 6N.D.56: 1230, 1233. Sibley v. Smith, 2 Mich. 486: 863, 1001, 1046, 1137. Sickles V. Sharp, 18 John. 497: 963, 989. Sidney v. White, 13 Ala. 738: 620. Sid way v. Lawson, 58 Ark. 117: 1331, 1237. Si dwell V. Evans, 1 Pen. & W. 383: 623. Siebold, Ex parte, 100 U. S. 371: 39, 631. Siegbert v. Stiles, 39 Wis. 533: 877. Siegel V. People, 106 III. 89: 1377. Sifred v. Commonwealth, 104 Pa. St. 179: 483. Sigman v. Lundy, 66 Misa 533: 557. Sika V. Chicago, etc. E. R. Co., 31 Wis. 370: 493. Silberman v. Hay, 59 Ohio St 583: 134. 397, 407. Silkman v. Scranton, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 339: 430. Sill V. Corning, 15 N. Y. 297: 1051. Sill V. Worswick, 1 H. Black. 673: 27. Silver V. Ladd, 7 Wall. 219: 664, 1087. Silvergood v. Storriok, 1 Watts, 533: 946. Silvey v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 94 Ga. 609: 300. Silvis V. Aultman, 141 111. 633: 671. Simard v. Sullivan, 71 Minn. 517: 279, 870. Simco v. State, 8 Tex. App. 406: 643, 1338. Simcoke v. Grand Lodge, 84 Iowa, 383: 773. Simmons v. Bradley, 27 Wis. 689: 519. v. Jacobs, 52 Me. 147: 337. V. Leonard, 89 Tenn. 633: 1053. V. Trumbo, 9 W. Va. 858: 879. Simms, Ex parte, 40 Fla. 433: 1009. Simms v. Southern Exp. Co., 38 Ga. 129: 869. Simon v. Northrup, 37 Ore. 487: 803. Simonds v. Powers, 28 Vt. 354: 663, 666, 722, 729. Simonson v. Durfee, 50 Mich. 80: 336, 337. Simon ton v. Barrell, 21 Wend. 363: 1087, 1351. Simpkin, Ex parte, 105 E. C. L. R. 393: 335, 83a Simpson v. Bailey, 3 Ore. 515: 306. V. Fogo, 1 H. & M. 195: 37. V. Robert, 35 GA. 180: 794. V. Union Stock Yards, 110 Fed. 799: 8S. V. Unwin, 3 B. & Ad. 134: 979, 1108, 1397. V. Willard, 14 S. C. 191: 887. Sims, In re, 54 Kan. 1 : 6. Sims, In re, 58 Kan. 153: 10. Sims V. Hampton, 1 S. & R. 411: 338, 339, 335. TABLE OF OASES OITED. GOV The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Sindall v. Baltimore, 93 Md. 526: 327. Singer v. Hasson, 50 L. T. 336: 1285. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Cullaton, 90 Mich. 639: 1058. V. Fleming, 39 Neb. 679: 303, 429. V. Graham, 8 Ore. 17: 653. V. ShuU, 74 Mo. App. 486: 1159, 1191. V. Wright, 97 Ga. 114: 693, 730, 733, 734. •Single V. Supervisors, 88 Wis. 363: 1330. Singleton v. Eureka Co., 33 Nev. 91: 407. Sinking Fund Com'rs v. George, 104 Ky. 360: 7, 111, 474, 586. Sinnott v. Whiteohapel 3 C. B. (N. S.) 674: 914. Sioux City & St. P. R. E. Co. v. United States, 159 U. S. 349: 1037. «ioux City St. R'y Co. v. Sioux City, 78 Iowa, 747: 1195. Sipe V. People, 26 Colo. 137: 824, 1399. Sissing V. Beach, 99 Mich. 439: 1367. ■Sjoberg v. Security S. & L. Co., 73 Minn. 303: 78, 132. «kagit Co. V. Stiles, 10 Wash. 388: 583, 603. Skaneatelas Water Works Co. v. Skaneatelas, 184 U. S. 354: 1023. Skelly V. School District, 103 Cal. 653: 953, 954, 1363. Skillman v. Chicago, eto. R. R. Co., 78 Iowa, 404: 1226. Skinner v. Collector, 43 N. J. L. 407: 368, 377. V. Garnett Gold Min. Co., 96 Fed. 735: 223. V. Henderson, 36 Fla. 121: 503. V. State, 97 Ga. 690: 974. Skinner v. Usher, L. R. 7 Q. B. 422: 778, 804. V. Wilhelm, 63 Mich. 568: 350. Skyrme v. Occidental, etc, Co., 8 Nev. 219: 445. Slack V. Jacob, 8 W. Va., 640: 186, 190, 358, 935, 926, 928. V, Maysville, eta R. R. Co., 13 B. Mon. 1: 16,, 170. Slade V. Drake, Hobart, 395: 639. Slark V. Highgate Archway Co., 5 Taunt. 793: 949. Slaughter V. Bernard, 88 Wis. Ill: 22, 623. V. Louisville, 89 Ky. 113: 10, 1233. Slaughter-Hor.se Cases, 16 Wall. 36: 548, 1019, 1193. Slauson v. Racine, 13 Wis, 398: 596. Sleight v. Roe, 135 Mich. 585: 1159, 1166. SJidell V. Grandjean, 111 U. S. 413: 1021, 1025. Sligh V. Grand Rapids, 84 Mich. 497: 199, 366. Slinger v. Henneman, 38 Wis. 504: 145, 153, 593. Slinglufle V. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 631: 690, 694, 696, 697, 747. Sloan V. Johnson, 14 S. & M. 47: 646. V. Pacific Co., 61 Mo. 34: 1193. Slocum V. Bear Valley Irr. Co., 123 Cal. 555: 416. V. Neptune, 68 N. J. L. 595: 321, 381, 916, 955. Smails v. White, 4 Neb. 357: 448. Small V. Edrick, 5 Wend. 137: 337, 330. V. Lutz, 41 Ore. 570: 443. V. Small, 139 Pa. St. 366: 880, 1395. Smathers v. Commissioners, 12.5 N. C 480: 60, 93, 93, 95. CO VI TABLE OF CA8E8 CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-131S. Smeath v. Mager, 64 N. J. L. 94: 577. Smeaton v. Martin, 83 Wis. 76: 1223. Smets V. Wethersbee, E. M. Charlt. 537: 30& Smissaert v. Prudential Ins. Co., 15 Colo. App. 442: 1160, 1191. Smith, Ex parte, 40 Gal. 419: 460, 537, 533. Smith, Ex parte, L. R. 3 Q. R D. 374: 932. Sraith V. Adams, 5 De Gex. M. & G. 718: 664, 722. V. Allen, 39 Miss. 469: 1103. V. Appleton, 19 Wis. 468: 1119. V. Arapahoe Dist. Ct., 4 Colo. 335: 551, 553. V, Argall, 6 Hill, 479: 645, 1059. V. Armour, 1 Penn. (Del.) 361: 1361. V. Banker, 3 How. Pr. 143: 678. V. Bartram, 11 Ohio St. 690: 610, 633. V. Bell, 70 111. App. 490: 1200. V. Bell, 10 M. & W. 378: 665, 793. V. Bohler, 73 Ga. 546: 221. V. Brown, L. R. 6 Q. B. 729: 758. V. Bryan, 100 Va. 199: 731, 733. V. Buffalo, 159 N. Y. 427: 1330. V. Cassity, 9 B. Hon. 193: 832. V. Causey, 33 Ala. 568: 646. V. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 64 Mo. 330: 1016, V, Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 86 Iowa, 203: 510. V. Commonwealth, 8 Bush. 108: 185, 190, 231, 334, V. Critoher, 92 Ky. 586: 503. V. Crittenden, 16 Mich. 153: 1119, V. Crutoher, 92 Ky. 586: 136. V. Day, 39 0ra 531: 447. Smith V. District Ct., 4 Colo. 235 r 1169, 1333. Drew, 5 Mass. 514: 917, 1057. Dunn, 64 CaL 164: 343. Eau Claire, 78 Wis. 457: 519, 538. Estes, 46 Me. 158: 561. Gould, 4 Moore, P. C. 81: 611. Harris, 34 Ga. 183: 338. Helmer, 7 Barb. 416: 948. Hickman, Cooke, 330: 463,. 467, 518, 853. Horton, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 28: 1260. Howell, 60 N. J. L. 334: 437. Hoyt, 14 Wis. 853: 317, 544,. 545. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co., 15& Ind. 485: 134, 839, 385, 398. Janesville, 86 Wis. 391: 167. Judge, 17 Cal. 558: 3, 13, 18, 349. Kelly, 84 Ore. 464: 560. Kernochan,.7 How. 198: 614. Kibbee, 9 Ohio St. 563: 643.. Lindo, 4 GB. (N. S.) 395: 748, 865. Lindo, 37 L. J. C. P. 200: 748.. Lockwood, 13 Barb. 209: 638^ 917. Louisville, etc. R. R. Co., 63 Miss. 510: 1317, 1318. Madison, 7 Ind. 86: 1033. Mason, 44 Neb. 610: 33, 623. Mattingly, 96 Ky, 338: 517^ 519. Mayor, 34 How. Pr. 508: 251,. 287. • McCIain, 146 Ind. 77: 300, 578, 597. McDermott, 93 Cal. 421: 340, 414. Mitchell, Rice (S. C), 315:: 610, 778. V. , V. V. V. . V. V. V. V. V, V. V. V. V, V. V. V. V. . V. V. . V. V. V. V. . V. '. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CCVll The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL II, pp. 605-1316. Smith V. Moffat, 1 Barb. 65: 644, 863, 990, 1246, 1349, 1351. V. Morrison, 23. Pick. 430: 313, 1387. V. Mumford, 9 Cow. 29: 645. V. Nobles Co., 37 Minn. 535: 515. V. Odell, 1 Pin. (Wis.) 449: 1051. V. Patton, 108 Ky. 444: 771. t-. People, 47 N. Y. 380: 513, 513, 571, 674, 714, 848, 914 V. Philadelphia, 81 Pa. St. 38: 711. V. Railroad Ca, 183 Pa. St. 139: 573. V. Railway & Bridge Co., 97 Iowa, 545: 1030. Randall, 6 Cal. 47: 739. Randall, 8 Hill, 495: 644, 1061. Ratoliff, 66 Miss. 683: 1360. Reynolds, 8 Hun, 138: 1368. Rines, 2 Sunin. 354: 1112. Rowles, 85 Ind. 364: 384. Sedalia, 153 Mo. 383: 1137. Smith, 19 Gratt. 545: 611. Smith, 19 Wia 533: 778. Speed, 50 Ala. 276: 463, 511, V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. Spooner, 3 Pick. 229: 1014, 1015. V. State, 29 Fla 408: 300, 446. V. State, 90 Ga. 138: 841. V. State, 38 Ind. 331: 651, 687, 1065. t. State, 66 Md. 315: 701, 938. V. State, 14 Mo. 147: 518. V. State, 84 Neb. 689: 448, 450. V. State, 1 Stew. 506: 481, 482, 517. V. State, 17 Tex. 191: 966, 969. V. Stevens, 83 111. 554: 644, 871, 1086, 1249. Smith V. Stevens, 10 Wall. 331: 688, 917, 920. V. Strong, 3 Hill, 241: 625. V. Swain, 71 N. H. 277: 1117, 1119. V. Tallapoosa, 3 Woods, 574: 618. V. Tilly, 1 Keble, 712: 898. V. Townsend, 148 U. S. 490: 646, 885, 991. V. Van Gilder, 26 Ark. 527: 1217. V. Waters, 25 Ind. 397: 1000. V. Wehrly, 157 Pa. St. 407: 464. V. Wood, L, R. 24 Q. B. D. 23: 964. Smith Canal Co. v. Denver, 20 Cola 84: 1139. Smithee v. Campbell, 41 Ark. 471: 71, 78. V. Garth, 33 Ark. 17: 71. Smith's Petition, 5 Pa. Dist. Ct. 465: 1149, 1153. Smith's Petition, 13 Pa. Dist. Ct 333: 306. Smoot V. Fitzhugh, 9 Port. 73: 619. V. Hart, 33 Ala. 69: 1108. V. Peoples' Perpetual L. & B. Ass'n, 95 Va. 686: 364, 1197. Smyers v. Beam, 158 Pa. St. .57: 432. Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374: 545. Sneath v. Mayer, 64 N. J. L. 94: 314. Sneed v. Commonwealth, 6 Dana, 338: 683, 695, 703, 939, 963. V. Falls Co., 91 Tex. 168: 930. Sneider v. Heidelberger, 45 Ala, 136: 1200. Snell V. Bridgewater, etc. Co., 24 Pick. 296: 754 V. Campbell, 24 Fed, 880: 555. V. Chicago, 133 111. 413: 364 290, 1153, 1154 Snoddy v. Cage, 5 Tex. 106: 784 Snook V. Clark, 30 Mont. 230: 260. Snowden v. State, 69 Md. 203: 510, 774 CCVIU TABLE OF OASES CITED, V The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Snyder, In re, 108 Mich. 18: 295. Snyder v. Bauchman, 8 S. & B. 336, 946. V. Circuit Judge, 80 Mioh. 511: 1117, 1123, 1305. V. Compton, 87 Tex. 374: 431, 447, 685, 1064, 1065. V. Snyder, 8 Barb. 621: 1163. V. Warford, 11 Mq.513: 413. V. Warren, 2 Cow. 518: 328. Soby V, People, 134 111. 66: 693, 706, 846, 885. Society etc. v. New Haven-, 8 Wheat. 464: 640, V. Wheeler, 2 GalL 139: 640, 1337. Society for Propagating the Gospel V. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464: 1193. Society of the Cincinnatis', Appeal, 154 Pa. St. 621: 829. Socorro Co. Com'rs. v. Leavitt, 4 N. M. 37: 543, 543. Soehl V. State, 39 Neb. 659: 424 Solano Co. v. McCudden, 120 Cal. 648: 428. Solomon v. Com'rs, 41 Ga. 157: 104, 684, 889. V. Denver, 13 Colo. App. 179: 514. Solomons v. Freeman, 4 T. R. 557: 337. Solyer v. Romanet, 52 Tex. 563: 872. Somers v. Commonwealth, 97 Va. 759:442,466. Somerset v. Dighton, 13 Mass. 383: 641, 710, 730. Soukup V. Van Dyke, 109 Mich. 679: 325. South V. State; 86 Ala. 617: 1183. Southampton Bridge Co. v. Local Board of Southampton, 8 E & B. 804: 1053. South Caroliua v. Gaillard, 101 XL S. 433: 551, 1169. South Carolina, etc. R. E. Ca v. Dietzen, 101 Ga. 730: 741. South Carolina, R. E. Ca v. Nix,. 68Ga.573: 35. Southern Bell T. & T. Ca v. D'Alemberte, 39 Fla. 35: 671,. 753. Southern Boulevard R. R. Co.,^ Matter of, 58 Hun, 497: 1317. Southern, etc. Bridge Co. v. Stone, 174 Ma 1:618. Southern Express Co. v. Mayor, 133 Ala. 336: 353. Southern Gum Co. v. Laylin, 66 Ohio St. 578: 13, 133. Southern Pao. R. R. Co. v. Robin- son, 133 Cal. 408:728. Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 119 Ala. 539: 39, 616. V. Machinists Local Union, 111 Fed. 49: 703, 744 Southgate v. Frier, 8 Okl. 435: 1388. y. Goldthwaite, 1 Bailey, 367: 675. South Market Stv Matter of, 76 Hun, 85:433. South Morgantown v. Morgantown, 49 W. Va. 739: 134 503. South & N. Ala. R. R. Ca v. Mor- ris, 65 Ala. 193: 577, 937. V. Wood, 74 Ala. 449: 869, 880. South Omaha v. Taxpayers' League. 43 Neb. 671: 434 South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260: 70, 74 91, 98, 605, 607, 608. South Park Com'rs v. First Nat. Bank, 177 111. 234: 748, 846. South's Heirs v. Hoy, 3 Bibb, 522: 636. South St. Paul V. Lamprioht Bros. Ca, 88 Fed. 449: 190, 267. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CCIX Ihe references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-608; Vol. n, pp. 605-1316. Soutbwark Bank v. Common- wealth, 26 Pa. St. 446: 457, 463, 541, 548, 562, 867, 881. Southwestern Coal Co. v. McBride, 185 U. S. 499: 1160. Southwestern Mo. Light Co. v. Soheurich, 174 Mo. 235: 880, 884 Southwestern R. R. Co. v, Cohen, 49 Ga. 627: 965, 1111. Southwest Mo. Light Co. t. Joplin, 113 Fed. 817: 1190, 1198. South worth. Matter of, 5. Hun, 55: 521. Sovereign v. State, 7 Neb. 409: 431, 432, 448. Sovereign Camp Woodmen v. Thornton, 115 Ga. 798: 1161. Spackman, Ex parte, 1 Macn. & G. 170: 816. Spaokman's Case, 1, Macn. & G. 170: 666. Spangler v. Gallagher, 182 Pa. St. 277: 829. V. Jacoby, 14 III. 297: 72, 78, 91, 1155. Sparhawk v. Sparhawk, 116 Mass. 315: 595. Sparks, Ex parte, 120 Cal. 395: 574 Sparks v. Clapper, 30 Ind. 204: 643. Sparrow v. Com'r, 56 Mich. 567: 581. V. Davidson College, 77 N. C. 35: 756. V. Strong, 3 Wall. 97: 871. Spaulding v. Alford, 1 Pick. 33: 318, 459. V. Lowell, 23 Pick. 71: 1034 V. Nourse, 143 Mass. 490: 1237. Spaulding Log. Co. v. Independence Imp. Co., 42 Ore. 394: 303. Speckert v. Louisville, 78 Ky. 287: 552, 555. Speed V. Crawford, 3 Met. (Ky.) 207: 111. Speer v. Hoggs, 204 Pa. St. 504: 463, 508, 512. Speer v. Mayor, 85 Ga. 49: 86, 138. V. Plank Road Co., 22 Pa. St. 376: 84 96. V. School Directors, 50 Pa. St. 150: 927, 928. Spence v. McGowan, 53 Tex. 30: 1049, 1050. Spencer v. GriflSth, 74 Minn. 55: 408. V. Haug, 45 Minn. 231: 327. V. McBride, 14 Fla. 403: 1211, 1286. V. Metropolitan Board, L. R. 88 Ch. Div. 162: 734 V. Myers, 150 N. Y. 269: 694 713, 733, 730. V. State, 5 Ind. 41: 457,696. Spencer's Case, 6 Coke, 96: 1278. Spensley v. Lancashire Ins. Co., 54 Wis. 433: 877. Spier v. Baker, 120 Cal. 370: 207, 305. v. Morgan, 80 Ga. 581: 300. Spieres v. Parker, 1 T. R. 141: 671. Spinks V. Rome Guano Co., 108 Ga. 614: 913. Spooner v. Fletcher, 3 Vt. 133: 1099. Sprague v. Baldwin, 18 Pa, Co. Ct 568: 847. V. Birdsall, 2 Cow. 419: 1013. Spraigue v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90: 598, 599. Sprecher v. Wakeley, 11 Wis. 433: 1201. Spreokels v. Spreckels, 116 Cal. 339: 1165. Spring V. Collector, 78 111. 101: 673, 811. Springfield v. Com'rs, 6 Pick. 501: 551, 553. V. Conn. Riv. R. R. Co., 4 Cush. 63: 1044 V. Hubbel, 89 Mo. App. 379: 469. ccx TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Springfield v. Starke, 93 Mo. App. 70: 1045. Springfield Bank v. Merrick, 14 Mass. 322: 938. Springfield Grocer Co. v. Walton, 95 Mo. App. 526: 777, 884. Springside Coal Min. Co. v. Grogan, 53 111. App. 60: 1110. Spring Street, In re, 112 Pa. St. 258: 638. Spring Valley v. Spring Valley Coal Co., 71 111. App. 432: 463. Spring Valley W. W. v. San Mateo W. W., 64 Cal. 123: 1043. Sprott V. United States, 20 Wall. 450: 37, 38. Sproul V. Murray, 156 Pa, St. 393: 781, 783. V. Standard Plate Glass Co., 201 Pa. St. 103: 510, 1160,1191. Sprowl V. Lawrence, 33 Ala. 674: 729, 876, 1075, 1090, 1251. Spruance v. Truax, 9 Houst. 129: 535. Spruok V. MoEoberts, 139 N. Y. 193: 1255. Squires' Case, 12 Abb. Pr. 38: 689. Staats V. Hudson Riv. R. R. Co., 4 Abb. App. Dec. 287: 513. Standard Cattle Co. v. Baird, 8 Wya 144: 470, 685, 1064. Standard Radiator Co. v. Fox, 85 III. App. 389: 706. Standard Underground Cable Co. V. Attorney -General, 46 N. J. Eq. 370: 757, 880. Standifer v. Wilson, 93 Tex. 233: 1314 Stanford v. Coram, 28 Mont. 288: 1211. Stanford's Estate, 126 Cal. 112: 426. Stange v. Dubuque, 62 Iowa, 303: 401, 430. Staniland v. Hopkins, 9 M. & W. 178: 811. Stanislaus Co. v. San Joaquin, etc. Canal & Irr. Co., 192 U. S. 201: 1316. Stanley v. Bolt, 5 Wall. 119: 626. V. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 100 Ma 435: 21. Stackpole v. Halahan, 16 Mont. 40: 787, 1290. Stacy V. Vermont, eta R. R. Co., 33 Vt. 551: 908. Stad!er v. First Nat. Bank, 33 Mont. 190: 784, 786. Stafford v. Bank, 16 How. 135: 1136. V. Canal & B. Co., 17 How. 2§3: 1136. V. His Creditors,' 11 La. Ann. 470: 531. V. Ingersol, 3 Hill, 38: 636: 1057. • V. Mayor, etc., 7 John. 541: 1048. Stamford v. Fisher, 140 N. T. 187: 1058. Stan berry V. Nelson, Wright (Ohio), 766: 880. Standard v. Village of Industry, 55 111. App. 533: 1117, 1122. Stanley v. Wharton, 9 Price, 301: 646, 991. Stanley Co. v. Snuggs, 131 N. C. 394: 95. Stanley Co. Com'rs v. Coler, 96 Fed. 384: 93, 137. Staples V. Bridgeport, 75 Conn. 509: 1153. V. Fox, 45 Miss. 667: 1049, 1056. V. Somerville, 176 Mass. 237: 1257. Starbird v. Brown, 84 Me. 238: 535. Starck v. Ins. Co., 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 511: 731, 744, 798. 914. Starin v. Genoa, 33 N. Y. 439: 170. TABLE OP CASES CITED. ccx: The references are to the pages: Vol I, pp. 1-808; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Starks v. State, 38 Tex. Grim. App. State 233: 769. Stair V. Camden, etc. R R. Co., 34 V. N. J. L. 593: 1044. v.State, 149Ind. 592: 557. V. State V. Abbott, 59 Neb. 106: 78, 79. V. V. Absence, 4 Porter, 897: 933. V. Adams. 51 N. H. 568: 687, V. 688, 1064, 1066. V. V, Adams Express Ca, 66 Minn. V. 271: 158. V. Addington, 3 Bailey, 516: V. 554, 555. V. V. JEtna Ins. Co., 150 Mo. 113: 426. V. -v: Ah Sam, 15 Nev. 37: 201. V. Aitken, 63 Neb. 428: 141, 303, V. 429. V. Akins, 18 Ohio C. C. 849: 890. V. "V. Alabama, etc. Ry. Co., 67 V. Miss. 647: 964 V. V. Alexander, 14 Rich. 347: 466, V. 483. V. Algood, 87 Tenn. 163: 483, V. 935. V. ^. Allen, 48 Neb. 651: 711. V. -V. Allen, 14 Wash. 103: 555. V. V. Allison, 155 Mo. 335: 685, V. 1068. V. •V. AUston, 94 Tenn, 674: 437. V. V. Aloe, 153 Mo. 466: 176. V. ■ V. Ames, 87 Minn. 33: 177, 363, V. 606, 644. V. V. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 106 La. V. 558: 203, 236, 338, 453. V. V. Anaconda Copper Min. Ca, V. 23 Mont. 498: 185, 303, 311. V. Anderson, 63 Minn. 308: 367, V. 469. V. Anderson, 90 Wis. 550: 430. V. V. Andrews, 64 Kan. 474: 73, 73, 85, 86, 89. V. V. Andrews, 30 Tex. 830: 443, V, 459. V. Angelo, 71 N. B. 234: 534, 771. , Anslinger, 171 Mo. 600: 341, 375, 391. . Applegarth, 81 Md. 393: 399. . Archibald, 48 Minn. 338: 514, 537, 537. , Arlin, 39 N. H. 179: 1186. , Armstrong, 30 Neb. 493: 1310. , Arnold, 136 Mo. 446: 408, 1003. , Arnold, 31 Neb. 75: 448. Asbury Park, 58 N. J. L. 604: 216, 381. Ashbrook, 154 Mo. 375: 141, 156, 427. Atherton, 19 Nev. 333: 231, 336. Atkin, 64 Kan. 174: 417. Atkins, 35 Ga. 319: 659, 70a Atkins, 104 La. 87: 350, 581. Atlantic City, 56 N. J. L. 333: 135, 136, 390. Atwood, 11 Wis. 433: 641. Aucuflf, 6 Mo. 54: 798. Auditor, 41 Mo. 35: 641. Aulman, 76 Iowa, 624: 333. Ayers, 8 S. D. 517: 303. Babcock, 31 Neb. 599: 844. Babcook, 33 Neb. 138: 436. Bacon, 14 a B. 394: 60, 16& Bair, 113 Iowa 466: 427. Baker, 47 Miss. 95: 979. Baker, 139 Mo. 483: 274. Baker, 55 Ohio St. 1: 381. Baldwin, 45 Conn. 134: 443, 445, 459, 545. Baltimore Co., 29 Md. 516: 345, 633. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 13 Gill. &J. 399: 844,853. Bank, 88 Iowa. 661: 883. Bank, 13 Rick L. 609: 308, 554. CCXll TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-1815. State e V. Bank. 1 S. C. 63: 1206. State V. Bank Newbern, 1 Dev. & V. Bat. Eq. 219: 1034. V. V. Bank of Md., 6 G. &. J. 205: V. 1037. V. Bank of Smyrna, 2 Houst. 99: V. 1002. V. V. Barbee, 3 Ind. 258: 340. V. V. Barge, 82 Minn. 356: 741, 815, V. 826, 955. V. V. Bargus, 58 Ohio St. 94: 427. V. V. Barker, 116 Iowa, 98: 5, 6. V. Barker, 4 Kan. 379: 1192. V. V. Barnes, 3 N. D. 319: SOa V. V. Barringer, 110 N. C. 5S5: 158, 574, 626. V. V. Barrow, 30 La. Ann. 657: 493. V. V, Bartlett, 30 Me. 132: 978. V. V. Baum, 33 La. Ann. 981: 222, 252. V. V. Baushausen, 49 Neb. 558: 694, 847, 885. V. V. Bayonne, 56 N. J. L. 297: V. 1150, 1152. V, V. Beach, 147 Ind. 74: 1180. V. V. Beacom, 66 Ohio St. 491: 381, V. 458. V, V. Beard, 21 Nev. 218: 535. V. Beasley, 5Mo. 91: 798. V. V. Beaufort, 39 S. C. 5: 466, V, 470, 914. V, V. Beck, 25 Nev. 08: 59, 200, V. 274, 429. V. v.Beck, 21 R. L 388: 741, 848, V. 966, 1313. %-. V. Becker, 3 Q. D. 29: 137, 186, V. 191, 211, 216, 597. V. V. Becton, 7 Baxter, 138: 956. V. V. Beddo, 22 Utah, 482: 432. V. V. Bedell, 67 N. J. L. 148: 278, V. 602. V. V. Bell,8Ired. L. 500: 853. V. V. Bell, 91 Wia 371: 42& V. ( V. Bellamy. 120 N. C. 213: 524u , Belvidere, 25 N. J. L. 563: 528. Beman, 15 Wash. 34: 501. Bemis, 45 Neb. 734: 281, 436>. 445, 518, 534, 1046. Beneke, 9 Iowa, 203: 145. Bengsch, 170 Mo. 81: 303. Benjamin, 2 Ora 135: 483. Bennett, 103 Mo. 356: 373. , Bentley, 39 Barb. 353: 731. Bentley, 39 Neb. 353: 723,- 748. Bentley, 38 N. J. L. 532: 1021. Benzenberg, 101 Wis. 172t 428. Benzinger, 83 Md. 481: 306,. 458. Bergen, 34 N. J. L. 438: 63a Bergen Co., 53 N. J. L. 303: 407. Berkeley, 64 S. C. 194: 40^- 405, 406. , Berman, 15 Wash. 24: 954. Bermudez, 13 La. 853: 115a- , Bernheim,19Mont. 513: 260; , Berry, 13 Iowa, 58: 636. Berry, 25 Mo. 355: 643. , Bersch. 83 Mo. App. 657: 1301. Berschoflf, 158 Ind. 349: 13a- Beswiok, 13 R L 211: 516. Bethel, 3 Tenn. Ch. 107: 306.. . Bigelow, 52 Minn. 307: 801.- , Biggers, 108 N. C. 760: 487. . Binnard, 31 Wash. 849: 487.- Bishop, 128 Mo. 373: 981. , Bixman, 162 Mo. 1: 429, 939. . . Black, 34 S. C. 194: 440. Blackburn, 61 Ark. 407: 130& - Blackmore,104Mo.340: 1300. , Blackstone, 115 Mo. 424: 29a- , Blair, 83 Ind. 313: 1108. . Blend, 121 Ind. 514: 457, 45& , Blize, 37 Ora 404: 178. TABLE OF CASES CITED, ccxm The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-i Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. State V. Board, 23 Ind. 523: 201, 228.. Board of Com'rs, 140 Ind. 506: 63, 435. Board of Com'rs, 67 Minn. 352: 274, 1808. Board of Control, 85 Minn. 165: 134, 137, 216. Board of Education, 7 Ohio C. C. 153: 410. Board of Education, 3 Ohio C. D. 703: 410. Bockstruck, 136 Mo. 335: 308. Boise, 5 Idaho, 519: 82, 83. BoUn, 10 Wyo. 439: 1117. Boogher, 71 Mo. 631: 581. Borden, 164 Mo. 221: 256, 376. Boswortli, 13 Vt. 402: 895. Bowen, 16 Kan. 475: 873. Bowen, 54 Neb. 311: 234, 453, 595. Bowers, 14 Ind. 195: 204, 228. Boyd, 2 G. & J. 374: 1077, 1101. Boyd, 19 Nev. 43: 370, 398, 403. Boyle, 10 Kan. 113: 558, 681. Bradford, 36 Ga. 423: 641, 1158, 1234, Bradshaw, 56 N. J. L. 1: 427. Bradt, 103 Tenn. 584: 199, 577. Brandt, 41 Iowa, 593: 756, 797, Branin, 33 N. J. L. 484: 538. Brassfield, 81 Mo. 151: 194, 345. Brewer, 23 La. Ann. 273: 555, 758, 781. Brewster, 3 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 551: 443. Brewster, 39 Ohio St. 653: 421, 435. Bridges, 22 Wash. 64: 547, 1331. V. , V, V, V. V. V. V, V, V. state V. Brinkman, 7 Ohio 0. C. 165: 141. Brook, 66 S. C, 357: 840. Bronson, 115 Mo. 271: 206^ 310. Brookover, 23 W. Va. 214: 551. Brown, 19 Fla. 563: 577. Brown, 3 Heisk. 1: 811. Brown, 30 La. Ann. 78: 1237. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771: 338, 239, 340, 349. Brown, 48 La. Ann. 1569: 483. Brown, 31 Me. 532: 974, Brown, 60 Ohio St. 462: 354» 355, 407. Brown, 33 S. C. 151: 85, 09, 126. Brown, 103 Tenn. 449: 200; 350, 296, 435. Browne, 56 Minn. 269: 674, 707, 717. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436: 13, 132, Bruder, 35 Mo. App, 475: 98a Bruner, 17 Mo. App. 374: 88a Buchanan Co. Ct., 41 Mo. 354: 1093. Buckley, 54 Ala. 599: 71, 78. 91. Buckley, 17 Ohio C. C. 86: 458, Buckley, 60 Ohio St. 373: 382. 458, 597, 598, Buckman, 18 Fla. 267: 693^ 701. Bulkeley, 61 Conn. 287: 13, 132. Bulling, 105 Mo. 204: 1183. Burdge, 95 Wis. 390: 151. Burdick, 6 Wyo. 448: 1290. Burgdoerfer, 107 Mo. 1: 212, 294,935. Burk, 88 Iowa, 661: 443, 561 V, V. V, , V. V. . eexiv TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. V. . V. V. V. . State V. Burlington, etc. E. R Co., 60 Neb. 741: 72,88. Burnett, 6 Heisk. 186: 3.57. Burns, 38 Fla. 367: 133, 269. , Burton, 33 Neb. 833: 435, 488. Burton, 11 Wis. 50: 458. Bush, 45 Kan. 138: 230. , Buskirk, 18 Ind. App. 639: 936. Buswell, 40 Neb. 158: 298, 1313. , Butcher, 93 Tenn. 679: 518, 530, 535. Cain, 8 W. Va. 730: 447. , California M. Co., 15 Nev. 234: 423. Call, 131 N. C. 643: 427. , Camden, 58 N. J. L. 515: 95, 516, 518, 781. Camden, 58 N. J. L. 575: 781. Camlnade, 55 N. J. L. 4: 379, 380, 388, 390. Campbell, 50 Kan. 433: 801. Campbell, 3 Tenn. Cas. 355: 890. , Campbell, 44 Wis. 529: 446, 519, 555. Canon, 106 Mo. 488: 815. , Canterbury, 28 N. B. 195: 687, 1064, 1066. Capdevielle, 104 La. 561: 134, 135. Carey, 4 Wash. 484: 427. Carney, 20 Iowa, 82: 1131. Carr, 129 Ind. 44: 6, 10. Carron Hill Coal Co., 4 Wash. 433: 493, 518, 532. Carson, 67 N. J. L. 178: 899. Carson, 6 Wash. 250: 493, 530, 570. Carter, 38 S. C. 1:498. Casimere, 43 La. Ann. 442: 467. T. T. T. ' T. T. T. V. ' T. V. State V. Cassidy, 33 Minn. 825: 193, 205. V. Cave, 20 Mont. 468: 731, 733. V. Caseau, 8 La. Ann. 109: 649, 654, 656. V. Chamberlin, 37 N. J. L. 388: 592. V. Chambers, 93 N. C. 600: 624, 625, 632. V. Chandler, 133 Mo. 155: 973. V. Chapel, 63 Minn. 535: 295. V. Chase, 5 H. & J. 303: 893,893. V. Chase, 5 Ohio St. 528: 1113. V. Cheetham, 17 Wash. 483: 111, 464 V. Cherry, 53 N. J. L. 173: 302. V. Cherry, 22 Utah 1: 13, 132. V. Cherry Co., 58 Neb. 734: 328. V. Chester, 39 S. C. 307: 68. V. Chicago, etc. E. R, Co,, 38 Minn. 281: 796. V. Cincinnati, 19 Ohio, 197: 460. V. Cincinnati, 52 Ohio St. 419: 437, 444. V. Cincinnati, etc. Ca, 21 Ohio C. C. 218: 1159. V. Cincinnati Gas Light Co., 18 Ohio St. 363: 1033, 1039, 1037. V. Citizens' Bank, 53 La. Ann, 1086: 1007. V. City Council, 65 Minn. 298: 1154. V. Clapp, 50 Minn. 339: 5. V. Clark, 5 Dutch. 96: 664. V. Clark, 54 Mo. 316: 518, 844. V. Clark, 57 Mo. 25: 759. T. Clark, 15 R. L 383: 579. V. Clark, 30 Wash. 439: 437. V. Clarke, 54 Mo. 17 : 577, 582, 697. V. Clarksville, etc. Co., 2 Sneed, 88: 712, 747, 754. V. Clayton, 53 N. J. L. 277: 379, 396. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CCX7 The references are to the pases: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. H, pp. 605-1315. State V. Cleveland, 80 Mo. 108: 880. V. Click. 3 Ala. 26: 308, 1117, 1131. V. Cline. 62 N. J. L. 489: 429. V. Clinton, 27 La. Ann. 40: 203, 261. V. Clinton, 28 La. Ann. 201: 580. V. Cloksey, 5 Sneed, 482: 881. V. Cobb, 44 Neb. 434: 469. V. Cole, 2 MoCord, 117: 1136. V. Columbia George, 39 Ore. 127: 469. V. Commercial Ins. Co., 158 Ind. 680: 263. V. Commissioner, 140 Ind. 506: 407. V. Commissioner, 37 N. J. L 228: 473, 852. V. Commissioners, 41 Kan. 630: 214 V. Commissioners,67 Minn. 359: 199. V. Commissioners, 88 Minn. 65: 200. V. Commissioners, 38 N. J. L. 320: 593, 601. V. Commissioners, 3 Ohio, C. D. 227: 528. V. Commissioners, 5 Ohio St. 497: 595. V. Commissioners, 54 Ohio St. 333: 6, 424 V. Commissioners, 4 Wis. 414: 1193. V. Commissioners, 34 Wis. 163: 78'3. V. Commissioners, 106 Wis. 584: 535. V. Common Council, 90 Wis. 612: 10. v. Common Council, 96 Wis. 73: 470. V. Compson, 34 Ore. 25: 7, 132. V. Conelly, 66 N. J. L. 197: 388. State V. Conklin, 34 Wis. 21: 813. V. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501: 518. 564, 638. V. Conley, 23 R. L 397: 764* 797. V. Connelly, 66 N. J. L. 197: 278, 387. V. Continental Tobacco Co., 177 Mo. 1: 436. Cook, 20 Ohio St. 252: 894 Cook, 107 Tenn. 409: 426. Cooke, 24 Minn. 247: 164, 17L Cooler, 8 S, E. 693: 1181, 1187. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540: 352, 359, 365, 366, 401. Cooley, 63 Minn. 183: 1007. Cooley, 65 Minn. 406: 171. Cooper, 5 Blaokf. 358: 937. Coosaw Mining Co., 47 Fed. 225: 1021. Copeland, 66 Minn. 315: 86a Copeland, 3 R. L 33: 145, 60L Corbett, 61 Ark. 236: 71, 93, 93, 437, 438. Corbett, 57 Minn. 345: 137, 139, 428. Cordoza, 5 S. C. 297: 93a Corkins, 128 Mo. 56: 843. Cornell, 50 Neb. 536: 448. Cornell, 53 Neb. 556: 661, 955. Cornell, 54 Neb. 72: 281, 23a Cornell, 54 Neb. 647: 781. Cornell, 59 Neb. 417: 134, 595. Corson, 59 Me. 137: 1183. Corson, 67 N. J. L. 178: 33a Corwin, 4 Mo. 609: 688, 917. Countryman, 57 Kan. 815: 517, 519. V. Co. Com'rs. 13 Am. & Eng, Cor. Cas. 203: 205, 223. V. Co. Convrs, 28 Fla. 793: 848. V. Co. Com'rs, 29 Md. 516: Ilia ecxvi TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. State , 335: 427: ;275, 339. V. Co. Oom'rs, 87 Minn. 795, 796, 938. Co. Com'rs, 138 Mo. 606. Co. Com'rs, 47 Neb. 438 448. County Ct., 50 Mo. 317: County Ct., 51 Mo. 83: 339. County Ct. 53 Mo. 138: 459. County Ct, 103 Mo. 531: 370, 583, 593. County Ct. 188 Mo. 437: 908. County Judge, 3 Iowa, 380: 185, 193, 203, 303, 204, 276. Court Com. Pleas., 36 N. J. L. 72: 171. Courtney, 73 Iowa,^619: 520. Courtney, 37 Mont. 378: 236, 582. Corington, 29 Ohio St. 103: 188, 189. Covington, 35 S. C. 245: 847, 855. Cowdery, 79 Minn. 94: 766. Cowles, 64 Ohio St. 103: 401. Craig, 23.1nd. 185: 481. Craig,23 0hioC. C. 441 538. Cram, 16 Wia 343: 853. Cramer, 58 N. J. L. 437. Crawford, 35 Ark. 337: 71, 95. Crawford, 11 Kan. 33: 558, 681. Cress, 4 Jones (N. C), 431: 555. Crook, 136 Ala. 600: 300. Cross, 68 Iowa, 180: 611. Cross, 38 Kan. 696: 446. Cross, 44 W. Va. 315: 434, 453, 796, 800. Crounse, 36 Neb. 835: 111. Crowley, 33 La, Ann. 782: 351, 581. ;493, 378: State V. Crusins, 57 N. J. L. 379: 303, 557. Cumberland, etc. R. R. Co., 40 Md. 22: 423. Cummins, 99Tenn. 667: 579. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440: 47, 137. Currens, 111 Wis. 431: 437. Custer, 65 N. C. 339: 756. Cutshall, 110 N. 0, 538: 22. Daley, 39 Conn. 273: 481, 553, 556. Dalon, 35 La. Ann. 1141: 351, 345, 581. Daly, 49 Mo. App. 184: 538. Daniel, 38 La. Ann. 38: 205. Davis, 130 Ala. 148: 234, 293, 578, 583, 597. Davis, 23 La. Ann. 77: 788. Davis, 70 Md. 337: 333, 541, 542, 543. Davis, 129 N. C. 570: 535. Davis, 55 Ohio St. 15: 43t De Bar, 58 Mo. 395: 537. Deets, 54 Kan. 504: 315. De Grass, 53 Tex. 387: 910. Delaney, 55 N. J. L, 9: 379, 380, 388. Desforges, 47 La. Ann. 1167: 691. Deshler, 25 N. J. L. 177: 750. Des Moines, 96 Iowa, 531: 397. Deuel, 68 Kan. 811: 689, 795. DevFS, R M. Charlt. 400: 18, 21. Dexter, 10 E. I. 841: 13. Diamond Mills P. Ca, 63 N. J. Eq. Ill: 303. Diokerman, 16 Mont 378: 1159. Dillon, 83 Fla. 545: 576, 578, 597. Dinnisse, 109 Mo. 484: 815, 83a TABLE OF CASES CITED. ccxvu The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. :State V. District Court, 61 Minn. 543: 373, 389. V. District Court, 75 Minn. 392: 1133. V. District Court, 14 Mont. 453: 530, 955. V. Distri'ct Court, 26 Mont. 396: 731, 748, 749, 750. T. Dist. Narragansett, 16 R. L 434: 134, 1145. V. Doherty, 3Idalio,384: 88,89, 215. V. Doherty, 60 Me. 504: 640. V. Dohney, 72 Vt. 260: 713, 956. V. Dombaugh, 30 Ohio St. 173: 937. V. Dona van, 20 Nev. 75: 439. V. Donehey, 8 Iowa, 396: 316, 317. V, Donnelly, 30 Nev. 314: 469, 847. V. Doriand, 56 N. J. L. 364: 368, 393. ■v. Dorr, 83 Me. 312: 177. V. Dorsey Co., 28 Ark. 378: 608. ^. Dotson, 36 Mont. 305: 777, 778, 779. V. Douglass, 33 N. J. L. 363: 679. V. Douglass, 5 Sneed, 608: 671, 881. V. Dousman, 28 Wis. 541: 438, 595. -r. Downs, 60 Kan. 788: 403. V. Downs, 164 Mo. 471: 847, 853. ' V. Drowne, 30 R. L 303: 914, 1053. -V. Dudley, 1 Ohio St. 437: 567. V. Duestrow, 137 Mo. 44: 1183. V, Duff, 80 Wis. 13: 1170. V. Duffy, 7 Nev. 342: 342, 344 V. Duggan, 15 R I. 403: 430, 106. V. Duke, 43 Tex. 455: 593. -V. Duluth G. & W. Co., 76 Minn. 96: 603. State V. Duncan, 16 Lea, 79: 483. Dunn, 66 Kan. 483: 301. Dunning, 9 Ind. 20: 314^ 317, 950. Dupuia, 18 Ore. 373: 303, 468. Durrah, 152 Mo. 522: 429. Easton, etc. R R Co., 36 N. J. L. 181: 1044 Eaves, 106 N. C. 753: 574, 575. Ebbs, 89 Mo. App. 95: 711, 847, 854 Edwards, 136 Mo. 360: 541. Edwards, 163 Mo. 660: 1311. Egan, 64 Minn. 331: 527,539. Eidson, 76 Tex. 303: 775. Elizabeth, 40 N. J. L. 378: 583. Elizabeth, 56 N. J. L. 71 : 398. Elizabeth, 59 N. J. L. 134: 1303. Elk Co. Com'rs, 21 Nev. 19: 526. Elk Island Boom Co., 41 W. Va. 796: 1013. Ellet,47 Ohio St. 90: 354407. Elvins, 32 N. J. L. 362: 304 Emery, 55 Ohio St. 364: 957. Engle, 21 N. J. L. 347: 757, 766. Ennis, 79 Ma App. 13: 815, 827. Eskew, 64Neb. 600: 236. Eskridge, 1 Swan, 413: 674, 924 947. Estep, 66 Kan. 416: 490. Exnicios, 33 'Jjb. Ann. 353: 251, 581. Faokler, 91 Wis. 418: 144 585. Fagan, 22 La. Ann. 545: 104 .925. Farmers' & M. Ins. Co., 59 Neb. 1: 439. Farrell, 33 Mo. App. 176: 1297. CCXVlll TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1816. State V. Fawcett, 17 Wash. 188: 470, 1290. Ferguson, 104 La. 349: 193, 250, 581. Fernandez, 39 La. Ann. 538: 671, 814. Ferris, 53 Ohio St. 314: 437. Field, 17 Mo. 529: 153. Field, 113 Mo. 554: 884. Field, 119 Mo. 593: 57, 84, 86, 429, 567. Fields, 2 Bailey, 554: 928. Fire Creek Coal & Coke Co., 33 W. Va. 188: 417. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1: 303. Fisher, 119 Mo. 344: 1313. Fitzporter, 17 Mo. App. 371: 374, 52a Fleming, 147 Mo. 1: 375, 388. Fletcher, 5 N. H. 257: 932. Fletcher, 1 R. I. 193: 555. Flint, 61 Minn. 539: 19. Folk, 89 Minn. 369: 1308. Foote, 11 Wis. 14: 101, 311, 317. Forest, 7 Wash. 54: 470. Forkner, 94 Iowa, 1: 171, 291, 423. Forney, 21 Neb. 223: 813. Foster, 22 R. I. 163: 703, 981. Fragiaoomo, 71 Miss. 417: 551. Francis, 36 Kan. 734: 72, 78, 84, 87, 91, 92. Frank, 60 Neb. 337: 73, 73, 75, 77, 79, 92, 399, 404, 406. Frank, 61 Neb. 679: 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 93, 404, 406, 440. Franklin, 59 N. J. L.106: 579," 593. Franklin Co. Savings Bank, 74 Vt. 246: 909. Frazier, 98 Mo. 426: 537, 636. State V. Frazier, 36 Ore. 178: 310. V. Frederick, 45 Ark. 347: 87a- V. Fremont, etc. R. R. Co., eft- Neb. 749: 73. French, 17 Mont. 54: 13, 132: Frost, 103 Tenn. 635: 430t 1029. Fury, 55 N. J. L. 1: 380, 38a Gaines, 1 Lea, 734: 448. Garbroski, 111 Iowa, 496: 424.^ Garland, 7 Ired. L. 48: 931. Garrett, 39 La. Ann. 637:- 301, 203, 207, 343. V. Garrett, 76 Mo. App. 395:. 914, 1310. V. Garrity, 98 Iowa, 101: 1149, 1153. V. Garver, 13 Ohio C. D. 140:. 407. V. Garver, 66 Ohio St. 555: 407. V. Gay, 18 Mont. 51:1180. V. Geiger, 65 Mo. 306: 44a %■. George, 22 Ore. 143: 6, 7. V. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439: 1^. 135, 137, 139, 177, 185, 19SX, 321, 330, 391, 446, 846. V. Gibbs, 60 S. C. 500: 189. V. Gibson, 55 N. J. L. 11: 37SS,. 380, 38a V. Gilliam, 18 Mont. 94: 119flt 1310. V. Gillick, 7 Iowa, 387: 1131. V. Gilman, 33 W. Va. 146: lOia. V. Glenn, 18 Nev. 39: 59, 97. V. Glenn, 47 N. J. I* 105: 390. V. Glen Ridge, 59 N. J. L. 201:^ 775. V. Gloucester Co., 50 N. J. L.^ 585: 149, 15a 291, 651. V. Goetze, 23 Wis. 363:531, 66V 671. V. Goff. 106 La. 270: 306. 579. V. Goodrich, 84 Wis. 359: 993. V. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179: 4I7„ TABLE OF OASES CITED. CCXIX The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. l-fl08; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. State V. Gorby, 132 Ind. 17: 5, 7. state y. Hamilton, 47 Ohio St. 52: V. Gouss, 85 Iowa, 31: 428. 1024. V. Goyette, 11 R. I. 592: 876. V. Hammer, 42 N. J. L. 435: V. Grace, 20 Ore. 154: 1303. 368. V. Grady, 34 Conn. 118: 481, V. Hammett, 7 Ark. 493: 873. 484. V. Hammond, 66 S. C. 219: 340, V. Graham, 38 Ark., 519: 959, 425. 965; V. Hammond, 66 S. C. 300: 840, V. Graham, 16 Neb. 74: 401. 435. V. Granneman, l;;2 Mo. 336: V. Hanger, 5 Ark, 413: 598. 340, 419. V. Hannibal, etc. Ry. Co., 113 V. Grassle, 74 Mo. App. 318: 980. Mo. 397: 1117, 1119. V. Great Western C. & T. Co., V. Hannibal, etc. R. R, Co., 135 171 Mo. 634: 256. Mo. 618: 773, 889. V. Green, 36 Fla. 154: 72, 85, 88, y. Harding, 20 Wash. 556: 487, 185, 215, 439, 433, 651. 981. V. Gregory, 170 Mo. 598: 439. V. Hardman, 16 Ind. App. 857: V. Griffen, 132 Ala. 47: 277. 558. V. Gritzner, 134 Mo. 512: 21, 429, V. Harkness, 1 3rev. 276: 674. 953, 964, 965. V. Harney, 168 Mo. 167: 429. V. Groves, 119 N. 0. 833: 880. V. Harper, 30 S. C. 586: 1233. V. Guilbert,560hioSt. 575: 6, 13. V. Harris, 47 La. Ann. 386: 133. V. Guiney, 55 Kan. 533: 433, 451. V. Harris, 19 Nev. 222: 587. V. Gulley, 41 Ore. 318: 498. V. Harris, 17 Ohio St. 608: 1115, V. Cumber, 37 Wis. 398: 445, 55'3, 1119. 561. V. Harrison, 11 La. Ann. 722: V. Gumbler, 37 Wis. 298: 481. . 245. V. Guptbn, 8 Ired. 371: 755. V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 99 V. Guttenberg, 63 N. J. L. 605: Ala. 821: 230, 585, 653. 863, 390, 398. V. Harvey, 141 Mo. 843: 839. V. Guttenberg, 63 N. J. L. 616: V. Haskell Co., 40 Kan. 65: 265. 390. V. Hastings, 34 Minn. 78: 72, 85, V. Haas, 2 N. D. 303: 302. 608. v. Haddonfield & C. Turnpike V. Hatchaway, 115 Mo. 36: 10. Co., 65 N. J. K 97: 624. V. Haun, 7 Kan. App. 509: 301, V. Hagood, 13 S. C. 46: 68, 87. 428. V. Halbert, 14 Wash. 806: 243. V. Haverly, 63 Neb. 87: 267, 432. V. Hall, 2 Bailey, 151:982. V. Hay, 45 Neb. 321: 10, 511. V. Halliday, 63 Ohio St. 165: 323, V. Hayes, 78 Mo. 307: 876. 463, 541. V. Hayes, 13 Mont. 116: 964, 965. V. Hallook, 14 Nev. 203: 458. V. Hayes, 64 N. H. 264: 166. V. Hallook, 19 Nev. 384: 256. V. Haynes, 72 Mo. 377: 950. V. Hamblin, 4 Rich. (N. S.) 1: ■ V. Hays, 49 Mo. 604: 925. 481, 485. o V. Hays, 78 Mo. 600: 956. ccxx TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. State V. Hegeman, 2 Penn. (Del.) 147: 973. V. Heidorn, 74 Mo. 410: 544. V. Heineman, 80 "Wis. 253: 158. V. Heldenbrand, 62 Neb. 136: 137, 211. V. Helms, 136 Ind. 122: 557, 1206. V. Helmes, 3 N. J. L. 1050: 632. V. Hemaw, 70 Mo. 441: 697, 798. V. Henderson, 160 Mo. 190: 427. V. Henderson, 4 Wyo. 535: 13, 132. V. Hendrix, 98 Mo. 374: 433. V. Henry, 28 Wash. 38: 579, 1232. V. Herrmann, 75 Mo. 340: 359, 874, 391, 401, 403, 403. V. Hey ward, 3 Rich. 389: 1193. V. Hickman, 11 Mont. 541: 931, 1072. V. Higgins, 125 Mo. 864: 5, 8, 374. V. Hill, 147 Mo. 63: 415. V. Hilmantel, 21 Wis. 566: 1143. V. Hinchman, 27 Pa. St. 479: 866. V. Hinman, 65 N. H 103: 427. V. Hirzel, 137 Mo. 435: 444. V. Hitchcock, 1 Kan. 186: 106, 839. V. Hoadley, 20 Nev. 317: 278. V. Hoagland, 51 N. J. L. 62: 368. V. Hobe, 106 Wis. 411: 530. V. Hoboken, 52 N. J. L. 88: 1303. V. Hooker, 36 Fla. 858: 72, 94, 100, 138, 215. V. HoefEner, 9 Wash. 680: 498. V. Hogriever, 152 Ind. 652: 981. V. Holcomb, 46 Neb. 88: 888, 893. V. Holcomb, 46 Neb. 612: 297. V. Holder, 76 Miss. 158: 111. State V. Holman, 3 McCord, 306: 835. V. Holmes, 115 Mich. 457: 784. V. Holmes, 68 N. J. L. 193: 363, Holt, 69 Minn. 428: 469. Hoover, 58 N. J. L. 334: 894. Horgan, 55 Minn. 183: 1315. Horner, 84 Md. 569: 1119. Horsey, 14 Ind. 185: 481, 484. Hoskins, 106 Tenn. 430: 250. Hostetter, 137 Mo. 636: 880, 1312. Howard, 137 Mo. 289: 973. Howe, 38 Neb. 618: 500. Howe, 95 Wis. 530: 534. Howell, 26 Nev. 93: 96. Hudson Co., 37 N. J. L. 12: 145. Hudson Co., 53 N. J. L. 898: 171, 3C0. Hughes, 104 Mo. 459: 302, 429. Humboldt Co. Com'rs, 21 Nev. 235: 279, 579, 583. Hunter, 69 Ark. 548: 455. Hurds, 19 Neb. 316: 252, 581. Hyde, 131 Ind. 20: 5, 6. Indiana, etc. R. R. Co., 188 IlL 69: 966. Ingersol, 17 Wis. 631: 443, 459, 516, 555. Intoxicating Liquors, 19 Atl. 913: 928. Intoxicating Liquors, 73 Me. 278: 868. Jackson, 39 Me. 291: 624. Jackson, 105 Mo. 196: 1183. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 41 Fla. 368: 260, 366, 428, 693, 720, 753, 760, 1805. Jaeger, 63 Mo. 403: 918. Jennings, 98 Mo. 493: 981. Jensen, 86 Minn. 19: 509. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CCXXl The rererences are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-COS; Vol. n, pp. '605-1315. State V. Jernigan, 3 Murph. 18: 794. V. Jersey City, 54 N. J. L. 437: 1314. V. Jersey City, 57 N. J. L. 293: 1154. V. Jersey City, 58 N. J. L. 363: 439. V. Johnson, 36 Ark. 381: 133. V. Johnson, 61 Kan. 803: 5, 6. V. Johnson, 74 Minn. 381: 788, 1304. V. Johnson, 77 Minn. 453: 354, 393. V. Johnson, 86 Minn. 121: 439. V. Johnson, 30 Mont. 367: 749, 769. V. Johnson, 105 Wis. 90: 1146. V. Jones, 23 Ark. 331: 1054. V. Jones, 31 Md. 433: 1287. V. Jones, 103 Mo. 305: 730, 741, 914. T. Jones, 33 Ohio C. C. 683: 79. V. Jones, 66 Ohio St. 453: 381, 458. V. Jones, 6 "Wash. 453: 67, 76. V. Judge, 13 La. Ann. 777: 884, V. Judge, 14 La. Ann. 486: 316, 458. V. Judge, 29 La. Ann. 333: 47. V. Judge, 37 La. Ann. 578: 520. V. Judge, 38 Mo. 529: §30. V. Judges, 21 Ohio St. 1: 349, 364, 625, 633. V. Justus, 85 Minn. 379: 395, 418, 579, 733, 797, 803. V. Kalb, 50 Wis. 178: 1194. TT. Kantler, 33 Minn. 69: 577. V. Karnes, 78 Mo. App. 51: 1305. T.Kates, 149 Ind. 46: 524. -v. Kearney, 49 Neb. 325: 436, 440, 568, 1159, 1199. -y. Kearney, 49 Neb, 337: 1158, 1159. ^. Keith, 63 N. C. 140: 1178. State V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. Kelley, 34 N. J. L. 75: 473, 492, 516, 679. Kelsey, 89 Mo. 633: 972. Kempf, 69 Wis. 470: 1029. Kenney, 11 Mont 553: 1161. Kennie, 34 Mont. 45: 1305. Kent, 4 N. D. 577: 1154. Keokuk & W. E. E. Co., 153 Mo. 157: 1006. Ketler, 65 Ohio St. 558: 393. Kibling, 63 Vt. 636: 579. Kiesewetter, 45 Ohio St. 354: 73, 78, 79. King, 37 Iowa, 463: 158, 363. King, 12 La. Ann. 593: 555. King, 44 Mo. 383: 663, 674, 717, 729. King, 136 Mo. 309: 1154. King, 38 Mont. 368: 135. King, 104 Tenn. 156: 466, 563. Kingsley,108 Mo. 135: 303. Kinne, 41 N. H. 238: 931, 932. Klisley, 10 Mont. 537: 1184. Kirk, 74 Ind. 554: 956. Knowles, 90 Md. 646: 1154. KoLsem, 130 Ind. 434: 191, 300, 339. Koshland, 35 Ore. 178: 191, 330. Krebs, 64 N. C. 604: 1035, Kremer, 63 N. J. L. 483: 380, V. Kreutzberg,114Wis.530:418. V. Krost, 140Ind.41: 407. V. Kvueger, 134 Mo. 863: 816, 966. V. Kuntz, 31 OliioO. C. 261: 411. V. Kyle, 166 Mo. 387: 1184. V. Labatut, 39 La. Ann. 513: 527, 533. V. La Gra^e, 33 Nev. 120: 954. V. La Grave, 23 Nev. 373: 501. V. Laiche, 105 La. 84; 57. V. Lammers, 113 Wis. 398: 1302. ccxxu TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. State V. Lancashire Fire Ins. Co., 66 Ark. 466:747,880,883, Lancaster Co., 17 Neb. 87: 250, 251. Larohe, 105 La. 84: 87. Larson, 89 Minn. 133: 1309. Lasater, 9 Baxt. 584: 186, 190, 205. La Vaque, 47 Minn. 106: 339, 269. Lean, 9 Wis. 284: 318, 634. Learned, 47 Me. 426: 1183. Lee, 106 La. 400: 301. Lee, 137 Mo. 143: 439. Lewelling, 51 Kan. 563: 368, 339. Lowin, 58 Kan. 679: 297. Lewis, 5 Mo. App. 465: 534. Liedtke, 9 Neb. 463: 87. Lincoln Trust Co., 144 Mo. 562: 452, 954, 1035. Lindquist, 77 Minn. 540: 527, 536. Lindsay, 103 Tenn. 625: 137. Linn Co,, 25 Ore. 503: 288, 504; 1076. Little Rock, etc. R. R Co., 31 Ark. 701: 71. Loftin, 2 Dev. & Bat. 31: 917. Long, 31 Mont. 36: 86, 96, 335, 338, 410. Long, 78 N. C. 571: 555. Long Branch Com'rs, 59 N. J, L. 146: 394. Looker, 54 Kan. 237: 243. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307: 417. Lovell, 23 Iowa, 304: 964, 967. Loyd, 3 Ind. 659: 555. Mace, 5 Md. 337: 757, 1054. Macklin, 41 Mo. App. 335: 278. Macon Co.lCt., 41 Mo. 453: 460, 636. State V. V. Madison, 15 Wis. 30: 1199. Madson, 43 Minn. 438: 191, 205, 231, 233, 236. Maggard, 80 Mo. App. 286 731, 733. Magill, 1 Wash. C. C. 463 757. Manchester Savings Bank, 71 N. H. 535: 1003. Mann, 21 Wis. 684: 710. Mann, 76 Wis. 469: 423. Manning, 14 Tex. 402: 1183. Mansel, 52 3. C. 468: 555. Manson, 105 Tenn. 333: 703, 747, 1300, Marsh, 37 Ark. 356: 577. Marshall, 48 Mo. App. 560t 741. Marshall, 64 N. H. 549: 1315i Marshall, 13 Tex. 55: 983. Martin, 68 Vt. 93: 498, 1052 Mason, 153 Mo. 23: 135, 374,. 388, 445, 534, 916. Mason, 155 Mo. 486: 57, 93^ 108, ,131, 803, 374, 388, 933. Massey, 103 N. C. 356: 481. Maybe w, 3 Gill, 487: 887,. 888. Maynard, 14 111. 419: 1051. Mayor, 35 N. J. L. 196: 660,, 709, 711, 748. Mayor. 5 Port. 379: 1083. McBride, 64 Neb. 547: 784. McCance. 110 Mo. 398: 964,, 1377. McCann, 4 Lea, 1: 188, 250. McCann, 31 Ohio St. 198: 343., McCary, 138 Ala. 139: 399. McConnell, 3 Lea, 833: 84, 304, 223, 324. McCoy, 86 Minn. 149: 497. McCoy, 3Speers, 711: 756. McCracken,42Tex. 883: 188,, 796. TABLE OF OASES OITED. CCXXIU The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. State V. McCurdy, 62 Minn. 509: 461, State 466, 467, 530. V. McFetridge, 64 Wis. 130: 1003. V. V. lilcGarry, 31 Wis. 496: 831. V. McGovern, 100 Wis. 666: V. 133t V. V. McGowan, 138 Mo. 187: 585, V. 955, 1301. V. V. McGraw, 13 Wash. 311: 157. V. V. MoGuire, 24 Ore. 366: 1397. •V. McLain, 49 Mo. App. 398: V. 730, 1377. V. V. McLain, 93 Mo. App. 456: 843. V. V. McLean, 9 Wis. 893: 1139. y. V. McLelland, 18 Neb. 236: 73, V. 78, 84, 867. V. McMahon, 63Minn. 110: 428. V. V. MoMahon, 65 Minn. 453: 713, V. 741. V. McMillan, 69 Vt. 105: 857. V. V. McMinville, 106 Tenn. 384: 304. V. V. McNally, 67 Ark. 580: 1158. V. McPeak,31Neb.l39: 1198. V. V. McSpaden,137Mo. 638: 1313. V. V. Mead, 71 Mo. 366: 55, 108, 300. V. Meehany, 63 Conn. 126: V. V. Meek, 36 Wash. 405: 497, 574, V. 775. V. Meier, 73 Mo. App. 618: 13. V. V. Mercantile Bank, 95 Tenn. V. 313: 791, 1008. V. V. Messenger, 27 Minn. 119: V. 1383. 1385. V. Messmore, 14 Wis. 163: 319. V. V. Meyers, 56 Ohio St. 340: 965, V. 973. V. Michel, 53 La. Ann. 936: 107, V. 108, 336, 1303. V. V. Milburn, 9 Gill, 105: 931. V. V. Miles, 2 Nott & McC. 1: 756. V. V. Miller, 58 Ind. 399: 484 V. Miller, 140 Ind. 168: 855. V. V. Miller, 66 Minn. 90: 434. 1 V. Miller, 45 Ma 495: 188, 191, 205, 238. , Miller, 100 Mo. 439: 185, 191, 347, 370, 374, 410, 447. , Miller, 30 N. J. L. 368: 533. Miller, 3 Penn. (Del.) 518: 760. . Miller, 33 Wis. 634: 947. . Mills, 34 N. J. L. 177: 538, 1003. Mines, 38 W. Va, 135: 447, 534, 585. Minor, 79 Minn. 301: 373, 393. Mister, 5 Md. 11: 845. Mitchell, 5 Ired. L. 350: 756. Mitchell, 50 Kan. 389: 731. Mitchell, 97 Me. 66: 435, 437, 597, 599. Mitchell, 17 Mont. 67: 335. , Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 593: 401, 403. Monger, 111 N. C. 675: 463, 466. . Montclair Ry. Co., 35 N. J. L. 338: 1044 Moore, 121 Ind. 116: 568. Moore, 107 Mo. 78: 171, 360, 423. Moore, 131 Mo. 514: 1185. , Moore, 96 Mo. App. 431: 707, 909. Moore, 104 N. C. 714: 134, 439. Moore, 37 Neb. 13: 73, 88. Moore, 45 Neb. 13: 651, 1030. Moore, 48 Neb. 870: 303, 448, 509. Moore, 50 Neb. 88: 783. Moore, 54 N. J. L. 131: 379, 380, 389. Moore, 37 Ore. 536: 503. Moores, 55 Neb. 480: 139. Mooty, 3 Hill (S. C.) 187: 845. , Mo. Pao. Ry. Co., 64 Neb. 679: 1315. Morehouse, 5 N. D. 406: 571, 573, 795. CCXXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. State V. Morgan, 112 Mo. 203: 295. State V. Nine Justices, 90 Tenn. 732: V. Morgan, 8 S. D. 32: 134, 186, 157: 343. 188, 191, 205, 222, 230, 248. V. Noblesville, 157 Ind. 31: 500. V. Morrill, 16 Ark. 384: 947. V. Nohl, 113 Wis. 15: 158. V. Morris Canal, etc. Co., 13 N. V. Nomland, 3 N. D, 427: 280. J. L. 192: 1098. V. Nord, 73 Minn. 1: 1137, 113& V. Morrow, 26 Mo. 131:568, 922. V. Norris, 70 Md. 91: 185, 191, V. Mounts, 36 W. Va. 179: 808, 296. 330, 694, 703, 711, 1300. V. Norris, 87 Neb. 299: 606, 1130, V. Moyer, 17 Wash. 643: 470. 1290. V. Mrozinski, 59 Minn. 465: 137. V. Northampton Tp., 53 N. J. V. Murlin, 137 Mo. 297: 433, 751. L. 496: 817, 373. V. Murphy, 101 Tenn. 515: 1398. v. Northern, etc. Ry. Co., 18 V. Myers, 10 Iowa, 448: 756. Md. 193: 1054. V. Myers, 146 Ind. 36: 706, 757. V. Northern Pao. Exp. Co., 27 V. Mylod, 20 E. I. 633: 749, 761, Mont. 419: 586. 769, 1312. V, North Plainfield, 63 N. J. L. V. N. D. Children's Home Soo., 61: 266. ION. D. 493: 23:. V. Norton, 33 N. J. L. 83: 472, V. Neeley, 30 S. C. 5S7: 1233. 862. V. Nelson, 52 Ohio St. 88: 854, V. Norwood, 12 Md. 195: 550, 356, 859, 414. 1159, 1169. V. Newark, 3 Dutch. 185: 643. V. Noyes, 47 Ma 189: 950, 1198, V. Newark, 35 N. J. L. 399: 550. 1194. V. Newark, 28 N. J. L. 491: 474. V. Noyes, 30 N. H. 879: 172. V. Newark, 34 N. J. L. 236: 204, V. Nutt, Phil. L. 80: 554. 831, 243. V, O'Brien, 47 Ohio St. 464: 809, V. Newark, 53 N. J. L. 4: 395. 335. V. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 83: "368, V. O'Connor, 13 La. Ann. 486: 398. 555. V. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 298: 373, V, O'Connor, 81 Minn. 79: 651. 323, 379, 380, 388, 890, 443, V. O'Connor, 54 N. J. L. 36: 397, 548. 434. V. Newbold, 56 Kan. 71: 315. V. O'Connor, 96 Tex. 484: 694. V. New Brunswick, 47 N, J. L. V. O'Donnell, 60 N. J. L. 35: 479: 393. 389. V. Newman, 24 Neb. 40: 1310. V. Oftedal, 78 Minn. 498: 306. V. Newton, 59 Ind. 173: 577, V. Ohio Oil Ca, 150 Ind. 21: 583. 656. V. New York, etc. R R. Co., 71 V. dinger, 109 Iowa, 669: 1032. Conn. 43: 19. V. Oliver, 12 Wash. 547: 555. ». Nichols, 30 La. Ann., Pt. II, V. Olsen, 58 Minn. 1: 240. 980: 883, 883. V. O'Neill. 24 Wis. 149: 167, 170, V. Nichols, 38 Wash. 628: 419. 173. TABLE OP CASES CITED. ccxxv The references are to the pagea: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315, State V. Orange, 60 N. J. L. Ill: 157, 389. V. Order of Elks, 69 Miss. 895: 516, 518, 519, 551. V. Orriok, 106 Mo. Ill: 303, 439. V. Oskins, 28 Ind. 364: 684. V. Otis, 68 N. J. L. 64: 407, 1145. V. Owen, 7 Wyo. 84: 470. V. Owens, 9 Kan. App. 595; 391. V. Page, 60 Kan. 664: 10. V. Page, 20 Mont. 388: 338, 847. V. Parker, 91 N. C. 650: 933. V. Parker, 26 Vt. 363: 145, 166. V. Parker, 13 Wash. 685: 789. V. Parkhurst, 9 N. J. U 427: 576. V. Parks, 165 Mo. 496: 1184 V. Partlow, 91 N. C. 550: 800. V. Partridge, 29 Neb. 158: 436. V. Patterson, 2 Ired.L.346:611, 617. V. Pearcy, 44 Mo. 159: 533. V, Peelle, 131 Ind. 495: 5, 7. V. Pennoyer, 65 N. H. 113: 437. V. People, 47 N. Y. 330: 459. V. People's Slaughter House, etc. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1031: 301. V. Perkins, 139 Mo. 106: 1300. V. Perry, 130 N. C. 580: 993. V. Persinger, 76 Mo. 346: 588. V. Peterson, 143 Mo. 526: 646, 964, 987. V. Petit, 74 Minn. 376: 419. V. Phillips, 73 Minn. 77: 303. V. Phoenix Ins. Co., 93 Tenn. 420: 703, 731. V. Pierce, 14 Ind. 302: 481, 484. V. Pierce, 51 Kan. 241: 333,334, 571. V. Pierson, 44 Ark. 265: 860. V. Pierson, 41 La. Ann. 90: 201. V. Pilgrim, 17 Mont. 311: 689, 690. State V. Pinokney, 33 S. C, 484: 1388. V. Piper, 17 Neb. 614: 343. V. Pitts, 58 Mo. 556: 1131. V. Plainfleld, 54 N. J, L. 539 390. V. Plainfleld W. S. Co., 67 N. J L. 357: 685, 1064. V. Piatt, 3 S. C. 150: 68, 78, 87^ 94, 607. V. Piazza, 66 Miss. 436: 921, 1110. V. Police Jury, 45 La. Ann. 249: 468. V. Pollard, 6 R. I 390: 523. V. Pond, 93 Mo. 606: 171, 360, 433. V. Pool, 74 N. C. 403: 757, 797. V. Porter, 53 Minn. 279: 233, 343. V. Post, 55 N. J. L. 364: 397. V. Pot Witt, 17 Mont. 41: 569. V. Powder Mfg. Co., 50 N. J. L. 75: 433, V. Power, 63 Neb. 490: 330. V. Powers, 36 Conn. 77: 960, 1075, 1086, V. Powers, 38 Ohio St, 54: 339, 354, 410, V. Poydras, 9 La, Ann. 165: 729. V. Preston, 34 Wis, 675: 777. V. Price, 13 tt, & J. 360: 878. V. Price, 8 Ohio C. C. 35: 73, 100. V. Prouty, 115 Iowa, 657: 534 V. Pugh, 43 Ohio St. 98: 601. V. Purdy, 14 Wash. 343: 530. V. Eackley, 3 Blackf. 349: 513. V. Randolph, 23 Ore. 74: 437. V. Eanscher, 1 Lea, 96: 357. V. Banson, 73 Mo. 78: 185, 190. V. Ray, 153 Ind. 334: 578. V. Ray, 97 N. C. 510: 873. V. Ray, 109 N. C, 736: 973, •7. Read, 49 La. Ann. 1535: 339, 431. V. Reader, 60 Iowa, 537: 867. CCXXVl TABLE OF OASES CITED. Stata The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1315. V. Eumberg, 86 Minn. 399: 141, 344. Runnels, 93 Tenn. 330: 434. Eusk, 15 Wash. 403: 383,464. . Russell, 17 Mo. App. 16: 880. Russell, 34 Neb. 116: 1130, 1390. Russell, 20 Ohio C. C. 551: 579. Ryan, 13 Minn^ 370: 1183. St. Joseph's Convent of Mercy, 116 Mo. 575: 1161. St. Louis, 174 Ma 135: 673, 813. St. Louis Sch. Board, 131 Mo. 505: 537,539. St. Paul Trust Co., 76 Minn. 433: 708, 1117,1119. Sanders, 43 Kan. 338: 191, 339, 349, 339. Sanford, 67 Conn. 286: 963, 1187. Santee, 111 Iowa, 1: 427, 601. Sawell, 107 Wis. 300: 456, 562. Schlenker, 112 Iowa, 642:703, 1064. Sohlitz Brewing Co., 104 Tenn. 713: 135, 211, 436, 763, 916. Schnierle, 5 Rich. L. 399: 338. School Board Fund, 4 Kan. 361: 316. Schuchmann, 133 Mo. Ill: 815, 835. , Sohultz Co., 83 Md. 58: 264. Schuman, 36 Ore. 16: 1397. Scott, 98 Tenn. 254: 585. . Scott, 32 Wash. 379: 339, , Scott, 36 W. Va. 704: 308, 703, 711, 775, 1300. Scudder, 33 N. J. L. 303: 643, 643. Seaborn, 4 Dev. 305: 51& -3 V. Reads, 76 Minn. 69: 443, State 557. V. Reed, 4 a & MoH. 10: 658. V. V. Reid, 125 Mo. 43: 965, 972. v. V. Reitz, 63 Ind. 159: 357,368. V. V. Richards, 76 Wis. 354: 470. v. V. Richmond, etc. R. R Co., 73 N. C. 537: 1198. V. V. Ridge way, 55 N. J. L. 10: 379, 380, 388. v. V. Eieger, 59 Minn. 151: 469. V. V. Ringo, 43 Mo. App. 115: 1117, 1130. V. V. Riordan, 24 Wis. 484: 339, 341, 428. V. V. Robert P. Lewis Co., 73 Minn. 87: 769. V. V. Robertson, 41 Kan. 300: 035. V. Robinson, 1 Kan. 17: 927. V. V. Robinson, 43 Minn. 107: 1010. V. Robinson, 35 Neb. 401: 429. V. V. Robinson, 32 Ore. 43: 335, 453, 651, 795. V. V. Roby, 143 Ind. 168: 133, 706, V. 883. V. Rodecker, 145 Mo. 450: 909. V. V. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444: 133, 190, 203, 399, 446, 450, 765. V. V. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250: 120, 518. V. Rogers, 56 N. J. L. 480: 47. V. Rogers, 33 Ore. 348: 73, 100, V. 447, 510. V. V. Rogers, 24 Wash. 417: 315. V. Rollins, 80 Minn. 316:741,914 V. V. Rollins, 8 N. H. 550: 29, 573. V. Rorie, 23 Ark. 726: 969. V. V. Rosenstook, 11 Nev. 128: 582. V. V. Ross, 49 Mo. 416: 558, 681. V. V. Ross, 30 Nev. 61: 694, 723, 737, V. 883. V. V. Rotwitt, 17 Mont. 41 : 514, 847, 931. V. V. Routh, 61 Minn. 205: 443. V. Rube, 24 Nev. 351: 303, 1303. V. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CCXXVll The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. State V. Sears, 115 Iowa, 28: 730, 741, 914. V. Sears, 29 Ore. 580: 1190, 1210. V, Secretary of State, 43 La. Ann. 590: 57, 79. V. Seibert, 130 Mo. 202: 605. V. Seller, 106 Wis. 346: 769. V. Severance, 49 Mo. 401: 893, 894, 895. V. Severance, 55 Ma 378: 527. V. Shaffer, 21 Iowa, 486: 681. V. Sharpless, 31 Wash. 191: 137, 228, 426. V. Shaw, 22 Ore. 237: 222, 295. V. Shearer, 46 Ohio St. 275: 410. V. Shedroi, 75 Vt. 277: 424. V. Sheeves, 81 Iowa, 615: 1183. V. Shepard, 64 Kan. 451: 801. V. Sheriff, 48 Minn. 236: 438, 597. V. Sherod, 80 Minn. 446: 429. V. Sholl, 58 Kan. 507: 214, 252. V. Showers, 34 Kan. 269: 919. V. Sibley, 131 Mo. 519: 981,985. V. Silver, 9 Nev. 827: 186,205,252. V. Simon, 53 N. J. L. 550: 389. V. Simon, 20 Ore. 365: 694, 696, 801, 1109. V. Sinking Fund Com'rs, 1 Tenn. Gas. 490: 773, 863, 944, 1028. V. Sinks, 43 Ohio St. 345: 595, 601. V. Sioux City, etc. E. R, Co., 43 Minn. 17:718. V. Slaughter, 70 Mo. 484: 564 V. Sloan, 66 Ark. 575: 223. V. Slocum, 38 Fla. 407: 869. V. Slover, 126 Mo. 652: 846, 854, 912, 914. V. Slover, 184 Mo. 10: 230, 280, 460. 527, 540, 937. V. Slover, 134 Mo. 607: 404, 406. V. Small, 29 Minn. 216: 797, 981, 985, State V. Smalls, 11 S. C. 263: 68, 83. V. Smiley, 65 Kan. 240: 426, 585. V. Smith, 88 Conn. 397: 642, 1328. V. Smith, 5 Humph. 394: 748. V. Smith, 46 Iowa, 670: 756, 759. V. Smith, 67 Me. 328: 471, 637, 1121. V. Smith, 35 Minn. 357: 233. V. Smith, 58Min^, 35: 414 V. Smith, 62 Minn. 540: 557. T. Smith, 35 Neb. 13: 10, 136, 511. V. Smith, 48 Ohio St. 211: 401. V. Smith, 44 Ohio St. 348: 47, 72, 78, 100. V. Smith, 53 Wis. 134: 777. V. Smith, 3 Tenn. Cas. 493: 703. V. Smith. 44 Tex. 443: 481, 484 V. Sneed, 121 N. C. 614: 685. V. Sneed, 25 Tex (Supp.) 66: 1178. V. Snow, 81 Iowa, 642: 293. V. Snow, 117 N. C. 774: 497, 880. V. Soloman, 33 Ind. 450: 835. V. Solomons, 3 Hill (S. C.) 96: 645, 1178, 1337. V. Sopher, 25 Utah, 318: 134 419. V. Sorrells, 15 Ark. 664: 937. V. South, 186 Mo. 673: 815, 825. V. South Carolina Ry. Co., 28 S. C. 28: 1035. V. Southern Pac. Co., 23 Ore. 424: 1195. V. Southern Ry. Co., 115 Ala. 250: 237. V. Spaude, 37 Minn. 322: 412. V. Spellmire, 67 Ohio St. 77: 338, 354 355, 858, 410. V. Squires, 26 Iowa, 340: 231, 340, 401, 430, 1217, 1329. V. S. S. Orphan Home, 37 Ohio St. 275: 687. CCXXVlll TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol II, pp. 605-1815. State V. Staats, 54 N. J. L. 286: 390, 423. V. Staley, 5 Ohio C. C. 603: 1159. V. Standard Oil Co., 61 Neb. 38: 134. V. Standley, 76 Iowa, 315: 369, 385. V. Stark, 18 Fla. 255: 593, 595. V. Starr, 20 R. I. 269: 1298. V. State, 57 N. J. L, 348: 585, 653. V. State Auditor, 33 La. Ann. 89: 219. V. State Bank, 5 Ind. 356: 1133. V. Stearns, 73 Minn. 200: 131, 605, 1301. V. Steele, 39 Ore. 419: 338, 324, 278. V. Steelman, 66 N. J. L. 518: 309. V. Stephens, 146 Mo. 663: 593. V. Steplienson, 3 Bailey, 334: 646, 648, 649, 650, 696, 715. V. Sterling, 80 Md. 503: 433. V. Sterling, 8 Mo. 697: 1195. V. Stevens, 69 Vt 411: 750, 751, 773. V. Stevens, 118 Wis. 170: 135. V. Stevenson, 18 Neb. 416: 177. V. Stewart, 52 Neb. 243: 184, 603. V. Stiefel, 74 Md. 046: 707. V. Stillman, 81 Wis. 134: 441, 797, 803. V. Stinson, 17 Me. 154: 513. V. Stirth, 11 Wash. 433: 143. V. Stoffels, 89 Minn. 305: 436. V. Stoll, 17 Wall. 435: 516, 539. V. Stoller, 38 Iowa, 331: 833. V. Stone, 24 Nev. 308: 305. V. Stratton, 136 Mo. 483: 400, 467, 499, 514, V. Street, 117 Ala. 203: 190, 249, 281. State V, V, Stripling, 113 Ala. 130: 299, Studt, 31 Kan. 345, 1 P. 635: 517. Stuht, 53 Neb. 209: 303, 386, 586. Stumpf, 83 Wis. 680: 1143. Stunkle, 41 Kan. 450: 830. Sturgess, 10 Ora 58: 528. Styles, 131 Ala. 368: 468. Sullivan, 63 Minn. 383: 393. Sullivan. 67 Minn. 379: 173. Sullivan, 73 Minn. 126: 370, 404, 405, 406, 579, 603. Sullivan, 110 N. C. 513: 1053 Sullivan, 14 Rich. L. 381 : 1181, Summers, 148 Mo. 586: 469 Superior Ct., 31 Wash. 186 1324. Superior Ct., 35 Wash. 371 135, 319. Superior Ct., 38 Wash. 317 343. Supervisors, 64 Miss. 365: 104. Supervisors, 35 Wis. 339: 339, 341, 428. Supervisors, 62 Wis. 376: 598. Swan, 7 Wyo. 166: 73, 78, 84, 87, 93. Swanson, 85 Minn. 112: 536. Swift, 69 Ind. 505: 607. Swift, 10 Nev. 176: 59, 608. Swisher, 17 Tex. 441: 145. Swope, 7 Ind. 91: 931. Taylor, 134 Mo. l'09: 1182. Taylor, 35 N. J. L. 184: 997. Taylor, 68 N. J. L. 276: 404. Taylor, 7 S. D. 533: 143. Taylor, 31 Wash. 678: 878, 860. Thayer, 46 Neb. 137: 1198. Thief Riv. Falls, 76 Minn. 15: 394. Thomas, 30 La. Ann. 603: 553. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CCXXIX The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. fi05-1315. State V. Thomas, 138 Mo. 95: 458, 933, 935. V. Thompson, 10 La. Ann. Wi: 899. V. Thompson, 141 Mo. 408: 1180, 1181. V. Thompson, 160 Mo. 333: 157. 439. Thrall, 59 Ohio St. 368: 458. Thurston, 93 Mo. 335: 433. Tibbets, 53 Neb. 328: 134, 186, 203, 323, 452. Tieman, 33 Wash. 394: 296. Tieman, 35 Wash. 294: 198. Timme, 54 Wis. 318: 684. Timothy, 147 Mo. 532: 739. Tolly, 37 S. C. 551: 488. Tombeokbee Bank, 3 Stew. 30: 1193. Tootle, 3 Harr. 541: 873. Towle, 48 N. H. 97: 1354. Towner, 26 Mont, 339: 533. Treasurer, 41 Mo. 16: 513, 530. V. Trenton, 38 N. J. L. 64: 633, 679, 919. V. Trenton, 53 N. J. L. 566 433. V. Trenton, 54 N. J. L. 444; 368, 397. V. Trenton, 55 N. J. L. 73: 397, V. Trenton, 56 N. J. L. 469: 368, 397, 518, 1314. V. Trenton, 57 N. J. L. 318: 61, 128. V. Trenton, 61 N. J. L. 484 391. V. Trenton, 63 N. J. L. 795 379, 391. V. Trolson, 31 Nev. 419: 447. V. Troutman, 73 N. C. 551: 506. V. Tucker, 46 Ind. 355: 193, 199, 222, 224, 339. V. Tufly, 20 Nev. 427: 176. State V. Turner, 26 Mont. 339: 850. V. Turnpike Co., 16 Ohio St. 308: 723, 733, 744, 798, 813. V. Tuttle, 53 Wis. 45: 577, 583. V. Twitty, 3 Hawkes, 441: 620. V. Tyrrell, 33 Nev. 431: 409. V. Ueland, 30 Minn. 29: 7. V. Union, 33 N. J. L. 350: 186, 190, 301, 203, 304, 1230, 1333, 1233. V. Union, 63 N. J. L. 143: 135, 775. V. Union Bank, 9 Yerg. 164: Upchuroh, 9 Ired. 454: 645. Van Stralen, 45 Wis. 437: 446, 555. Van Vliet, 93 Iowa, 476: 467, 771. Vicksburg, etc. E. R. Co., 51 Miss. 361: 703. Wabaunsee Co. Com'rs, 45 Kan. 731: 375. WaddelJ,49Minn. 500: 1038. Wagener, 69 Minn. 206: 427. Wagener, 77 Minn. 483: 429. Wahoo, 62 Neb. 40: 436. Walbridge, 119 Mo. 383: 527, 537. Walker, 105 La. 493: 209, 257. 581, 603. Walker, 83 Minn. 295: 408. Walker, 123 Mo. 56: 694, 711, 834. Walker, 68 Mo. App. 110: 1301. Wall, 153 Mo. 216: 813. Wallis, 57 Ark. 64: 1158, 1191. Walsh, 43 Minn. 444:^774, 815, 829, 966, 971. Walton, 69 Mo. 556: 373. Wapello Co., 13 Iowa, 388 1 890. tcxxx TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. State V. Warden, 153 Mo. 319: 596. State V. Wheeler, 64 Me. 532: 33a V. Wardens, 23 La. Ann. 720: V. Wheeler, 23 Nev. 143: 646, 252, 287. 962, 992. V. Warford, 84 Ala. 15: 436. V. Whetstone, 80 Ala. 591: 645. V. Warner,66Mo.App.l49: 1145. V. Whetstone, 13 La. Ann. 376: V. Warren, 28 Md. 338: 54a 862. V. Washburn, 167 Mo. 680: 6, 7, V. Whisner, 35 Kan. 271: 106. 603. V. Whitaker, 160 Mo. 59: 144, V. Washington Social L. Co., 11 260, 414, 991. Ohio, 96: 1037. V. White, 162 Mo. 583: 1303. V. Washoe Co., 6 Nev. 104: 704. V. White, 96 Mo. App. 84: 749, V. Washoe Co. Com'rs, 22 Nev- 980. 203: 471, 535. V. Whitener, 93 N. C. 590: 776. V. Washoe Co. Com'rs, 22 Nev. V. Whitesides, 30 S. C. 579: 574 399: 191, 252. V. Whittlesey, 17 Wash. 447: V. Watson, 141 Mo. 338: 773. 205, 288. V. Watson, 104 N. C. 735: 1128. V. Whitveorth, 8 Lea, 594: 204, V. Watts, 23 Ark. 304: 462, 465, 222, 287. 483. V. Whitworth, 8 Port. 434: 481, V. Webb, 110 Ala. 214: 1237. 482, 517. V.Webb's Riv. Imp. Co., 97 V. Wilbor, 1 R. 1 199: 463. Ma 559: 605. V. Wilcox, 42 Conn. 364: 164, V. Weigel, 48 Mo. 29: 660, 709, 171. 722. V. Wilcox, 64 Kan. 789: 301. V. Weir, 33 Iowa, 134: 145, 163. V. Wilcox, 45 Mo. 458: 145, 345, V. Welbers, 11 S. D. 86: 492, 356, 358, 412. 518, 519. V. Wilcox, 3 Yerg. 278: 962. V. Welch, 21 Minn. 22: 626. V. Willard, 39 Mo. App. 251: 528. V. Welch, 65 Vt 50: 1170, 1181. V.Williams, 8 Ind, 191: 670. V. Wendler, 94 Wis. 369: 87, 90. V. Williams, 35 Mo. App. 541: V. Wentler, 76 Wis. 89: 144. 711, 766. V. Wescott, 55 N. J. L. 78: 302, V. Williams, 68 N. H. 449: 707. 379, 380, 387, 390. V. Williams, 13 S. C. 558: 853. V. West Duluth L. Co., 75 Minn. V. Williams, 2 Strob. 474: 835. 456: 302, 534, 1117, 1119. V. Williams, 5 Wis. 308: 871. V. Westerfield, 23 Nev. 468: 576, V. Willis, 66 Mo. 131: 1187. C79, 602. V. Wilmington, eta R R. Ca, V. Westerfield, 24 Nev. 29: 134. 74 N. C. 143: 64a V. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437: 177, V. Wilson, 123 Ala. 259: 78, 80, 404, 406, 606. 81. V. West Side St. Ey. Co., 146 V. Wilson, 7 Ind. 516: 581. Mo. 155: 141. V. Wilson, 19 Ky. L. R. 126: 398, V. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 290: 577, 405, 406. 583. V. y/ilson, 12 Lea, 246: 204, 577. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CCXXXl The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 606-1315. State V. Wilson, 43 N. H. 419: 516. V. Wilson, 48 N. H. 398: 1183. V. Wilson, 9 Wash. 318: 470. V. Wiltz, 11 La. Ann. 439: 531, 699, 704, 911. V. Wimpfheimer, 69 N. H. 166: 524. V. Wingfield, 115 Mo. 428: 171, 360, 433. V. Winter, 118 Ala. 1: 204, 305, 299. Winter, 15 Wash. 407: 1237. Wirt Co. Ct., 37 W. Va. 808: 136, 361, 363. Wise, 7 Ind. 645: 880. Wise, 70 Minn. 99:429. Wish, 15 Neb. 448: 445, 459, 463, 481, 561. V. Withrow, 133 Mo. 500: 781, 921. V. Withrow, 154 Mo. 397: 176. V. Witter, 107 N. C. 792: 497. V. WoflFord, 116 Mo. 220: 1298. V. Wofiford, 121 Mo. 61: 374, 606. V. Wolfarth, 43 Conn. 155: 642. V. Womble, 112 N. C. 863: 413, 569. V. Wood, 135 Mo. 425: 694, 914. V. Woodman, 36 Mont. 348: 429, 834, 840. V. Woodmansee, 1 N. D. 246: 186, 191, 263. V. Woodruff, 68 N. J. L. 89: 965. V. Woodson, 41 Mo. 337: 1048. V. Woodson, 128 Mo. 497: 518, 846, 848, 851. V. Woolard, 119 N. C. 779: 434, 649, 650, 796. V. Workman, 85 W. Va. 367: 135. V. Worth, 116 N. C. 1007: 1011. V. Wray, 109 Mo. 594: 57, 84, 99. V. Wright, 159 Ind. 394: 135. State V. Wright, 54 N. J. L. 130: 381, 393. V. Wymen, 97 Iowa, 570: 1300. V. Yancy, 138 Mo. 391: 354, 439. V. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546; 200, 223, 247, 447, 491, 493, 566. V. Yates, 66 Ohio St. 546: 407. V. Yewell, 63 Md. 120: 463. V. Young, 47 Ind. 150: 199, 328, 251. V. Young, 3 Kan. 445: 948. V. Young, 49 La. Ann. 70: 483, 484. V. Young, 30 S. C. 399: 574 V. Ziegenhein, 144 Mo. 383: 1159, 1163. State Bank v. Cooper, 2 Yerg. 599: 13, 343. V. Knoop, 16 How. 369: 1192, 1193, 1317. State Bank Receiver v. Plainfleld Bank, 34 N. J. Eq. 450: 27. State Board v. Central R. R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 146: 423. V. Holliday, 150 Ind. 216: 889, 891, 939. V. Mobile & O. E. R. Co., 73 Miss. 286: 694,727. V. Ross, 191 111. 87: 517. V. Ross, 91 111. App. 281 : 517, 963. State Lands, In re, 18 Colo. 859: 133, 889. State Line, etc. R. E. Co.'s Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 429: 303, 232. State Lottery Co. v. Riohoux, 23 La. Ann. 743: 53, 57. Staten Island Mid. R. R. Co. v. Hinchliffe, 170 N. Y. 473: 707. State Reporter's Case, 150 Pa. St. 550: 509. State Revenue Agt. v. Hill, 70 Miss. 106: 516, 518, 519, 551. State Savings Bank v. Matthews, li3 Mich. 56: 1203. ccxxxu TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages; Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 005-1315. State Savings Inst. v. Barret, 25 ■Mont. 112: 1190. State Treasurer's Settlement, In re, 51 Neb. 116: 1046. State Trust Co. v. Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co., 115 Fed. 367: 445, 1219, 1257. Stayton v. Hulings, 7 Ind. 144: 1143. Steamboat Co. v. Collector, 18 Wall. 478: 461. Steamboat Farmer v. McCraw, 31 Ala. 659: 643. Steamboat Northern Indiana v. Milliken, 7 Ohio St. 333: 188. Steamboat Ohio v. Stunt, 10 Ohio St. 583: 1019. Steamer Mary Blane v. Beehler, 12 Mo. 477: 338, 329, 338. Steam Navigation Co. v. Dand- ridge, 8 Gil). & J. 318: 1035. Steamship Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450: 445. Stebbins v. Anthony, 5 Colo. 348: 327, 330, 334. V. State, 82 Tex. App. 33: 518, 530. V. Superior Ct. Judge, 108 Mich. 693: 1301. Steckert v. East Saginaw, 22 Mich. 103: 1140, 1155. Steedman v. Dobbins, 93 Tenn. 897: 899, 900. Steele v. Midland R. Ca, L. R. 1 Ch. 283: 881. V. River Forest, 140111. 303: 790. V. Steele, 64 Ala. 438: 1317, 1330. V. Thompson, 42 Mich. 596: 1276. Steele Co. v. Erskine, 98 Fed. 215: 240, 1330, 1238. Steenken v. State, 88 Md. 703: 357, 583. Steers v. Kinsey, 68 Ark. 360: 1330, 1331, 1385, 1361. Y. Lashley, 6T. R. 61: 988. Steet V. Kurtz, 38 Ohio St. 195: 770. StefiBns v. Superior Court Judge, 108 Mich. 033: 1080. Steger v. Arctic Refrigerating Co., 89 Tenn. 453: 1855, 1256. V. Traveling Mens' B. Ass'n, 308 111. 336: 1230, 1234. Stegmaier v. Jones, 208 Pa. St. 47: 875. Stein V. Ashby, 30 Ala. 863: 908. V. Leeper, 78 Ala. 517: 71, 78, 87, 185, 301, 815. Steiner v. Coxe, 4 Pa. St. 18; 898. Steinway, Matter of, 31 App. Div. 70: 578. 1053. Stellwagen v. Probate Judge, 180 Mich. 166: 784 Stephen v. Metzger, 95 Mo. App. 609: 784. V. State, 11 Ga. 835: 879. Stephens v. Ballou, 37 Kan. 594: 458, 461, 466, 567. V. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445: 730, 733, 797, 1223, 1304 V. Robinson, 3 Cromp. & J. 209: 988. V. Watson, 1 Salk. 45: 917. Stephens Co. v. R. R. Co., 33 N. J. L. 239: 688. Stephenson v. Doe, 8 Blackf. 508: 551, 624, 1379. V. Higginson, 3 H. L. Cas. 638: 665, 754 V. Osborne, 41 Miss. 119: 550. Steppaoherv. McClure, 75 Mo. App. 135: 847, 851. Stermer v. La Plata Ca, 5 Colo. App. 879: 954 Sternberg v. State, 50 Neb. 127: 524 Sterner v. La Plata Co., 5 Colo. App. 379: 1263. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CCXXXIU The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol, It, pp. 605-1315. Sterrett v. MoAdams, 09 Ky. 37: 1130. Stetson V. Kempton, 13 Mass. 373: 1033. Stetson-Post Mill Co. v. Brown, 31 Wash. 619: 510. Stevens v. Andrews, 31 Mo. 305: 1309. V. Bomar, 9 Humph. 546: 868. V. Brown, 30 W. Va. 450: 35. V. Cheney, 36 Hun, 1: 1364, 1366. V. Fassett, 37 Me. 366: 693. V. Gourley, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 99: 1143. T. Ross, 1 Cal. 94: 933. V. State, 3 Ark. 391: 1019. V. State, 89 Md. 669: 331, 395. V. St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co., 153 Mo. 313: 703. V. Truman, 137 Cal. 155: 9. Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. 649: 130. V. Moody, 3 Idaho, 360: 43. Steward v. Greaves, 10 M. & W. 711: 490, 513, 637, 039. ^Stewart v. Atlanta Beef Co., 93 Ga. 13: 883. V. Collier, 91 Ga. 117: 408. V. Commonwealth, 10 Watts, 307: 1014. V. Davidson, 10 Sm, & M. 351: 1330. V. Griffith, 83 Mo. 13: 637. V. Keemle, 4 S. & R. 73: 914. v. State. 100 Ala. 1: 45;i. V. State, 98 Ga. 303: 931. v. Stringer, 41 Mo. 400: 863, 1050. V. Swanzy, 33 Miss. 503: 618. 1-. Thomas, 64 Kan. 511: 316, 317. V. Vandervort, 34 W. Va. 534: 1160, 1164. Sticknoth's Estate, 7 Nev. 333: 550. Stief V. Hart, 1 N. Y. 20: 943, 947. Stiefel V. Md. Institute, 61 Md. 144: 303, 583. Stiles V. Easley, 51 111. 375: 1016. V. Guthrie, 3 Okl. 36: 689, 914 V. Lord, 3 Ariz. 154: 1394. V. Wiggins Ferry Co., 97 111. App. 157: 815. Stillman v. Isham, 11 Conn. 133: 1103. Stilphen v. Stilphen, 65 N. H. 136: 1159. Stimpson v. Pond, 3 Curtis, 503: 918. Stine V. Bennett, 13 Minn. 153: 313, ■814, 643, 950, 1387. Stingle V. Nevel, 9 Ore. 63: 443. Stinson v. Smith, 8 Minn. 366: 105, 107. Stirman v. State, 31 Ter. 734: 518. Stockett V. Bird, 18 Md. 484: 515, 531, 533, 660, 1103. Stocking V. Hunt, 3 Denio, 374: 549: 1300. Stockle V. Silsbee, 41 Mich. 616: 353. Stockman v. Brooks, 17 Colo. 348: 300. Stockton V. Powell, 39 Fla. 1 : 137. Stoddard v. Sloan, 65 Iowa, 680: 873. Stoever v. Iramell, 1 Watts, 358: 30, 551, 554. Stokes v. Macken, 63 Barb. 145: 605, 610, 611, 613,. 617. V. People, 53 N. Y. 164: 1183. Stokes V. Rodman, 5 R. L 405: 643. Stolz V. Thompson, 44 Minn. 371 : 301. Stone V. Bassett, 4 Minn. 398: 1310. V. Charlestown, 114 Mass. 214: 171. V. Dickinson, 5 Allen, 59: 1372. CCXXXIV TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. IE, pp. 605-1315. Stone V. Doster, 7 Ohio, C. C. 8: 759, 760, 847. V. Lannon, 6 "Wis. 497: 987, v. ]VJi.ssissippi, 101 U. a 814: 1195. V. Stone, 1 K. L 425: 833. V. Wilson, 19 Ky. L. R. 126: 404. V. Wisconsin, 94 U. S. 181: 614. V. Yeovil, L. R. 1 C. P. D. 691: 739, 914. Stoner v. Piokert, 115 Ga. 653: 1191. Stony Creek v. Kabel, 144 Ind. 501: 574. Stoppert V. Niesle, 45 Neb. 105:303. Storie v. Cortes, 90 Tex. 388: 907. Storm V. Cotzhausen, 38 Wis. 139: 845. Storrie v. Houston City St. Ry. Co., 92 Tex. 139: 694. 713, 780, 1013. Story V. DeArmond, 179 111. 510: 855. V. Furman, 35 N, Y. 314: 1198, 1200. Stotz V. Tliompson, 44 Minn. 371: 579. Stoughton V, Baker, 4 Mass. 533: 931. Stourbridge Canal v. Wheeley, 3 Barn. & Ad. 793: 1023, 1024. Stout V. Keyes, 3 Doug. (Mich.) 184: 610. V. Stout, 58 N.J. L. 598: 155. Stow V. Grand Rapids, 79 Mich. 595: 88, 89, 141, 285. Stowell V. Zouch, 1 Plow. 361: 671, 863. Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 83. Stradling v. Morgan, 1 Plowd. 206: 639. Straight v. Crawford, 73 Iowa, 676, 35 N. W. 920: 463. V. McKay, 15 Colo. App. 60: 1297. Strasburger v. Dodge, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 37: 785. Stratton v, Oregon City, 35 Ore. 409: 606. Stratton Claimants v. Morris Claim- ants, 89 Tenn. 497: 13, 132, 137, 428. Straus V. Eagle Ins. Co., 5 Ohio St. 59: 1085. Strauss v. Heiss, 48 Md. 293: 321, 471, 543, 548. Street v. Commonwealth, 6 Watts &S. 209:466,472. V. Hooten, 131 Ala. 493: 231, 333, 433, 437, 455. , Streissguth v. Reigelman„75 Wis. 312: 1049. Streubel v. Milwaukee, etc. R. R. Co., 12 Wis. 67: 548. Strickland v. Geide, 31 Ore. 373r ,463, 518.' Stricklett v. State, 31 Neb. 674: 448, 451. Striker v. Kelly, 2 Denio, 323: 997f .1047,1140. V. Kelly, 7 Hill, 9: 117, 1047,. 1180, 1140. Strine v. Foltz, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 490r 427. Strode v. Stafford Justices, 1 Brock.. 162: 659, 708, 713. Strohm v. People, 160 111. 583: 757. V. People, 60 111. App. 138: 757. Strong V. Birohard, 5 Conn. 357: 756. V. Clem, 13 Ind. 639: 640. V. Darling, 9 Ohio, 201: 939. V. Dennis, 13 Ind. 514: 640. V. Dignam, 207 111. 385: 409. V. State, 1 Blackf. 193: 1186. V. Stebbins, 5 Cow. 310: 645. Strother v. Hutchinson, 4 Bing. N. C. 83: 1083. Stuart V. Earl of Bute, 3 Ves. 313 x 723, 834, 833. TABLE OF CASES CITED. ccxxxv The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Stuart V. Kinsella, 14 Minn. 535: 205, 251. V. Kirley. 13 S. D. 345: 300, 338, 339. V. Laird, 1 Cranch, 399: 888, 890, 893. Studebaker v. Perry, 184 U. S. 358: 892. Studley v. Sturt, 2 Strange, 783: 337. Stump V. Napier, 3 Yerg. 35: 609. Sturgeon v. State, 1 Blackf. 39: 917. Sturgeon Bay Canal Co. v. Leatham, 164 111. 339: 757. V. Leatham, 63 111. App. 886: 757. Sturges V. Crowinshield, 4 Wheat. 203: 699, 704, 913, 1190, 1300, 1310. Sturgis V. Hull, 48 Vt. 302: 643. Sturm V. Fleming, 31 W, Va. 701: 529. Sturtevant v. Commonwealth, 158 Mass. 598: 1185. Stutsman Co. v. Wallace, 142 U. S. 293: 614. Suburban Rapid Transit Co. v. New York, 138 N. Y. 510: 1195. Suche, In re, 1 Ch. Div. 48: 641. Suckley v. Eotchford, 13 Gratt. 60: 946. Sudbury v. Board of Com'rs, 157 Ind. 446: 336, 436. Suffolk Bank v, Worcester Bank, 5 Pick. 106: 986. Sugar Notch Bor., In re, 192 Pa. St. 349: 134, 186, 191, 194, 236, 411. Sugden v. Partridge, 174 N. Y. 87: 135. Sullivan v. Adams, S Gray, 476: 458. V. Brewster, 1 E. D. Smith, 681: 1200. V. Heuse, 3Colo. 424: 8C9. V. La Crosse, etc. P. Co., 10 Minn. 386: 883. V. Leadville, 11 Colo. 483: 1139. P Sullivan v. Mitcalf, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 445: 751. V. Oneida, 61 111. 243: 1183. V. People, 15 111. 338: 463. V. People, 132 111. 385: 867. V. State, 32 Tex. Crim. App. 50: 471. Sullivan's Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 107: 830. Summerland v. Bicknell, 111 Cal. 567: 409. Sumner v. Miller, 64 N. C. 688; 1235. Sumter Co. v. Gainesville Nat. Bank, 63 Ala. 464: 593, 601. Sunbury, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cooper, 33 Pa. St. 278: 936. Sunderlin v. Board of Sup'rs, 119 Mich. 535: 301. Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mayor, 8 N. Y. 241: 186,303,204,205,287. Sunset Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Medford, 115 Fed. 303: 1031. Supervisors v. Auditor-General, 68 Mich. 659: 353. V. Board of Com'rs, 13 Minn. 408: 503, 513. V. Briggs, 3 Denio, 173: 550. v. Heenan, 3 Minn. 330: 53, 87, 188, 215, 224, 605. V. Kaime, 39 Wis. 468: 1134. V. Lackawanna L & 0. Co., 93 U. S. 619: 463. V. People, 25 111. 181: 84, 85, 202, 1155. V. Schenck, 5 Wall. 772: 1106. V. Stanley, 105 U. S. 304: 585. V. United. States, 4 Wall. 446: 1151. V. United States, 18 Wall. 71: 614, 906, Supreme Council v. Green, 71 Md. 263: 33, 630. Surgett V. Lapice, 8 How. 48: 888. COXXXVl TABLE OF CASKS CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Surlatt V. Pratt, 3 A. K Marsh, 174: 611. Suvtees v. Ellison, 9 B. «& C. 750: 544. Sussex Peerage Case, 11 CI. & Fin, 83: 619, 065, 695, 699, 701, 748. Sutherland v. De Leon, 1 Tex. 250: 654, 1230, 1227. Sutterly v. Camden Common Pleas, 41 N. J. L. 495: 367. Sutton V. Chenault. 18 Ga. 1: 1320. V. Hays, 17 Ark. 462: 852. V. People, 145 111. 379: 673. V. Phillips, 116 N. C. 503: 134. V. State, 96 Tenn. 696: 370, 403, 407. V, Sutton, 87 Ky. 316: 1058, 1059, V. Sutton, L. R. 23 Ch. Div. 511 : 657, 691. Svennes v. West Salem, 114 Wis. 650: 439, 441. Swamp Land District v. Glide, 113 CaL 85: 445, 1288. Swan V. Blair, 8 CI. & T. 633: 939. V. Kemp, 97 Md. 686: 534. V. Mulhevin, 67 111. App. 77: 696, 706, 885. Swaney v. Gage Co., 64 Neb. 637: 1283. Swann, Ex parte, 96 Mo. 44: 171, 360, 423. Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 368: 58, 115, 116, 120, 312, 313, 462, 480, 518, 638, 659, 712. V. Jenkins, 83 Ala. 478: 1026, 1049. Swan's Case, 7 Co. 82: 878. Swarts V. Siegel, 117 Fed. 13: 703. Swartwout v, Raih-oad Co., 24 Mioh. 389: 331, 447, 708, 713. Swartz, In re, 47 Kan. 157: 316. Swayue v. Terrell, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 31: 1169. Swayze v. Britton, 17 Kan. 625 298. Sweet V. Syracuse, 129 N. Y. 316 134, 371. Swepston v. Barton, 39 Ark. 549 1120. Swett V. Sprague, 55 Me. 190: 334. Swickard v, Bailey, 3 Kan. 507 1211. Swift V. Applebone, 23 Mioh. 252 646. V. Lenzer, 30 Ohio C. C. 667 887. V. Luce, 27 Me. 385: 695, 1111, 1112. V. Newport, 7 Bush, 37: 242, 457. V. Tynon, 16 Pet. 1: 730, 1106. Swift. Courtney, etc. Co. v. United States, 14 Ct. CI. 481 ; 890. Swift's Appeal, 111 Pa. St. 516: 914. Swigart V. People, 154 IlL 384: 468. V. People, 50 111. App. 181: 468. Swigert, Matter of, 119 111. 83: 819. Swinburn v. Mills, 17 Wash. 611, 304, 1190, 1202. Swinfin V. Lowry, 37 Minn. 345: 1270. Switzer v. Territory, 5 Okl. 297: 126. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., v. Mills, 86 Fed. 556: 786. Swope V. Jordan, 107 Tenn. 166: 1331, 1336. Sydnor v. Gascoigne, 11 Tex. 455: 899. Sykes v. People, 137 III. 117: 230. Syndicate Imp. Co. v. Bradley, 7 Wyo. 338: 470. Syracuse Bank v. Davis, 16 Barb. 188: 550. Syracuse Savings Bank v. Seneca Falls, 86 N. Y. 317: 443. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CCXXXVU The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315: T. Tabor v. Cora. Nat Bank, 52 Fed. 383: 200, 262. V. Cook, 15 Mich. 323: 923. V. Lander, 94 Ky. 237: 497. V. State, 34 Tex. Crim. 631: 240. Tackett v. Volger, 85 Mo. 480: 1052. Tacoma v. Krecb, 15 Wash. 396: 160, 340, 419. Taoonia Gas & Elec. Light Co. v. Tacoma, 14 Wash. 288: 1028. Tacoma Land Co. v. Young, 18 Wash. 495: 304, 1198, 1316. Tadlook v. Ecoles, 20 Tex. 782: 186, 18& Tafoya v. Garcia, 1 N. M. 486: 518. Taff Vale Ry. Co. v. Davis (1894), 1 Q. B. 43: 884. Taggart v. Herriok, 55 Hun, 569: 1133. V. McGinn, 14 Pa. St. 155: 18. Taggeit V. Clay Pool, 145 Ind. 590: 428. Talbot V. Sefeman, 1 Crancli, 1: 619. V. Silver Bow Co., 139 U. S. 438: 713, 730, 735, 774. V. Sioux City Nat. Bank, 185 U. S. 172: 1197. Talbott V. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 74Md. 536: 169,699,749. Tallamon v. Cardenas, 14 La. Ann, 509: 562. Tallman v. Syracuse, etc. E. R. Co., 4 Keyes, 128: 1243. Talniadge v. Coal, etc. Co., 3 Head, 337: 1031. Tampa v. Solomonson, 35 Fla. 446: 468. Tappan v. Campbell, 9 Yerg. 436: 610. Tappen, Matter of, 36 How. Pr. 890: 201, 252. Tarkio v. Cook, 120 Mo. 1: 189. Tarlton v. Briscoe, 4 Bibb. 73: 612. v. Peggs, 18 Ind. 34: 308. Tar ver v. Commissioners' Ct., 17 Ala. 537: 1149. Tate V. Stooltzfoos, 16 S. & R. 35: 1229. Tayloe v. Thompson, 5 Pet. 358: 907. Taylor, In re, 60 Kan. 87: 77, 86. Taylor, Matter of, 3 App. Div. 344: 528, 536. Taylor, Matter of, 80 Hun, 589: 1007. Taylor v. Badoux, 93 Tenn. 249: 470. v. Bank of Illinois, 7 T. B. Mon. 576: 620. V. Boardman, 35 Vt. 581: 869. V. CnrroU, 145 Mass. 95: 1264. V. Corbien, 8 How. Pr, 385: 336. V. Crowland Gas Co., 10 Ex. 393: 938. V. Deveaux, 100 Mich. 581: 1224. V. Goodwin, L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 228: 715, 956. v. Graham, 18 La. Ann. 656: 873. V. Hill, 115 Cal. 143: 937. V. Keeler, 30 Conn. 324: 641. v. Kirby, 31 IlL App. 658: 284. V. McGill, 6 Lea, 294: 663, 1077. V. Mitchell, 57 Pa. St. 209: 641. V. Newman, 4 B. & S. 89: 649, 976. V. 01dha7ii Corp., L. R. 4 Ch. Div. 395: 533, 653, 661. V. Palmer, 31 Cal. 344: 335, 609, 709, 712, 732. V. Penn. Co., 78 Ky. 348: 38. v. Place, 4R. L 324: 5, 13,19. V. Porter, 4 Hill, 140: 13. V. PuUen, 153 Ma 434: 507, 1396. ccxxxvm TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. 11, pp. 605-1315. Taylor v. Robertson, 16 Utah, 330: 464. V. Rountree, 15 Lea, 725: 1160. V. Rushing, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 160: 547. V. State, 26 Ala. 283: 308. V. State, 31 Ala. 383: 311. V. State, 7 Blackf. 93: 555, 678. V. Stearns, 18 Gratt. 244: 1210. V. Stevenson, 2 Idaho, 180: 42. V. St. Helens, L. R. 6 Ch. Div. 264, 1020. V. Taylor, 10 Minn. 107: 883, 920. V. United States, 3 How. 197: 959, 993, 994. V. Williams, 78 Va. 423: 1053. V. W. U. Tel. Co., 95 Iowa, 740: 26, 988. Taylor, McBean & Co. v. Chandler, 9 Heisk. 349: 357. Telfer v. Northern R. R Co., 30 N. J. L. 188: 1391, 1293. Tell V. Woodruff, 45 Minn. 10: 1257. Tempe v. State, 40 Ala. 350: 558. Temple v. Hays, Morris (Iowa), 12: 308. V. State, 15 Tex. App. 804: 880. Templeton v. Home, 83 111. 491: 549, 642. V. Morgan, 16 La. Ann. 438: 872. Tenement House Department v. Moesohen, 89 App. Div. 536: 177. Tennant.v. Brookover, 13 W. Va. 337: 1227. Tennant's Case, 3 Neb. 409: 47. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 251: 39. . V. Sneed, 96 U. S. 69: 1190, 1200, 1305. Tennessee Cent R R. Co. v. Camp- bell, 109 Tenn. 655: 1337. Teralty Land & Water Co. v. Shaf- fer, 116 CaL 518: 1223. Terre Haute, etc. E. R. Co. v. Cox, 103 Fed. 835: 430. Terrel v. Wheeler, 133 N. Y. 76: 1233, 1237. Terrell v. State, 86 Tenn. 533: 518, 519. Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43: 1193. Terrill v. Jennings, 1 Met. (Ky.) 4i50: 1245. Territory v. Ashenfelter, 4 N. M. 93: 916, 955. V. Blomberg, 3 Ariz. 204: 42. V. Clark, 3 Okl. 83: 707, 722, 736, 797. V. Connell, 3 Ariz. 339: 137. V. Cutinola, 4 N. M. 305: 487, 499, 863. V. Guyott, 9 Mont. 46: 43. V. Hopkins, 9 Okl. 133: 649,. 651. V. Lee, 3 Mont. 124: 46. V. McPherson, 6 Dak. 37: 537> V. O'Connor, 5 Dak. 897: 42, 60, 171, 925. V. O'Connor, 41 N. W. 746: 935. V. Pratt, 6 Dak. 483: 533. V. Prince, 6 N. M. 635: 145. V. School District, 10 Okl. 556: 358, 410. V. Wingfield, 2 Ariz. 305: 514. Territt v. Woodruff, 19 Vt. 183: 611. Terry v. Merchants' & P. Bank, 66 Ga. 177: 865. Teter v. Clayton, 71 Ind. 337: 563. Tetrault v. Orange, 55 N. J. L. 99: 895. Tetzner v. Naughton, 13 111. App. 148: 1365. Tewksbury v. Schulenberg, 41 Wis. 584: 1068. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700: 87. Texas Land Co. v. Williams, 48 Tex. 603: 946. TABLE OF CASKS CITED. CCXXXIX The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Texas Mexican Ry. Co, v. Jarvis, 80 Tex. 456: 553. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Com. Com., 163 U. S. 197: 606. Thames, etc. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, L. R 12 App. Cas. 484: 833. Tharp v. Fleming, 1 Houst. 580: 637. Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119: 616, 1048. ■ Thayer y. Dudley, 3 Mass. 396: 858, 913. V. Felt, 4 Pick. 854: 886. V. Grand Rapids, 83 Mich. 398: 741. V. Seavey, 11 Me. 284: 553. Thistle V. Frostburg Coal Co., 10 Md. 139: 1317. Thoeni v. Dubuque, 115 Iowa, 483: 1286, 1387. Thomas, Ex parte, 113 Ala. 1: 446, 463, 514» 668. Thomas, In re, 16 Colo. 441: 1312. Thomas v. Austin, 103 Ga. 701: 897. * V. Beckman, 1 B Mon. 29: 611. V. Butler, 139 Ind. 345: 517. V. Collins, 58 Mich. 64: 353, 541, 543. V. Dakin, 32 Wend. 9: 63. V. Douglass, 3 John. Cas. 336: 330. V. Huesman, 10 Ohio St. 153: 1056. V. Lewis, 89 Va. 1: 780, 766. V. Railroad Co., 101 U. S. 71: 1034. V. Richmond, 12 Wall. 349 : 1033. ». State, 124 Ala. 48: 227, 449. V. Stephenson, 2 E. & B. 108: 1113. V. Wabash R. R. Co. , 40 Fed. 126: 352. Thomas' Election, 198 Pa St. 546: 1160, 1329. Thomason, Ex parte, 16 Neb. 338: 252, 581. Thomason v. Ash worth, 73 Cal. 73: 898, 412. V. Dill, 34 Ala. 175: 908. Thompson v. Bassett, 5 Ind. 535: 555. V. Baxter, 92 Tenn. 305: 1257. V. Board of Sup'rs, 111 Cal. 553: 371. V. Buckhannon, 3 J. J. Marsh. 416: 1134. V. Bulson, 78 III. 277: 659, 709. V. Caldwell, 3 Litt. 186: 1311. V. Clay, 60 Mich. 63: 644. V. Cobb, 95 Tex. 140: 1190, 1208. V. Commonwealth, 103 Ky. 685 840. V. Cox, 8 Jones L. (N. C.) 311 1051. V. Egbert, 17 N. J. L. 459: 1063. V. Farrer, 9 Q. B. Div. 372: 722, V. Floyd, 2 Jones Ll 313: 146,159. V. Haskell, 21 111. 215: 871. . V. Howe, 46 Barb. 287: 556, 942. V. Independent School District, 102 Iowa, 94: 335. V. Luverne, 138 Ala. 567: 267. V. Musser, 1 Dall. 402: 619. V. Read, 61 Iowa, 48: 20. V. Smith, 7 a & R. 209: 1005. V. State, 20 Ala. 54: 729. V. State, 26 Ark. 323: 1127. V. State, 60 Ark. 59: 530. V. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 45 Minn. 13: 1256. V. Strickland, 53 Miss. 574: 910. V. Supervisors, 111 Cal. 553: 509. V. Trader's Ins. Ca, 169 Mo. 13: 953. V. Ward, L. R. 6 C. P. 358: 1241. V. Weller, 85 111. 197: 1059, 1061, 1064. V. West, 59 Neb. 677: 547, 1321. ccxl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 605-1315. Thomson v. Baker, 90 Tex. 163: 1198. V. Harris, 88 Hun, 478: 1117, 1133. V. Lee Co., 3 Wall. 337: 1033, 1338. V. Ward, 1 N. H. 9: 930. Thornburg v. Am. Strawboard Co., 141 Ind. 443: 765, 1058, 1060, 1391. V. Thornburg, 18 W. Va. 533: 1326. Thome v. Cramer, 15 Barb. 113: 145, 601. V. San Francisco, 4 Cal. 137: 641, Thornton V. Lane, 11 Ga. 459: 658. V. McGrath, 1 Dur. 349: 1339, 1331. Thorpe v. Adams, L. E. 6 C. P, 135: 539. V. Corwin, 20 N. J. L 311: 1383. V. R. & B. R R. Co., 27 Vt. 140: 1019,1194, 1362. V. Schooling, 7 Nev. 15: 461, 518. Thorrington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1: 88. Thousand Island Park Ass'n v. Tucker, 173 N. Y. 303: 1034. Thouvenin v. Rodrigues, 34 Tex. 468: 1057. Thresher v. Atchison, 117 CaL 73: 1303. Thurber v. Royal Ins. Co., 1 Marvel, (Del.) 251: 645, 988. Thurston v. Percival, 1 Pick. 415: 611,613,869. V. Prentiss, 1 Mich. 193: 638, 917, 1141. Thurston Co. v. Sisters of Charity, 14 Wash. 334: 1004, 1007. Ticknor's Est., Matter of, 13 Mich. 44: 713, 819. Tide Water Canal Co. v. Archer, 9 G. & J. 479: 1010. Tidey v. Mollett, 16 C. B. (N. S.) 398: 777. Tiernan v. Rinker, 103 U. S. 123:: 577. Tierney v. Dodge, 9 Minn. 166: 537. Tiger v. Morris, C. P., 43 N. J. L. 681: 368,378. Til ford V. Ramsey, 43 Mo. 410: 19, 683. Tilley v. Hudson R. R. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 474: 1393, 1293. Tillman v. Cocke, 9 Baxt. 439: 577. Tillotson V. Saginaw, 94 Mich. 240: 505. Tilton V. Swift, 40 Iowa, 78: 643, 1184, 133a Tiuilow V. Railroad Co., 99 Pa. St. 384: 637. Timm v. Harrison, 109 111. 593: 431, 446. Timms v. Williams, 3 Q. B. 413: 1052. Tims V. State, 36 Ala. 165: 458. Tindal v. Drake, 60 Ala. 170: 637. Tingue v. Port Chester, 101 N. Y. 294: 327. Tinkel v. Grififen, 36 Mont. 436: 528, 536, 1303. - Tinkham v. Tapsoott, 17 N. Y. 152: 673. Tinsley v. State, 109 Ga. 822: 341. Tioga R. R Co. v. Blossburg, etc. R. R Co., 30 Wall. 137: 33 L. Ed. 331, 614. Tipton, Ex parte, 38 Tex. Ct. App. 488: 134. Tipton V. Carrigan, 10 111. App. 318: 681. V. Davis, 5 Hayw. 378: 891. Tisdell V. Combs, 7 Ad. & E. 796 r 885. Tise V. Shaw, 68 Md. 1: 446, 857, 858. Titoomb V. Ins. Co., 8 Mass. 338: 679. TABLE OF CASES CITED. ccxli The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL II, pp. 605-1315. Titus V. Scantling, 4 Black£.- 89: 610. Titusville's Appeal, 108 Pa. St. 600: 986. Tivey v. People, 8 Mich. 128: 20, 545, 1324. Tobin V. Hartshorn, 69 Iowa, 648: 55S. Todd V. Clapp, 118 Mass. 495: 635. V. Dunlop, 99 Ky. 449: 1301. V. Flournoy's Heirs, 56 Ala. 99: 637. V. Landry, 5 Martin, 459: 551. V. Eustad, 43 Minn. 500: 7. V. United States, 158 U. S. 278: 965. Toedtemeir v. Clackamas Co., 34 Ore. 66: 711, 803. Toledo, etc. R. R. Co. v. Dunlap, 47 Mich. 456: 257. V. Jacksonville, 67 111. 37: 1195. Tolford V. Church, 66 Mich. 431: 223. Toll V. Jerome, 101 Mich. 468: 112, 301. V. Wright, 37 Mich. 93: 1016. Tolley V. Courier, 93 Mich. 469: 373, 577, 581. Tolniie v. Dean, 1 Wash. T. 47: 1149. Tolson V. Kaye, 3 Brod. & B. 333: 1016. Tombaugh v. Grogg, 146 Ind. 99: 1076, 1290. Tomkins v. Ash by, 6 B. & C. 541: 998. Tomlin v. Hildreth, 65 N. J. L. 438: 464. Tomlinson v. Bullock, L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 330: 319. V. Greenfield, 31 Ark. 557: 875. Tompkins v. Forrestal, 54 Minn. 119: 1169, 1325. Tong V. Marvin, 15 Mich. 60: 507, 940. Tonnele v. Hall, 4 N. Y. 140: 711, 884 885. Toole V. State, 88 Ala. 158: 1139. Toomy v. Dunphy, 86 Cal. 639: 710, 885, 1076. Topeka v. Gillett, 32 Kan. 431: 177, 359, 363, 385, 386, 402, 606. V. Raynor, 61 Kan. 10: 189. Torbett v. Goodwin, 62 Hun, 407: 988. Torrance v. MoDougald, 12 Ga. 526: 660. Torrey v. Corliss, 33 Me. 333: 641. V. Millbury, 21 Pick. 64: 1117, 1137. Torreyson v. Board of Examiners, 7 Nev. 19: 651. Toutill V. Douglas, 33 L. J. Q. B. 66: 679. Touzalin v. Omaha, 25 Neb. 817: 252. Towell V. HoUweg, 81 Ind. 154: 331. Towle V. Larabee, 26 Me. 464: 938. V. Marrett, 3 Greenlf. 22: 517. Towles, Ex parte, 48 Tex. 413: 592, 593. Town School Dist. v. School Dis- trict, 72 Vt. 451 : 493, 514, 529, 847. Towns V. Mead, 16 C. B. 123: 1278. Townsend v. Binner, 1 Tenn. Cas. 197: 1160. V. Brown, 34 N. J. L. 80: 683. 1023. V. Chase, 1 Cow. 115: 645. V. Deacon, 3 Ex. 706: 1378, 1280. V. Jemison, 9 How. 407: 1311. V, Little, 109 U. S. 504: 533, 681. V. Read, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 308: 756. V. State, 147 Ind. 634: 10, 133, 578, 603. V. Todd, 91 U. S. 453: 614. V. Townsend, 14 Am. Dec. 733: 1208. ccxlii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp, 603-1315. Townsend v. Townsend, Peck, 1: 1208. Townsend's Case, Plowd. 113: 473. Tracey v. People, 6 Colo. 151: 1139. Trackman v. People, 22 Colo. 83: 228. Tracy v. Elizabethtown, etc. E. E. Co., 80 Ky. 259: 1041. V. TuflEly, 134 U. S. 306: 466, 516. Trade Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 83: 590. Tradesman Pub. Co. v. Car Wheel Co., 95 Tenn. 634: 1059. Trading Stamp Co. v. Memphis, 101 Tenn. 181: 13, 72, 91. Trainor v. Board of Auditors, 89 Mich. 162: 1301. Trapnall, Ex parte, 6 Ark. 9: 699. Trasher v. Everhart, 3 G. & L 334: 617, 618. Trask v. Green, 9 Mich. 366: 19. V. Wannamaker, 31 D. C. Eep. 119: 1158. Trausch v. Cook Co., 147 111. 534: 400, 465, 467, 527. Trautman v. McLeod, 74 Minn. 110: 527, 537. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Frioke, 94 Wis. 258: 891. V. Oswego, 59 Fed. 58: 200, 304, 339, 340, 614. Treacy's Petition, 59 Barb. 525: 1228. Tread well v. Com'rs, 11 Ohio St, 190: 1038. . Treanor v. Eichhorn, 74 Hun, 58 400, 408. Treasurer v. Bank, 47 Ohio St. 503 577, 579. V. Hall, 61 N. J. L. 437: 306. V. Lang, 2 Bailey, 430: 635. V. Wygall, 46 Tex. 447: 549. Treat v. Strickland, 33 Me. 334: 558: 559. Treat v. White, 181 TJ. S. 264: 749. Trehy v. Marye, 100 Va. 40: 134, 200, 279, 529. Treraont Baptist Church, Matter of, 36 Misc. 590: 1004. Trevor's Case, Cor. Jao. 369: 1105. Tribune Printing & B, Co. v. Barnes, 7 N. D. 591: 137, 303,,76a Trig-ally v. Mayor, 6 Cold. 382: 159. Trigg V. State, 49 Tex, 645: 778, 784. Trimble v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 818: 603. Trimmer v. Heagy, 16 Pa. St. 484: 1142. Triplett v. Graham, 58 Iowa, 135: 1063, 1294. Tripp V. Gofif, 15 E. I 399: 654. V. Overooker, 7 Colo. 73: 577, Tristv.Cabenos,18 Abb Pr. 143: 1227, Troup V. Morgan Co., 109 Ala. 162: 1306. V. Smith, 30 John. 33: 1283. Troy, etc. E. B. Co. v. Tibbits, 18 Barb. 297: 1057. Truelsen v. Hugo, 87 Minn. 139: 1130, 1390. Trueman v. Lambert, 4 M. & S. 238: 655. Trumble v. Trumble, 37 Neb. 340: 196, 234, 238, 244, 250, 285, 453, 581, 602. Trustees v. Bailey, 10 Fla. 238: 343. V, Bohler, 80 Ga. 159: 1005. V. Fieiiiingsburg, 97 Ky. 703: 713. V. Laird, 4 De. G. M. & G. 733: ^60. V. Osborne, 9 Ind. 458: 1010. V. White, 48 Ohio St. 577: 689. Trustees, etc. v. McConnel, 13 111. 140: 1033. Trustees of Common School Dist- rict V. Flemingsburg, 97 Ky. 703: 954. TABLE OF CASES CITED. ccxiiii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. ■ Trustees of Union College, Matter of, 129 N. Y. 308: 1233. Trustees of V, University v. Indi- ana, 14 How. 268: 1193. Tsoi Sim v. United States, 116 Fed. 920: 695,743,914, 929,955. "Tuokahoe Co. v. T. R. E. Co., 11 Leigh, 42: 1023. Tufts V. Tufts, 8 Utah, 142: 1217. Tulare v. Herren, 126 Cal. 226: 415. Tulare Co. v. May, 118 CaL 303: 438. TuUis V. Lake Erie & W. R R. Co., 175 U. S. 348: 417, 588. Tuohy V. Chase, 30 Cal. 524: 1119. • Turcott V. E. R. Co., 101 Tenn. 102: 770. Turley v. Logan Co., 17 IlL 153: 92. V. Thomas, 8 C. & P. 103: 868. ■ Turner v. Board of Com'rs, 27 Ean. 314: 577, 588, 631. V. Cross, 83 Tex. 218: 749, 909. V. Davenport, 61 N, J. Eq. 18: 444. V. Diokerman, 95 Mich. 1: 1138. V. Fish, 28 Miss. 306: 869. V. Fish, 19Nev. 395: 598. V. Patoon, 49 Ala. 406: 873. V. Siskiyou Co., 109 Cal. 332: 415. V. State, 40 Ala. 21: 481, 485, 597, 1186. "Turney v. Wilton, 36 111. 385: 444^ 1048. "Turnipseed v. Jones, 101 Ala. 593: 311, 313, 543, 545. "Turnpike Cases, 92 Tenn. 369: 791, 1003, 1008. 'Turnpike Co. v. Davidson Co., 3 Tenn. Ch. 396: 1193. V. Montgomery Co., 100 Tenn. 417: 1023, 1024. V. State, 1 Sneed, 474: 748. V. State, 3 WalL 210: 1033. Turnquist v. Cass Co. Drainage Com'rs, 11 N. D. 514: 177, 227. Turtle V. Hartvcell, 6 T. R. 429: 644, 1075, 1086, 1108. Tuskaloosa Bridge v. Jemison, 33 Ala. 476: 644, 1247. Tuskaloosa Bridge Co. v. Olmstead, 41 Ala. 9: 431,432,446. Tuten V. Gazan, 18 Fla. 751: 618. Tuttle V. Block, 104 Cal. 443: 1285. V. Gates, 24 Me. 395: 336. V. Griffin, 64 Iowa, 455: 900. V. Nat. Bank, 161 111. 497: 631. V. Polk, 93 Iowa, 433: 385, 389. V. State, 4 Conn. 68: 1014. V. Strout, 7 Minn. 465: 218. V. Walton, 1 Ga. 51: 1059, 106a Tutwiler v. Tuskaloosa C. I. & L. Co., 89 Ala. 391: 1169, 1200, 1325. Tuxbury's Appeal, 67 Me. 267: 929, 930. Twenty-Eight Cases, In re, 3 Ben. 63: 993. Twenty-eighth St., In re, 103 Pa. St. 140: 1053. Two Hundred Chests of Tea, 9 Wheat. 430: 754 Twyoross v. Grant, 3 C. P. D. 530: 644. Twyne's Case, 3 Co., 836: 1346. Tylee v. Yates, 3 Barb. 222: 938. Tyler v. Court of Registration, 175 Mass, 71: 10. V. Mut. Dist. Messenger Co., 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 267: 64^ 1076, 1248. V. People, 8 Mich. 320: 927. V. Trabue, 8 B. Mon. 303: 620. Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 634: 699, 1085, 1281. Tyng V. Commercial Warehouse Co., 58 N. Y. 308: 1035. Tyrrell v. New York, 159 N. Y. 239: 689, 691. ccxliv TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1815. Tyson, In re, 13 Colo. 482: 1303. Tyson v. State, 28 Md. 587: 423. V. Thomas, McClel. & Y. 119: 461, 988. U. Udell V. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 153 Ind. 507: S31. Uflfert V. Vogt, 65 N. J. L. 377: 394. V. Vogt, 65 N. J. L. 631: 394. Uhler V. Moses, 200 Pa. St. 498: 470. V. Moses, 10 Pa. Supr. Ct. 194: 464. V. Semple, 20 N. J. Eq. 288: 619. Uncas Nat. Bank v. Eith, 33 Wis. 339: 638. Underground Cable Co. v. Attor- ney-General, 46 N. J. Eq. 270: 61. Underwood v. Irving, 3 Cow. 59: 645. V. McDuffee, 15 Mich. 861: 452. Union v. Rader, 39 N. J. L. 509: 201, 205, 321. Union Bank v. Commissioners, 119 N. C. 214: 60, 92. V. Jacobs, 6 Humph. 515: 1087. V. Laird, 2 Wheat. 390: 1143. Union Canal Co. v. Young, 1 Whart. 410: 1103. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Cham- plin, 116 Fed. 858: 747. ii. Chowning, 86 Tex. 654: 420. Union Co. v. Ussery, 147 111. 204: 839, 830. Union Horse Shoe Works v. Lewis, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 518: 614. Union Ins. Co. v. Hoge, 21 How. 35: 684: 890. V. United States, 6 Wall. 759: 757. Union Iron Co. v. Pierce, 4 Biss. 337: 555, 556, 640, 643. Union Mines, In re, 39 W. Va. 179: 7. Union National Bank v. Byram,- 131 111. 93: 772, 1361. V. Scott, 53 App. Div. 65: 1133.. Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. De Bush, 13 Colo. 294: 644, 1076. V. Dunden, 37 Kan. 1: 1292. V. Proctor, 13 Colo. 194: 555. V. United States, 10 Ct. of CV 559: 634. V. United States, 91 U. S. 73: 634. Union Pass. Ey. Co.'s Appeal, 81*-' Pa. St. 91: 188, 208. Union Savings Bank & T. Co. v. Dottenheim, 107 Ga. 606: 853, 870,- 428. Union Sewer Pipe Co. v. Connolly, 99 Fed. 354: 436, 577. Union Trust Co. v. Trumbull, 157 HI. 146: 306. United Hebrew B. Ass'n v Benshi- mol, 130 Mass. 825: 443, 445, 561,. 1219. United States v. Ala. Great South- ern Ry. Co., 143 U. S. 615:. 890, 891. V. Alger, 152 U. S. 384: 891. V. Am. Bell Tel. Co., 159 U. S.. 548: 1053. V. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 738: 1031. V. Athens Armory, 8 Abb. (U. S.) 129: 982. V. Athens Armory, 35 Ga. 844: 963, 982. V. Averill, 130 U. S. 835: 855: 1299. V. Averill, 4 Utah, 416: 1299. V. Babbit, 1 Black, 55: 673, 811,- 813, 933. V. Ballin, 144 U. S. 1: 79, 135,- 131. V. Bank, 6 Pet. 29: 890. TABLE OF CASES CITED. ccxIt The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. United States v. Barr, 4 Sawy. 254: 516, 558. V. Barrels of Highwines, 7 Blatoh. 459: 993. V. Barrels of Spirits, 3 Abb. (U. S.) 305: 993. V-. Bashaw, 50 Fed. 749: 777, 891. V. Bassett, 2 Story, 389: 659, 713, 731, 959. V. Beaty, Hempst. 487: 974. V. Bedgood, 49 Fed. 54: 628. V. Blasingame, 116 Fed. 654: 151. V. Bliss, 12 App. Cas. (D. C.) 485: 889. V. Boisdore, 8 How. 113: 553. V. Bon ton, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 14,534: 956. T. Bowen, 100 U. S. 508: 521, 522, 543, 855. V. Breed, 1 Suran. 159: 755,958, 993, 994. V. Burchard, 125 U. S. 176: 1243. V. Burgdorf, 13 App. Cas. (D. C.) 506: 1255. V. Burr, 159 U. S. 78: 324, 736, 795, 884. V. Case of Pencils, 1 Paine, 406: 481, 483. V. Cases of Clotli, Crabbe, 356: 993. V. Central Pac. E. R Co., 118 U. S. 235: 585. V. Chase, 135 U. S. 355: 694, 745, 885, 1110. V. Cheeseman, 3 Sawyer, 424: 519. V. Choctaw, etc. R. E. Co., 3 Okl. 404: 784. V. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546:459,469, 519, 530. V. Clement, Crabbe, 449: 755. V. Cohn, 3 Ind. Ter. 474: 693, 793. United States v. Colegrove, 8 Appi Cas.'(D. C.)255: 899. V. Denver & R. G. Ey. Co., 159 U. S. 1: 1026. V. Denver & E. G. Ey. Co., 159 U. S. 16: 1027. V. Dickey, Morris (Iowa), 412: 918. V. Dickson, 15 Pet. 141: 675. V. Distilled Spirits, 10 BlatchE. 428: 994. V. Ferreira, 13 How. 40: 20. V. Fifty-six Barrels of Whis- key, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 93: 971. V. Finlay, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 364: 55i V. Finnel, 185 U. S. 236: 890. V. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358: 631, 649, 650, 701, 70?., V. Four Thousand Am. Gold Coin. 1 Woolw. 217: 872. V. Fox, 94 U. S. 315: 616,617. V. Freeman, 3 How. 565: 844, 1083. V. Garrelson, 42 Fed. Esp. 22: 971. V. Gear, 3 How. 120: 456, 469. V. Gilmore, 8 Wall. 330: 642, 672, 684, 758, 890, 1065. V. Goldenberg, 168 U. S. 95: 694, 701, 744. V. Graham, 110 U. S. 219: 891. V. Greathouse, 166 U. S. 601: 467, 529. V. Green, 4 Mason, 427: 931. V. Hall, 2 Wash. 366: 1175. V. Harris, 1 Sumner, 21: 844. V. Harris, 106 U. S. 639: 590. V. Harris, 177 U. S. 305: 973. V. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385: 695, 701, 967, 1194. V. Hawkins, 4 Mart. (U. S.) 317: 659, 731. V. Healey, 160 U. S. 136: 891. V. Helen, 6 Cranch, 203: 678, ccxlvi TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-608; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. United States v. Hewes, Crabbe, 307: 337,931. V. Hirsoh, 100 U. S. 83: 533, 855. V. Hoar, 2 Mason, 311: 931. V. Hodson, 10 Wall. 395: 993. v. Holrendorf, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 576: 1154. V. Huggett, 40 Fed. Rep. C36: 963. V. Hunter, Pet. C. C. 10: 911. V. Isham, 17 Wall. 496: 689. V. Jarvis, Davies, 374: 663, 711. T. Johns, 4 DalL 413: 619. V. Johnson, 2 Sawyer, 483: 873. T. Jones, 3 Wash. O. a 309: 748, 864. T. Kelly, 97 Fed. 460: 553. T. Keokuk & H. Bridge Co., 45 Fed. 178: 557. T. King, 7 How. 833: 606. T. Kirby, 7 WalL 483: 665, 939. V. Klein, 13 Wall. 138: 19. T. Kohnstamm, 5 Blatoh. 233: 678. V. Lacher, 134 U. S. 634: 531, 533. T. Langston, 118 U. S. 389: 500. V. Lytle, 5 McLean, 9: 890. T. MacFarland, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 120: 317. V. Magill, 1 Wash. C. C. 463: 748, 864. V. Mann, 1 Gall. 177: 20. V. Martin, 94 U. S. 400: 939. V. Mayor, 2 Am. Law Reg. (U. S.) 394: 1009. T. MoCrory, 119 Fed, 861: 649, 650. V. Moore, 95 U. S. 760: 890. V. Morrison, 4 Pet. 134: 615, 631. T. Morse, 3 Story, 87: 1093,1299, 1306. V. Moulton, 5 Mason, 537: 963. T. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood &M. 401: 647,947. United States v. Nichols, 37 Fed. Cas. No. 15,880: 956. V. Nix, 189 U. S. 199: 529. V. North Am. Com'l Co., 74 Fed. 145: 855. V. Northern Securities Ca, 120 Fed. 721: 993. V. Olney, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 275: 993. V. O'Neal, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 205: 1223. V. One Hundred and Twelve Casks of Sugar, 8 Pet 277: 754. V. One Hundred and Twenty- nine Packages, 2 Am. L. Reg. (U. S.) 419: 993. V. One Hundred Barrels of Spirits, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 305: 453, 971. V. Oregon & CaL R. R. Co., 57 Fed. 426: 883. V. Oregon & C. R. R. Co., 164 U. S. 526: 650. V. Palmer, 3 Wheat 610: 649, 650, 869. V. Passmore, 4 Dall. 873: 20. V. Patterson, 150 U. S. 65: 1299. V. Paul, 6 Pet 141: 788, 966. V. Pearce, 2 McLean, 14: 978, V. Percheman, 7 Pet 51: 34. V. Philadelphia, 11 How. 609: 606. V. Pine River L. & L Co., 89 Fed. 907: 723, 733. V. Powers, 1 Alaska, 180: 970. V. Powers' Heirs, 11 How. 577: 34. V. Prospect Hill Cem., 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 32: 19. V. Queen, 105 Fed. 369: 6, 9. V. Ragsdale, Hempst 497: 645, 698, 703, 704, 962. V. Ramsay, Hempst. 481: 645. V. Ranlett, 173 U. a 133: 519. TABLE OF OASES CITED. ccxlvii The references are to the pages; Tol. I, pp. 1-603: Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. United States v. Rathbone, 2 Paine, 578: 631. V. Reese, 92 U. S. 314: 589. V. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398: 557. V. Rhodes, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28: 693. V. Rossvalley, 8 Ben. 157: 798. V. Sadie, The, 41 Fed. 396: 909. V. Samperyao, 1 Hempst. 118: 18, 19. V. Sampson, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 419: 537. V. Sanger, 144 U. S. 310: 861, 862. V. Sapinkow, 00 Fed. 654: 444. •V. Sarchet, Gilpin, 273: 754. V. Saunders, 22 Wall. 492: 711. V. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103: 631. V. Seymour, 10 App. Cas, (D. C.) 294: 133. V. Sheldon, 3 Wheat. 119: 965, 967. V. Ship Recorder, 1 Blatohf. 218: 887, 895. V. Six Fermenting Tubs, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 368: 554. V. Sixty-Seven Packages, 17 How. 85, 15 L. Ed. 54: 463. V. St Anthony R. R. Co., 193 U. S. 524: 1037. V. Star, Hempst, 469: 642, 645. V. Stern, 5 Blatoh. 512: 798. V. Sweeny, 157 U.S. 281: 921. V. Sweet, 189 U. S. 471: 890. V. Tanner, 147 U. S. 661: 891. V. Ten Cases of Shawls, 2 Paine, 162: 757, 967. V. Ten Thousand Cigars, 1 Woolw. 123: 479. V. The Peggy, 1 Cr. 103: 552. V. Thoraan, 155 U. S. 353: 1133. V. Three R. R Co.'s, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 196: 689. United States v. Three Tons of Coal, 6 Biss. 379: 993. V. Tingey, 5 Pet. 115: 1134. V. Trans. Mo. Freight Ass'n, 58 Fed. 58: 757, 759. V. Trans. Mo. Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290:744,883. V. Turner. 11 How. 663: 606, 618, 865, 866, 868. V. Twenty-five Cases of Clotli, Crabbe, 356: 467. V. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88: 481, 483, 516, 520, 553. V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 91 U. S. 73: 882, 883. V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 563: 890. V. Walker, 23 How. 299: 16 L. Ed. 382: 463. V, Warner, 4 McLean, 403; 704. V. Warwick, 51 Fed. 380: 519. V. Watts, 1 Bond, 580: 999. V. Webster, Davies, 38: 654, 881. V. Wigglesworth, 3 Story, 369; 994, 998, 999. V. Wilder, 13 Wall. 354: 1017. V. Willets, 5 Ben. 330: 993. V. Wilson, Baldw. 78: 758. V. Wilson, 58 Fed. 768: 815,964. V. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat 76: 645, 695, 963. V. Winn, 3 Sumn. 309: 961, 965, 984. V. Wyngall, 5 Hill, 16: 636, 945, 1058, 1140. United States Bank v. Longworth, 1 McLean, 35: 18. United States Blowpipe Co. v. Spen- cer, 40 W. Va. 698: 765. United States Express Co. v. EUy- son, 38 Iowa, 370: 413. United States M. & T. Co. v. Wood, 19 Ohio C. C. 358: 407, 458. ecxlviii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. United States Tr. Co. v. Brady, 20 Barb. 119: 340. Unity y. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447: 222, 251, 258, 306, 581, 624, 625, 626, 633. University of North Carolina v. Fay, 1 Murph. 58: 1193. University of Utah v. Richards, 20 Utah, 457: 468, 529. University Regents v. Attorney- General, 109 Mich. 134: 537. Unwin v. Hanson, L. R. (1891) 2 Q. B. 115: 749, 751. Upshur v. Baltimore City, 94 Md. 7431 1116, 1133. Upson, In re, 89 N. Y. 67: 223. Usener v. State, 8 Tex. App. 177: 85. Utica Water-Works Co. v. Utioa, 31 Hun, 426: 262. Utley V. Cavender, 31 S. C. 282: 240. V. Hill, 155 Mo. 232: 749, 980. Utsey v. Hiott, 30 S. C. 360: 422. Uwchlan Tp. Road, 30 Pa. St. 156: 551,643, 1169. Vail V. Dinning, 44 Mo. 210: 1054., V. Easton, etc. R. R. Co., 44 N. J. L. 237: 528. V. McKernan, 31 Ind. 431: 946. V. San Diego Co., 126 Cal. 35: 409. Vairin v. Edmonson, 5 Gilm. 270: 831, 334. Vallance v. Falle, L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 109: 639. Valton V. National Loan, etc. Co., 19 How. Pr. 515: 1018. Vanada v. Hopkins, 1 J. J. Marsh. 285: 879. Van Antwerp, In re, 1 T. & C. 423: 290, 1230. Van Antwerp, Matter of, 56 N. Y. 261: 481, 1231. Vanatta v, Anderson, 3 Bin. 417: 946. Van Brunt v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co., 78 Mich. 530: 1292. V. Flatbush, 128 N. Y. 50: 371. Van Buren v. Wylie, 56 Mich. 501: 964. Vance v. Grainger, Conf. 71: 1382. V. Gray, 9 Bush, 656: 797. V. Rankin, 194 111. 625: 552, 605. V. Vandercock Co., 170 U. S. 438: 574. Van Clief v. Van Vechten, 55 Hun, 467: 436. Vandall v. South T. F. Dock Co., 40 Cal. 83: 1035. Van Denburgh v. President, etc. 66 N. Y. 1 : 563. Vanderberg, in re, 38 Kan. 243: 91. Vanderbilt v. Adams, 7 Cow. 349: 1195. Vanderburgh v. Van Rensselaer, 6 Paige, 147: 328, 331. Vander Donckt v. Thelluson, 8 C. B. 812: 620. Vanderkar v. Railroad Co., 13 Barb. 390: 20. Vanderstolph v. Boylan, 50 Mich. 330: 941. Vanderwerker v. People, ji Wend. 530: 872. Van Deusen v. Hayward, 17 Wend. 67: 1134. Van Deventer v. Long Island City, 139 N. Y. 133: 1233. Vandilie v. Rosskam, 67 Pa. St. 330: 1005. Van Dusen v. Fridley, 6 Dak. 832: 1303. Vane v. Vane, L. R 8 Ch. 383: 1103. Van Fleet v. Van Fleet, 49 Mich. 610: 641, 659, 914. Van Giesen v. Bloomfleld, 47 N. J. L. 443: 377. TABLE OF CASES CITED. CCzUx The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. "Van Hagan, Ex parte, 35 Ohio St. 436: 466, -567. Van Hook v. Whitlook, 3Edw. Ch, 304; 942, 1239. "Van Horn v. State, 46 Neb. 62: 185, 325, 448, 514, 668. 'Van Home v. Petrie, 3 Gaines, 213; 1306. Van Home's Lessee v. Dorranoe, 3 Dal I. 304: 1001, 1046. Van Hovenburgh's Case, 4 Hill, 541: 1306. Van Husan v. Hearnes, 96 Mich. 504: 301. Van Inwagen v. Chicago, 61 III. 31; 545. Van Kleeok, In re, 131 N. Y. 701; 1159, 1166. "Van Loon v. Engle, 171 Pa. St. 157; 384, 391. V. Lyon, 4 Daly, 149; 899, 903. 'VanMatre V. Sankey, 148 111. 533; 620. " Van Meter V. Spurrier, 94 Ky. 33; 301. ' Vanneman v. Toung, 53 N. J. L. 403; 1140. Van Ness v. Pacard, 2Pet. 137: 610. "Van Norman v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 45 Mich. 204; 1049, 1066. V. Judge, 45 Mich. 204; 18, 19. "Van Pe;t v. Gardner, 54 Neb. 701; 566. "Van Rensselaer v. Ball, 19 N. Y. 100; 643. V. Kearney, 11 How. 397; 616. V, Livingston, 13 Wend. 490; 641. V. Sheriff, 1 Cow. 443: 645, 910, 911. V. Snyder, 9 Barb. 303: 466, 1210. -v. Snyder, 13 N. Y. 299: 642. Van Riper v. Essex P. R. B'd, 38 N. J. L. 23: 845, 854. V. Parsons, 40 N. J. L. 133: 367. Van Sicklen v. Burlington, 37 Vt. 70; 949. Van Slyke v. Trempealeau, etc. Ins. Co., 39 Wis. 390: 1051. Van Steen v. Beatrice, 86 Neb. 431: 464. Van Swarton v. Commonwealth, 34 Pa. St. 131: 634. Van Tassell v. Derrensbacher, 56 Hun, 477: 1311. Van Valkenburgh v. Torrey, 7 Cow. 353: 563, 564, 645, 1054. Van Winkle v. Constantino, 10 N. Y. 433: 899, 1230, 1231. V. Crabtree, 34 Ore. 463; 1290. Van Wyok v. Hills, 4 Rob. 140: 611. Vanzant v. Wadell, 3 Yerg. 260: 13, 343, 357. Vardeman v. Lawson, 17 Tex. 10: 610. Varnum, In re, 70 Vt. 147: 921. Vaughan v. Swayzie, 56 Miss. 704: 1230, 1333. Vauxhall Bridge Co. v. Earl Spen- cer, 3 Mad. 356; 638. Vavasour v. Ormrod, 6 B. & C. 430; 671. Vawter v. Pac. Ry. Co., 84 Mo. 679: 28. Veats V. Danbury, 37 Conn. 412: •551. Veazie v. China, 50 Me. 518: 1136. Veeder v. MoKinley, etc. Co., 61 Neb. 893; 775. Vega S. S. Ca v. Consolidated EL Co., 75 Minn. 308: 846. Velten v. Carmack, 33 Ore. 382: 1394. Venour v. Sellon, L. R, 3 Ch. Div. 533: 691. ccl TABLE OF CASES CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Ventress v. Smith, 10 Pet. 161: 949. VerdiQ v. St. Louis, 131 Mo. 26: 707. Verges v. Milwaukee Co., 116 Wis. 191: 359,360, 397. Vermont L. & T. Co. v. Whithed, 3 N. D. 82: 416, 677, 733,- 847, 851. Vernon School District v. Board of Education, 125 Cal. 593: 273. Vernon Shell Road Co. v. Savan- nah, 95 Ga. 387: 1033. Vicar, etc. Ex parte, 33 L. J. Ch. 373: 704. Vioksburg v. Sun Mut. Ins. Co., 73 Miss. 67: 439. Vicksburg, etc. Ry. Co. v. Dennis, 116 U. S. 665: 1004. V. State, 63 Miss. 105: 999. Victory v. Fitzpatrick, 8 Ind. 381: 638, 917. Vidal V. Girard's Heirs, 8 How. 137: 29. Vielie v. Towers, Colman & Caines, 90: 1306. Viemeister v, White, 88 App. Div. 44: 137. Vietor v. Arthur, 104 U. S. 498:521, 533, 543. Vigo's Case, 31 WalL 648: 644, 1086, 1305. Vincenheller v. Reagan, 69 Ark. 460: 349, 277. Vincennes v. Citizens' Gas Light Co., 133 Ind. 114: 1034 Vincent, Ex parte, 36 Ala. 145: 748, 864. Vincent v. Nantucket, 12 Cush. 103: 1033. Vinden v. Bowers, 55 Miss. 18: 708. Vining v. Bricker, 14 Ohio St. 331: 939. Vinsant v. Knox, 37 Ark. 366: 71, 85. Vinton v. Builders, etc. Ass'n, 109 Ind. 351: 718., Virden v. Allan, 107 III. 505: 258, 306. Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503:; 803. Virginia C. & I. Co. v. Keystone C. . & I. Co., 101 Va. 733: 890. Virginia City, etc. R. R. Co. v. Lyon Co., 6 Nev. 68: 699. Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S.^- 305: 590, 593. Virginia Develop. Co. v. Crozier- Iron Co., 90 Va. 136: 436. Virginia & Tenn. O. & L Co. v. Mo- Clelland, 98 Va. 434: 1261. Viterbo v. Friedlander, 120 U. S. 707: 709. Viti V. Dixon, 13 Mo. 477: 338. Vogel V. Pekoo, 157 111. 339: 419l Voight V. Gulf, etc. Ry. Co., 94 Tex.. 357: 508, 1383. V. Kersten, 164 III. 314: 115&, 1191. Volans V. Owen, 74 N. Y. 526: 1266,- 1267, 1270. Volmer v. State, 34 Ark. 487: 558. Von Baumbach v. Bade, 9 Wis. 559:- 1199. Von Campe v. Chicago, 140 111. 361: 739, 797. Von Hoffman v. Quinoy, 4 Wal).- 535: 643, 1190, 1191, 1200, 120V 1206, 1210. Von Phul V. Hammer, 29 Iowa, 232: 429. Voorhees v. Bank of United States^- 10 Pet. 449: 671, V. Martin, 13 Barb. 508: 944. Vorous V. Phoenix Ins, Co., 103 Wis». 76: 470. w. Wabashi etc. R. R O. v. Beers, 2- Black, 448: 1193. Wadasz v. Arcade Real Est. Cot,. 306 Pa. St. 539: 703. TABLE OS OASES CITED. ccli The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Waite V. Santa Cruz, 75 Fed. 967: 386, 390. V. Santa Cruz, 89 Fed. 619: 386, 390. Wakefield v. Phelps, 37 N. H. 295: 852, 853. V. Smart, 8 Ark. 488: 1379. Wakeley v. Mohr, 15 Wis. 609: 582. Wakker, In re, 3 Barb. 162: 190, 282. Wakker, In re, 1 Edm. SeL Cas. 575: 633. Walcott V. Skauge, 6 N. D.. 382: 466, 510. Waldby v. Oallendar, 8 Mich. 430: 1054. Wade V. Lewis & C. Co., 24 Mont. 335: 689, 690. V. St, Mary's School, 43 Md. 178, 552, 553. Wagar v. Briscoe, 38 Mich. 587: 1055, 1254. Waggaman v. District of Colum- bia, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 207: 965. Waggoner v. Flack, 188 U. S. 595: 1198, 1300, 1315. Wagner v. Milwaukee Co., 113 Wis. 601: 302, 404. V. Stoll, 3 Rich. (N. S.) 539: 511. Wagner Free Institute v. Philadel- phia, 132 Pa. St. 612: 534. Wahl V. Nauvoo, 64 III App. 17: 534. Waine Wright, In re, 1 Phila. 258: 663, 665, 724, 914. Wait V. Van Allen, 23 N. Y. 319: 645. Walden v. Relyea, 89 App. Div. 241: 538. Waldo V. Bell, 13 La. Ann. 329: 636, 899, 1057. Wales V. Belcher, 3 Pick. 508: 172, 036, 1181. Wales V. Muscatine, 4 Iowa, 303: 1103. V. Stetson, 2 Mass. 146: 910, 1193. Walker, In re, 300 111. 566: 1003. Walker v. Board of Public Works, 16 Ohio, 540: 1019. V. Boggess,41 W, Va, 588: 1160, 1190, 1192. V. Burt, 57 Ga. 20: 1049. V. Caldwell, 4 La. Ann. 297: 185, 431, 432. V. Chapman, 22 Ala. 116: 1117. V. Chicago, 56 IlL 277: 1013,1054, 1241, 1242. V. Dailey, 101 111. 575: 981. V. Duoros, 18 La. Ann. 703: 946, V. Forbes, 31 Ala. 9: 630, 621. V. Griffith, 60 Ala. 361: 85, 86. V. People, 203 111. 34: 1163. V. Sheftall, 73 Ga. 806: 1306. V. State, 49 Ala. 339: 581. V. State, 7 Tex. App. 245: 443, 445, 485. V. Whitehead, 16 WalL 314: 643, 1190, 1199, 1200. Wall, Ex parte, 48 Cal. 279: 145, 172, 608. Wall V. Garrison, 11 Colo. 515: 435. V. State, 23 Ind. 153: 457,481. V. State, 18 Tex. 682: 555. Wallace v. Bradshaw,' 53 N. J. L. 315: 562. V. Bradshaw, 54 N. J. L, 175: 563, 888, 893. V. Burden, 17 Tex. 467: 610. V. Finch, 34 Mich. 255: 979. V. Goodlett, 104 Tenn. 670: 577. V. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. 65: 638. V. Jameson, 179 Pa. St. 98: 499. V. San Jose, 29 Cal. 180: 1033. V. Seales, 36 Miss, 53: 854. V. Stevens, 74 Tex. 559: 933, V. Taliaferro, 3 Call (Va«), 389: 758, 863, 1160. cclii TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Waller v. Harris, 20 Wend. 555: 630, 645, 697. V. Hughes, 3 Ariz. 114: 1002. Walling V. Diokertown, 64 N. J. L. 203: 234. Wallwyn v. Lee, 9 Ves. 35: 638, Wally V. Kennedy, 3 Yerg. 554: 843. Wain V. Beverley, 55 N. J. L. 544: 390. Walpole V. Elliott, 18 Ind. 258: 1233. Walraven v. Farmers' & M. Nat. Bank, 96 Tex. 331: 707. Walser v. Austin, 104 Cal. 138: 409. V. Jordan, 134 N. C. 683: 514, 847. V. Wear, 128 Mo. 653: 873. Walsh, In re, 87 Mich. 466: 1188. Walsh V. Association of Master Plumbers, 97 Mo. App. 280: 1311. V. Boyle, 80 Md. 263: 337,330. V. Commonwealth, 89 Pa. St. 419: 775. V. Dart, 13 Wis. 635: 611. V. Dousman, 28 Wis. 541: 841. V. State, 143 Ind. 357: 444. V. Trustees, 96 N. Y. 427: 1036. Walsingham's Case, 3 Plow, 565: 68a Walston V. Commonwealth, 16 B. Mon. 15: 642, 1183, 1326. Walter v. People, 33 N. Y. 147: 1183. Walters v. Richardson, 93 Ky. 374: 136, 220. Walton, Ex parte, L. R 17 Ch. Div. 746: 704, 713, 721, 724, 729, 913, 1088. Walton V. Diokerson, 4 Rich. L. 568: 1319. V. Fudge, 63 Mo. App. 53: 769, 1161, 1191. V. State, 63 Ala. 197: 861, 963, 966. V. Walton, 96 Tenn, 35: 1154. Walwin v. Smith, 1 Salk. 177: 970. Wandsworth Board v. United TeL Co., L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 904: 1045. Wanet v. Corbet, 13 Ga. 441: 887. Wannamaker v. Poorbaugh, 91 111. App. 560: 620. Wanstead Board v. Hill, 18 C. B, (N. S.) 479: 824. Waples V. Dubuque, 116 Iowa. 167: 1387. Warbiirton v. Loveland, 3 Dow. & CI. 489: 699. V. Loveland, 1 Hudson & Brooke, 648: 793, 794. Ward V. Board of Equalization, 135 Mo, 309: 802. V. Boyd Paving & C. Co., 79 Fed. 390: 360. V. Flood, 48 Cal. 36: 343. V. Hartford, 13 Conn. 404: 1103. V. Henry, 19 Wis. 76: 880. V. Thompson, 48 Iowa, 588: 1373. V. Walters, 63 Wis. 44: 335. Warder v. Arell, 3 Wash. (Va.) 383: 1160. Wardle v. Townsend, 75 Mich. 885: 863. Ward's Will, In re, 70 Wis. 251: 1397. Ware v. Easton, 46 Minn. 180: 1060. V. Owens, 43 Ala. 313: 643. V. St. Louis, etc. Co., 47 Ala. 667: 446. Warehouse . Ca v. Lewis, 56 Ala. 514: 724. Warfield, In re, 23 CaL 51: 899. Warfield v. Fox, 53 Pa, St 883: 1015, 1283. V. Ravasies, 38 Ala. 518: 1062, 1394. Warfleld's Will, 82 Cal. 71: 893. Warford v. Sullivan, 147 Ind. 14: 517. TABLE OF OASES OITED. ccliii The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-803; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315. Waring v. Jackson, 1 Pet. 570: 616. Wame v. Beresford, 2 M. & W. 848: 551. V. Varley, 6 T. R. 443: 963. Warner v. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co., 115 Ma 573: 1033: V. Beers, 33 Wend. 125: 6a 7, Commonwealth, 1 Pa. St. 154: 645. v. Commonwealth, 3 Ya. Cas. 95: 618. V. Fowler, 8 Md. 25: 862, 1061. V. Gunnison, 3 Colo. App. 430: 1076. Warnick v. Grosholz, 3 Grant's Cas. 284: 633. Warren v. Commonwealth, 37 Pa. St. 45: 1183. V. Crosby,' 34 Ore. 558: 431, 447. V. Englehart, 13 Neb. 283: 1391. V. First Nat. Bank, 149 IlL 9: 31. V. Jones, 9 S. 0. 388: 1319. V. Lusk, 16 Ma 103: 611. V. Mayor, 3 Gray, 84: 594, 601. V. Shuman, 5 Tex. 441: 661. V. Windle, 3 East. 305: 563, 564. Warren Ca v. Booth, 81 Miss. 267: 757. V. Nail, 78 Miss. 726: 140, 144, 1037. Warren R. R, Ca v. Belvidere, 35 N. J. L. 584: 459. Warrensburg v. McHugh, 133 Mo. 649: 171. Warrick v. Bounds, 17 Neb. 411: 1267. Warrington v. Furbor, 8 East. 343: 646, 998. Wash V. Boyle, 30 Md. 363: 331. Washburn M. O. Asylum v. State, 73 Minn. 343: 1003,1004. Washer v. Elliott, L. R. 1 C. P. Div. 174: 814, V/ashington v. Page, 4Cal. 388: 188. V. Washington, 69 Ala. 281: 1230, 1231. Washington Elea Vehicle Trans. Co. V. District of Columbia, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 462: 815, 826. Washington & G, R. R. Co. v. Har- mon, 147 U. S. 571: 783. Washington Heights v. Moffatt, 57 111. App. 269: 517, 519. Washington & Idaho R. R. Co. v. Coeur d'Alene Ry. & Nav. Co., 160 U. S. 77: 913. Washington St. etc. R. R. Co., Mat- ter of, 115 N. Y. 443: 463, 887. Wassell V. Armstrong, 35 Ark. 347: 677. V. Tunnah, 35 Ark. 101: 662, 710, 913. Waterbury v. Piatt, 75 Conn. 387: 1041, 1043. Water Com'rs v. Brewster, 48 N. J. L. 125: 695. V. Dwight, 101 N. Y. 9: 1337. Water Com'rs of Amsterdam, Mat- ter of, 96 N. Y. 351: 1041, 1042. Waterford v. Hensley, Mart. & Yerg. (Tenn.) 275: 797. Waterhouse v. Keen, 4 R & C. 200: 756. Waters v. Campbell, 4 Sawyer, 121 : 813. V. Dixie Lumber & Mfg. Co., 106 Ga. 592: 1319, 1357. Watertown v. Mayo, 109 Mass. 315: 1019. Watervliet T. Ca v. MoKean; 6 Hill, 616:796.959. Water Works Co. v. Burkhart, 41 Ind. 364: 516. Wathen v. Beaumont, 11 East, 371 : 836. Watkins v. Eureka Springs, 49 Ark. 131:455. ccliv TABLE OF OASES CITED. The references are to the pages; Vol I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Watkins v. Glenn, 55 Kan. 417: 1161, 1210. V. Griffith, 59 Ark. 344: 1012. V. Holman, 16 Pet. 25: 5. V. Major, L. R. 10 C. P. 669: 976. V. Wassell, 20 Ark. 410: 638, 918. Watrous v. Blair, 33 Iowa, 58: 939. Watson V. Blaylock, 2 Mills, (S. O.) 351: 460. V. De Witt Co., 19 Tex. Civ. App. 150: 1137. V. Hoge, 7 Yerg. 344: 683, 693, 695, 699. V. Kent, 78 Ala. 602: 462. V. Martin, 34 L. J. M. C. 50: 968. V. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88: 1174, 1239, 1231. V. Gates, 58 Ala. 647:637. V. State, 55 Ala, 158: 876. v. Stone, 40 Ala. 451:37. V. Tarpley, 18 How. 517: 1106. Watts V. Sweeney, 127 Ind. 116: 644, 1076, 1258. V. Wilson, 93 Ky. 495: 498. Waugh V. Middleton, 8 Ex. 356: 793, 797, 1160, 1235. V. Riley, 68 Ind. 482: 562. Waukegan v, Foote, 91 111. App. 588: 916. WauschoflE v. Masonic Mut. Bene- fit Society, 41 Mo. App. 206: 1358. Waxahaohie v. Brown, 67 Tex. 519: 1033. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 : 145, 146, 670, 683. Wayne Co. Sup'rs v. Circuit Judge, 111 Mioh. 33: 469. Weakley v. Pearce, 5 Eeisk. 401: 563, Wear Riv. Com'rs v. Adamson, L. E. 1 Q. B. D. 549: 704. Weatherford v. Weatherford, 8 Port. 171: 308. Weaver v. Davidson County, 104 Tenn. 315: 124,428, 595,668, 669. V. Lapsley, 43 Ala. 224: 188. v. MoElhenon, 13 Mo. 89: 879. V. Peasley, 163 111. 351: 1138. Webb, In re, 34 How. Pr. 247: 674 Webb V. Anspaoh, 3 Ohio St. 533: 1056. V. Baird, 6 Ind. 13: lOia V. Bird, 10 C. B. (N. S.) 368: 808. V. Bird, 13 C. R (N. S.) 841: 808. V. Batler Co. Com'rs, 53 Kan. 375: 784. V. Fairmaner, 3 M. & W. 474: 329. V. Fairmaner, 8 M. & W. 473: 837. V. Jones, 36 N. J. Eq. 163: 1397. V. Lewis, 45 Minn. 285: 1216. V. Midway Lumber Co., 68 Mo. App. 546: 473. V. MuUins, 78 Ga. Ill: 1059. Webber v. Chicago, 148 111. 313: 815, 834, 841. V. Howe, 33 Mich. 150: 550. V. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 97 Fed. 140: 703. Weber v. Commonwealth, 24 Ky. L. R. 1726: 801. V. Weber, 47 Mioh. 569: 1063, 1294. Webster v. Auditor-General, 131 Mich. 668: 1166, 1233. V. Bowers, 104 Fed. 627: 1160, 1192. V. Cambridge Female Sam., 78 Md. 193: 1195. V. Co. Com'rs, 63 Me. 37: 559. V. French, 12 111. 302: 330, 1143. V. Hastings, 56 Neb. 669: 73. V. HastiAgs, 59 Neb. 563:73,86, 315. TABLE OF OASES CITED. cclv The references are to tbe pages: Vol I, pp. 1-603; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Webster v. Little Rook, 44 Ark. 536:71,78. V. Luther, 103 U. S. 881: 891, 893. V. Morris, 66 Wis. 366: 29, 609. V. Rose, 6 Heisk. 93: 1209. Weokler v. First Nat. Bank, 42 Md. 581: 1035. Weed, In re, 26 Mont. 241: 757. Weed V. Lyon, Walker, Ch. 77: 1141. V. Tucker, 19 N. Y. 432: 1244. Weeks V. Hull, 19 Conn. 376: 328. V. Smith, 81 Me. 588: 60, 105. V. Weeks, 5 Ired. Eq. Ill: 311. Weigel V. Hastings, 29 Neb. 379: 270. Weil, In re, 83 N. Y. 543: 1141. Weil V. State, 46 Ohio St. 450: 330. Weill V. Kenfleld, 54 Cal. Ill: 60, 78, 87, 752, 958. Weindel v. Weindel, 136 Mo. 640: 751. Weintaan v. Wilkinsburg, etc. Ry. Co., 118 Pa. St. 193: 403. Weir V. Cram, 37 Iowa, 649: 163. Weis V. Ashley, 59 Neb. 494: 88, 215. 336. Weiser v. Welch, 112 Mich. 134: 1263, 1264. Weister v. Hade, 53 Pa. St. 474: 133, 714, 1095. Welborne v. State, 114 Ga. 793: 300. Welch V. Battern, 47 Iowa, 147: 316. V. Hannibal, etc. Ry. Co., 26 Mo. App. 358: 322. V. Kline, 57 Pa. St. 428: 914. V. Stowell, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 833: 1019. V. Sullivan, 8 Cal. 188: 903. V. Wads worth, 30 Conn. 149: 555, 1198. Welker v. Potter, 18 Ohio St. 85: 368, 1141. Weller v. Membaoh, 114 N. Y. 86: 528. V. Weyand, 2 Grant's Cas. 103: 1049. Wells, Ex parte, 31 Fla. 280: 580, Wells V. Bright, 4 Dev. & Batt. L. 173: 320, 608. V. Burts, 86 Mo. App. 264: 769. V. Child, 12 Allen, 333: 1015, 1283. V. County Com'rs, 79 Me. 523: 1044. V. Hyattsville, 77 Md. 125: 458. V. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 110 Mo, 286: 111, 113, 609. V. Ragsdale, 102 Ga. 53: 1301. V. Supervisors, 102 TJ. S. 635: 473. Wells Co. V. McHenry, 7 N. D. 246: 534, 784, 1232. Wells, Fargo & Co. Express v. Crawford Co., 63 Ark. 576: 135, 928. Wells, Fargo & Ca v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 15 Fed. 561: 1195. Wolman, Matter of, 20 Vt. 653: 319. Welsh V. Bramlett,98Cal. 219: 409. Welthey v. Kemper, 17 Mont, 491 : 646, 988. Welty V. Lake Superior, etc. Ry. Co., 100 Wis. 128: 552. Wendel v. Durbin, 26 Wis. 890: 1136. V. State, 63 Wis. 300: 1037. Wenk V. New York, 83 App. Div. 584: 291. Wentworth v. Racine Co., 99 Wis. 36: 159. Werborn v. Austin, 77 Ala. 881: 517. Werner, In re, 129 Cal. 567: 805. cclvi TABLE OF CASKS CITED, The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; Vol. II, pp. 005-1816. Werner v. Edmiston, 34 Kan. 147: 1375. V. Rochester, 77 Hun, 33: 758. West V. Blake, 4 Blaokt 334: .634* 635, 633. y. Creditors, 1 La. Ann. 365: 308. V. Downman, L B. 14 Ch. Div. Ill: 639. V. Francis, 5 B. & Aid. 787: 777. V, Pickesimer, 7 Ohio, 335: 1379. V. Sansom, 44 Ga. 295: 1306. V. State, 70 Miss. 598: 964. V. West, 20 R. L 1: 336. West Boston Bridge v. County Com'rs, 10 Pick. 270: 1044. Westbrook v. Miller, 56 Mich. 148: 889. V. Eosborough, 14Cal. 180: 1134 V. Willey, 47 N. Y. 457: 1148. West Chester Alley, 160 Pa, St. 89: 503. Westchester Co. v. Dressner, 33 App. Div. 315: 554. West Chicago Park Com'rs v. Farber, 171 111. 146: 298, 503, 1081. V. McMuUen, 134 111. 170: 400. V. Sweet, 167 111. 326: 298. West End, etc. R. R. Co. v. Atlanta St. R. R Co., 49 Ga. 151: 474. Westerfleld, Ex parte, 55 Cal. 550: 401, 430. Western v. Charleston, 3 Pet. 464: 754. Western Am. Co. v. St. Ann. Co., 22 Wash. 158: 529. Western & A. R. E. Co. v. Atlanta, 113 Ga. 537: 463, 527. Western Granite & Marble Co. v. Knickerbocker, 108 CaL 111: 135. Western Ranches v. Custer Co., 28 Mont. 278: 191, 220. Western Union R. R. v. Fulton, 64 III 271: 642. Western Union Tel. Ca v. Cooledge, 86 Ga. 104: 305. V. Lowery, 32 Neb. 733: 364 V. Lumpkin, 99 Ga. 647: 551, 553. V. State, 63 Tex. 630: 585, 601. V. Taggart, 141 Ind, 381: 63. Wester velt v. Baker, 56 Neb. 63: 1294 V. Gregg, 13 N. Y. 202: 1230. V. People, 20 Wend. 416: 1069. Westfield Cem. Ass'n v. Danielson, 62 Conn. 319: 778, 780, 955. West F. R. R. Ca v. Johnson, 5 How. (Miss.) 278: 813. West Ham Overseers v. lies, L. R. 8 App. Cas. 386: 657. Westheimer v. Goodkind, 34 Mont. 90: 1058. Westinghausen v. People, 44 Mich. 265: 1069. Weston V. Monroe, 84 Mich. 348: 1139. V. Supervisors, 44 Wi& 242: 1003. West Phila. R. R. Co. v. Union K R. Co., 9 Phila. 495: 201, 308, 356. West Plains Tp. v. Sage, 69 Fed. 943: 193, 37a West Point W. P. & L. L Co. v. State, 49 Neb. 323: 295. Westport V. Jackson, 69 Mo. App. 148: 514 707. V. McGee, 128 Mo. 152: 458,596. V. Whiting, 63 Mo. App. 647: 1010, 1028. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 528: 1023. V. Dix, 16 Vt. 446: 1194 Wetherbee v. Dunn, 33 Cal. 106: 873. V. Roots, 78 Miss. 355: 781. TABLE OF CASES CITED. cclvii The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-603; r<^al. H, pp. 605-1315. Wetmore v. State, 55 Ala. 193: 891, 893. V. Tracy, 14 Wend. 250: 636. Wetumpka v. Winter, 29 Ala. 651: 747. Wetzel v. Paducah, 117 Fed. 647: 470. Wetzman v. Southern By. Ca, 131 Mo. 613: 860. Weyand v. Stover, 35 Kan. 545: 91, 245. Wharton v. State, 5 Cold. 1: 555. Wheatley v. Lane, 1 Will Saund. 316: 1080. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591: 1143. Wheeler v. Chicago, 24 111. 105: 1117. V. Chubbuok, 16 111. 361: 313. V. McCormick, 8 Blatchf. 267: 663, 730, 1103, 1103. V. Mills, 40 Barb. 644: 1141. V. Philadelphia, 77 Pa. St. 338: 346, 377, 383, 626, 633, 633. V. Roberts, 7 Cow. 536: 562. V. Wheeler, 134 111. 523: 955. V. Winn. 53 Pa. St. 133: 1253. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 138 U. S. 287: 1315. Whidden v. Drake, 5N.H. 13: 1103. V. Seelye, 40 Me. 247: 611, 613. Whipley v. Mills, 9 CaL 641: 1136. Whipple V. Judge, 36 Mich. 343: 732, 845. V. Williams, 4 How. Pr. 38: 336. Whistler v. Foster, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 248: 914. Whitborn v. Evans, 2 East, 135: 333. Whitcomb v. Rood, 20 Vt. 53: 848, 930. V. Standard Oil Co., 153 Ind. 513: 545, 859. White, In re, 83 Neb. 813: 281, 242^ 433. White V. Boody, 74 Hun, 39: 43& V. Boot, a T. R. 274: 461. V. Burgin, 113 Ala. 170: 297, 463. V. ChafEn, 33 Ark. 59: 1355. V. Commonwealth, 30 Ky. L, R. 1942: 301. V. Crutcher, 1 Bush, 473:329. V. Eisman, 134 N. Y. 101: 64^ 1241. V. German Ins. Co., 15 Neb. 660: 331. V. Hart, 13 Wall. 646: 643, 1200. V. Ha worth, 21 Mo. App. 439: 337, 332. V. Hinton, 3 Wyo. 753: 79, 114, 337, 328. V. Ivey, 34Ga. 186: 833. V. Johnson, 33 Miss. 68: 473, 636, 844, 852. V. Levy, 91 Ala. 175: 653. V. Lincoln, 5 Neb. 505: 185. V. Meadville, 177 Pa. St. 643: 503, 513. V. Nashville, etc. R R. Co., 7 Heisk. 518: 463. V. Railroad Co., 7 Heisk. 518: 683. V. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co, 25 Utah, 346: 739,797. V. Simpson, 107 Ala, 386: 1261. V. Steam Tug, 6 Cal. 462: 991. V. United States, 191 U. S. 545: 649. V. W.agar, 185 III. 195: 468, 829. V. Wagar, 83 111. App. 598: 468. V. White, 3 Met. (Ky.) 185: 680. White Co. V. Key, 30 Ark. 603: 1241. Whited V. Lewis, 25 La. Ann. 568: 53, 57, 252, 581. Whitehead v. Commonwealth, 19 Gratt. 640: 1138. cclviii TABLE OF CASKS CITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-803; Vol. n, pp. 605-1315. Whitehead V. Wells, 29 Ark. 99: 308. White Lake Lumber Co. v. Eussell, 32 Neb. 136: 1255. Whiteley v. Chappell, L. E. 4 Q. B. Ii7: 1110. Whitesides V. Poole, 9 Rich. 68: 869. White Water Val. Canal Co. v. Val- lette, 21 How. 414: 1037. Whitford v. Panama R. P^. Co., 23 N. Y. 465: 869. Whiting V. Mt. Pleasant, 11 Iowa, 483: 303, 204, 242. Whitlock V. Castro, 22 Tex. 108: 880. Whitman v. Hapgood, 10 Mass. 437: 641. V. State, 80 Md. 410: 293, 607. Whitmire v. Muflcy Creek, 17 Pa. Supr. Ct. 399: 707, 814. Whitney v. Brunette, 15 Wis. 61: 1049, 1050. V. Dey, 90 N. C. 543: 1289. V. Fox, 166 U. S. 637: 785. V. Gauche, 11 La. Ann. 433: 874. V. State, 53 Neb. 387: 487. V. Thomas, 23 N. Y. 281: 1141. V. Wegler, 54 Mina 235: 547, 1318, 1388. V. Whitney, 14 Mass. 88: 710, 1251. Whitney's Petition, 18 Phila. 670: 1154. Whittaker v. Canal Co., 87 Pa. St. 34: 1022. Whitworth v. MoKee, 33 Wash. 83: 1317. Whyte V. Mayor, etc. 3 Swan, 364: 1030. Wick V. Ft. Plain, etc. R R. Co., 37 App. Biv. 577: 493, 788. Wieman v. Anderson, 42 Pa. St. 311: 940. Wiener v. Davis, 18 Pa. St. 331: 730, 1019. Wiggin V. Peters, 1 Met. 127: 337. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Mo. App. 347: 868, 879. Wight V. Warner, 1 Doug. (Mich,) 384: 922, 1048. Wightman v. Devere, 33 Wis. 570: 1366. Wilbarger, Ex parte, 41 Tex. Crim. Rep. 514: 137. Wilber v. Paine, 1 Ohio, 117: 644, 1076, 1101. Wilbur V. Crane, 13 Pick. 384: 472, 863. V. Taunton, 133 Mass. 533: 757, Wilbur's Estate, 14 Wash. 343: 514, 847. Wilcox V. Baker, 73 App. Div. 299: 233. V. Hemming, 58 Wis. 144: 583. V. Hosmer, 83 Mich. 1: 1145. V. Jackson, 109 Bl. 261: 880. V. State, 3 Heisk. 110: 463. Wild V. Boston & M. E. R. Co., 171 Mass. 245: 1159, 1163. Wilder v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Co., 70 Mich. 382: 430. V. Lumpkin, 4 Ga. 308: 643, V. Me. Cent. R., 65 Me. 332: 643. V. Railway Co., 70 Mich. 383: 343. Wilderraan v. Baltimore, 8 Md. 551 : 548. Wilder's Sons Co. v. Walker, 98 Ga. 508: 468. Wiles V. Peck, 26 N. Y. 47: 940. Wiley V. Yale, 1 Met. 553: 917. Wilford V. State, 43 Ark. 62: 1130. Wilkes Co. v. Call, 133 N. C. 308: 93, 95. Wilkinson v. Adam, 1 Ves. & B. 466: 939. V. CoUey, 5 Burr, 3698: 1249! V. Ketler, 59 Ala. 306: 432, 517. V. Leland, 2 Pet. 627: 626, 640, 059,712,719,733. TABLE OF CASKS CITED. cclxix The references are to the pages: VoL I, pp. 1-B03; Vol. H, pp. 605-1315. Willard v. Conduit, 10 Tex. 213: 633. V. Fralick, 31 Mioh. 431: 645, 1049, 1050. V. Newburyport, 13 Pick. 327: 1083. V. Sturm, 96 Iowa, 555: 1160, 1191. "Willcox V. Huggins, Fitz. 173: 1278. V. Huggins, 2 Strange, 907: 1378. Willets V. Jeffries, 5 Kan. 470: 681, 1170. Wm. Deering Co. v. Petersen, 75 Minn. 118: 302. William Gray, The Brig, 1 Paine, 16: 978. Williams, Ex parte, 87 Cal. 78: 428. Williams, Ex parte, 121 Cal. 838: 458. "Williams v. Beard, 1 Rich. (N. S.) 309: 852. V. Bidleman, 7 Nev. 68: 402. V. Board of Revenue, 123 Ala. 483: 300. V. Bruffy, 96 TT. S. 176: 37. V. Burgess, 13 A. & E. 635: 327. V. Cammack, 27 Miss. 309: 173. V. Cheney, 3 Gray, 215: 938. ■^. Commissioners, 35 Me. 345: 20. V. Dickenson, 28 Fla. 90: 751. V. Drewe, Willes, 392: 956. V. Eggleston, 170 U. S. 304: 1194. V. Ellis, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 175: 714, 837. V. Evans, L. R. 1 Ex. Div, 377: 794. ■V. Golding, L. R. 1 C. P. 69: 834 T. Hutchinson, etc. Ry. Co., 63 Kan. 412: 1219. ■V. Johnson, 30 Md. 500: 642. V. Keokuk, 44 Iowa, 88: 231. V. Lear, L. R. 7 Q. B. 285: 758. -V. MoDonal, 3 Pin. (Wis.) 881: 666, 7i4, 723, 1100. Williams v. McLendon, 44 S. C. 174: 511, 847. V, Middlesex, 4 Met. 76 1 545, 551. V. Nail, 108 Ky. 21: 1195. V. Nashville, 89 Tenn. 487: 114, 136, 137. V. Newton, 14 M. & W. 757: 893. V. Paine, 169 U. S. 55: 1076, 1381. V. People, 132 111. 574: 464. V. People, 17 111. A pp. 274: 659. V. People, 24 N. Y. 405: 352, 345, 422. V. Peyton, 4 Wheat 77: 1046. V. Potter, 3 Barb. 316: 466, 472. V. Pritchard, 4 T. R. 2: 530, 581, 685. V. Regina, 7 Q. B. 250: 481. V. Sangar, 10 East, 66: 998. V. Smith, 4 H. & N. 559: 641, 1327. V. State, 6 Blaokf. 36: 1000. V. State, 67 Ga. 260: 869, 884. V. State, 48 Ind. 306: 219. V. State, 64 Ind. 553: 872. V. State, 6 Lea, 549: 73, 78, 84 V. Swansea C. Nav. Co., L. R. 3 Ex. 158: 471, 637. V. Taylor, 83 Tex. 667: 67. V. Tripp, 11 R L 447: 1004 V. Wade, 1 Met. 83: 613. V. Weaver, 94 N. C. 134: ISOOl V. Williams, 8 N. Y. 541; 609. V. Williams, 5 Ohio, 444: 1283. V. Wingo, 177 U. S. 601: 1215. Williamson v, Carleton, 51 Me. 449: 177. V, Farrow, 1 Bailey, 611: 329. v. Field, 3 Sandf. Ch. 533: 640. V. Keokuk, 44 Iowa, 88: 343, 353. V. Ketter, 59 Ala. 306: 486. V. Lazarus, 66 Ark. 326: 1281. cclx TABLE OF OASES OITED. The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL n, pp. 806-1815* Williamson v. New Jersey, 130 U. a 189: 1009. V. Suydam, 6 Wall 723: 637. Williamsport v. Commonwealth, 84 Pa. St. 487: 949. Williamstown G. T. S. Dist v. Webb, 89 Ky. 264; 1230. Wm. Wilson & Son's Silversmith Co.'s Estate, 150 Pa. St. 285: 469. Willing V. Bozman, 52 Md. 44: 533. Willingham v. Smith, 48 Ga. 580: 674. Willion V. Berkley, 1 Plowd. 236: 931. Willis V. Eastern Trust & B. Ca, 169 U. S. 295: 784. V. Hodson, 79 Md. 327: 1234. V. Jelineck, 27 Minn. 18: 1219. V. Long Island R. E. Co., 33 Barb. 398: 1020. V. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140:, 231, 234, 834, 841, 885. V. Owen, 48 Tex. 48: 145, 904. V. Railroad Co., 32 Barb. 398: 1002, 1005. V. Railroad Co., 61 Tex. 432: 38. V. Standard Oil Co., 50 Minn. 290: 301. V. State, 33 Tex. Crim. Rep. 168: 767. V. Thorp, L. R. 10 Q. B. 383: 823. Willison V. Watkins, 3 Pet. 43: 1017. Willmarth v. Crawford, 10 Wend. 343: 1037. Wills V. Anch, 8 La. Ann. 19: 1046. V. Jones, 13 App. Cas. (D. 0.) 483: 1394. V. Russell, 100 U. S. 621: 759, 799. Wilmerding, In re, J17 Cal. 381: 436. Wilson, Ex parte, 114 U. S. 439: 42. Wilson T. Arnold, 5 Mich. 98: 64^. 1049, 1061 V. Biscoe, 11 Ark. 44: 659, 709^ 732. V. Booth, 57 Mich. 249: 1267. T. Buckman, 13 Minn. 441: 643: V. Carson, 13 Md. 54: 620, 6221. V. Cedar ville, 109 IlL App. 816;; 909. V. Cookrill, 8 Mo. 1: 869. V. Downing, 4 Pa. Supr. Ct. 487: 303. T. Duncan, 111 Ala. 659: 13a V. Halifax, L. R. 3 Ex. 114:- 716, 804. V. Herbert, 41 N. J. L, 454: 681., V. fierinok, 64 Kan. 607: 191,. 205, 221, 291. V. Hines, 99 Ky. 221: 66w V. Knox Co., 132 Ma 387: 537.. V. Knubley, 7 East, 128: 630^. 653, 74a V. Lewis, 10 R. L 285: 1102. V. Massie, 70 Ark, 25: 517. V. Nightingale, 8 Q. R 1084: 666, 718. V. Ohio, etc. Ry. Co., 64 111. 542: 1174, 1175. T. Palmer, 75 N. Y. 250: llSa. V. Eastall, 4 T. R. 757: 932. V. Sanitary District, 133 IlL. 443: 13, 132, 339, 921. V. Shorick, 31 Iowa, 332: 63a V.Simon, 91 Md. 1: 1257. V. Smith, 5 Yerg. 379: 619, 86&. V. Spaulding, 19 Fed. 304: 650^ 651. V. Standifer, 184 U. S. 399: 1214. V. State Bank, 8 La. Ann. 19&: 1117. v^^Wall, 34 Ala. 388: 1317, 122a. V. Wentworth, 35 N. H. 247r. 967. TABLE OF CASES CITED. cclxi The references are to the pages: Vol. I, pp. 1-603; VoL II, pp. 60&-1815. Wilson V, West Hartlepool Co., 2 De G. J. & S. 475: 1101. V. Wold, 21 Wash. 398: 1203. Wilson's Assignee v. Wilson, 101 Ky. 731: 1259. Wilton V. Chambers, 7 Ad. & El. 533: 887. Wimbish v. Tailbois, 1 Plowd. 38: 1083. Winchester v. Cain, 1 Rob. (La.) 421: 1096. Winchester's Case, 3 Rep. 4: 1094. Windham v. Chetwynd, 1 Burr. 419: 887. Windle V. Hughes, 40 Ora 1: 560. Windom Co. Sav. Bank v. Himes, 55 Conn. 433: 468. Windsor v. China, 4 Greenlf. 298: 338, 339. V. Des Moines, 110 Iowa, 175: 656, 1330, 1337. Wing V. Benham, 76 Iowa, 17: 1268. Winn V. Ficklen, 54 Ga. 529: 943. V. Jones, 6 Leigh, 74: 521, 543. Winneoonue v. Winneconne, 111 Wis. 13: 394, 1337. Winona v. Whipple, 34 Minn. 61: 797. Winona etc. Land Ca v. Minne- sota, 159 U. S. 536: 1004, 1006. Winona, etc. R. R. Ca v. Barney, 113 U. S. 618: 1026. V. Plain view, 143 U. S. 371: 1313, Winooski v. Gokey, 49 Vt. 283: 633. Winslow V. Kimball, 25 Me. 493: 693, 1241, 1251. V. Morton, 118 N. C. 486: 465, 467, 475, 847, lOia Winston v. Stone, 103 Ky. 433: 399. Winter v. Dickerson, 43 Ala. 92: 503. Winter v. Jones, 10 Ga. 190: 702, 936, 937, 938. V. Montgomery, 65 Ala. 403: 926. Winterfleld v. Stauss, 24 Wis. 394: 756, 759. Winters v. Duluth, 83 Minn. 137: 185, 191, 317, 374, 834, 841. V, George, 31 Ore. 351: 466, 467, 574. Wirt V. Supervisors, 90 Hun, 205: 545, 557. Wisconsin Cent. R. R. Co. v. For- syth, 159 U. S. 46: 694. V. Taylor Co., 52 Wis. 37: 881. V. United States, 164 U. S. 190: 891, 893, 1031. Wisconsin lud. School v. Clark Co., 103 Wis. 651: 533, 769, 779, 880. Wisconsin & Mich. Ry Co. v. Pow- ers, 191 U. S. 379: 1314. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. Osh- kosh, 62 Wis. 33: 879, 1009, 103a Wise v. Bigger, 79 Va. 369: 73, 78, 83, 84, 87. V. Morgan, 101 Tenn. 273: 741, 914. v.State,34Ga.348: 1131. Wishmier v. State, 97 Ind. 160: 331, 28L Wiskel V. Com'rs, 130 N. C. 451: 553. Wistar v. Foster, 46 Minn. 484: 1334, 1231. Wiswall V. Hall, 3 Paige, 313: 1036. Witherspoon v. Dunlap, 1 McCord, 546: 943. Witkouski v. Witkouski, 16 La. Ann. 232: 563. Witter v. Board of Supervisors, 113 Iowa, 380: 950, 1039, 1337. Wohlscheid v. Bergrath, 46 Mich. 46: 313. cclxii TABLE OF CASES CITED. The referanees are to the pages; Vol. 1, 1-604; Vol. II, pp. 605-1315 Wolcott V. Des Moines Co., 5 WaU. 681: 1036. V. Pond, 19 Conn. 597: 644, 1344. V. Wigton, 7 Ind. 44: 123. Wolf V. Brown, 143 Mo. 613: 1123. V. Lowry, 10 La. Ann. 273: 899. V. Taylor, 98 Ala. 254: 203. Wolfe, Matter of, 66 Hun, 389: 1159, 1166. Wolfe V. Henderson, 28 Ark. 804: 648, 561. V. MoCauU, 76 Va. 876: 106. Wolff V. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 858: 1198, 1199. V. Oxholm, 6 M. & S. 99: 25. Wolfkell V. Mason, 16 Abb. Pr.331: 1200. Wolsey V. Chapman, 101 U. S. 755: 1026. Womack v. Womack, 17 Tex. 1: 1237. Womelsdorf v. Heifner, 104 Pa. St. 1: 1055, 1354. Womelsdorf Abbey, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 207: 788. Wood, Ex parte, 84 Kan. 645: 351, 356. Wood, In re, L. R. 7 Ch. 306: 777. Wood, In re, 83 Mich. 75: 978. Wood V. Bank, 9 Cow. 194: 639. V. Chapin, 13 N. Y. 509: 1131. V. Commonwealth, 11 Bush, 330: 329. V. Election Com'rs, 58 Cal. 561: 527. V. Kennedy, 19 Ind. 68: 555, 1198. V. Mayor, etc., 34 How. Pr. 501: 1317; V. Michigan Air Line R. R. Co., 81 Mich. 358: 803, V. Oakley, 11 Paige, 400: 1162. V. Rawcliffe, 6 Hare, 191: 649. Wood V. State, 47 Ark. 488, 1 S. W. 709: 517. V. Vernon, 8 Houst. 48: 1158, 1165, 1295. V. United States, 16 Pet. 842: 463, 466, 511, 993. Woodard v. Brien, 14 Lea, 530: 343, 357. Woodburn v. Western Union Tel. Co., 95 Ga. 808: 554 Woodbury v. Berry, 18 Ohio St. 456:701, 799,928." Woodham v. Anderson, 33 Wash. 500: 1327. Wooding V. Puget Sound National Bank, 11 Wash. 537: 551, 1361. Woodman v. Fulton, 47 Miss. 683: 1211. Wood Mowing, etc. Co. v. Cald- well, 5i Ind. 276: 882, 933. Woodrow V. O'Connor, 28 Vt. 776: 612. Woodruff V. Kellyville Coal Co., 182 111. 480: 305. V. State, 3 Ark. 385: 662, 1075, 1077. Woods V. Buie, 5 How. (Miss.) 285: 18. V. Jackson Co., 1 Holmes, 379: 463. V. Soucy, 166 111. 407: 1225. V. State, 36 Ark. 36: 974. V. Supervisors, 136 N. Y. 403: 407. V. Wicks, 7 Lea, 40: 35. Wood's Case, 1 Co. 40a: 683. Woodson V. State, 69 Ark. 531: 41 a Woodstock V. Hooker, 6 Conn. 35: 620. Woodward v. Chicago, etc. R R. Co., 31 Wis. 309: 880. V. Donally, 37 Ala. 196: 23. V. Foxe, 3 Lev. 289: 1105. V. London, etc. Ry. Co., 3 Ex D. 131: 809. TABLE OF OASES CITED. CClxiii The referances are to the pages; Nol. I, pp. 1-604! Vol. n, pp. 505-131B. Woodward v. Railway Co., 23 Wis. 400: 1391. V. Winehill,'l4 Wash. 394: 1170, 1214. Woodworth v. Paine's Adm'r, Breese, 374: 832. V. SpafEord, 2 McLean, 168: 41, 613. V. State, 26 Ohio St. 196: 666, 832. Woolard v. Nashville, 108 Tenn. 353: 1041. Wooley V. Watkins, 2 Idaho, 590: 1179. Woolf V. Taylor, 98 Ala. 254: 267. Woolheather v. Risley, 38 Iowa, 486: 1206. 1273. Woolsey v. Cade, 54 Ala. 378: 758, 781. Wooten V. Commonwealth, 98 Ky. 468: 560. Worcester Bank v. Cheney, 94 111. 430: 871. Worcester, etc. R. R. Co. v. Rail- road Com'rs, 118 Mass. 561: 1044. Workingmen's Bank v. Converse, 33 La. Ann. 963: 868. Workingmen's Building Ass'n v. Coleman, 89 Pa. St. 428: 1140. Wormley v. Hamburg, 40 Iowa, 25: 1184. Worraser v. Brown, 149 N. Y. 163: 661, 955. Worthen v. Badgett, 32 Ark. 496: 85, 608. V. Ratoliffe, 42 Ark. 330: 548- Worthen County Clerk v. Badgett, 33 Ark. 496: 71. Worthley v. Steen, 43 N. J. L. 542: 368. Worth Street, 18 Pa. Co. Ct. 49: 1117, 1133. Wortman v. Kleinschnidt, 13 Mont. 316: 420. Wren, Ex parte, 63 Miss. 512: 58. Wright, In re, L. R. 3 Ch. Div. 78: 777, Wright, In re, 3 Wyo. 478: 1184. Wright V. Bolles Woodenware Co., 50 Wis. 167: 971. V. Bolton, 8 Ala. 548: 1347. V. Delalield, 23 Barb. 498: 611. V. Defrees, 8 Ind. 298: 925, 92& V. Forrestal, 65 Wis. 341: 335, 684. V. Frant, 4 B.& 8.118:799. V. Hale, 6 H. & N. 227: 642, 1335, 1226. V. Haumer, 5 Md. 375: 1249. V. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452: 625, 872. V. Nagle, 101 U. S. 791: 1033, 1034. V. Oakley, 5 Met. 400: 445, 531. V. Phillips, 3 Greene (Iowa), 191; 873. V. Southern Ry. Co., 80 Fed. 260; 1160, 1167. V. Sperry, 21 Wis. 331: 1117. V. Williams, 1 M. & W. 99: 73a Wrightman v. Boone Co., 82 Fed. 412: 1285, 1287. Wrought Iron Bridge Co. v. Attica, 49 Hun, 513: 303. V. Attica, 119 N. Y. 304: 191, 205, 1337. Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Carver, 118 N. C. 338: 96, 130. Wroughton v. Turtle, 11 M. & W. 561: 998. Wulftange v. McCollom, 83 Ky. 361: 252. Wulzen V. Supervisors, 101 Cal. 15; 6, 10, 19. Wunderle v. Wunderle, 144 IlL 40; 31, 428. Wyandotte v. Drennan, 46 Mich. 478: 1194 cclxiv TABLE OF OASES OITED. The referances are to the pages; Vol. I. pp. 1-504; VoL IL pp. 505-1316. Wyandotte Co. Com'rs [v. Abbott, 53 Kan. 148: 15& V. Kansas City, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Kan. App. 43: 178. Wyman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 : 5. Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 873: 588, 589, 1019. Wynkoop v. Coooh, 89 Pa. St. 450: 582. Wynne, In re. Chase's Dec. 237: 321. Wynne v. Middleton, 1 Wils. 125: 646, 1246. V. Wynne, 2 Swan, 405: 1320. Wynn- Johnson, In re, 1 Alaska, 630: 135. Wyoming Nat. Bank v. Brown, 7 Wyo. 494: 1211. Wyoming St., 137 Pa. St. 494: 384^ 388, 390. Wyth V. Blaokman, 1 Ves. Sr. 197: 761. Wythe V. Thurston, 2 Ambler, 555: 761, - Y. Yahn v. Merritt, 117 Ala. 485: 393. Yale V. Dederer, 18 N. Y. 271: 940. Yarborough v. Collins, 91 Tex. 306: 777. Yarnell v. Los Angeles, 87 CaL 603: 180. Yarwood v. Happy, 18 Wash. 346: 464. Yates V. Lansing, 9 John. 895: 947. V. Milwaukee, 93 Wis. 353: 1004. V. Omaha, 58 Neb. 817: 1154 Yates' Case, 4 Jdhn. 818: 778. Yatter v. Smilie, 72 Vt. 349: 933. Yazoo R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 132 U. S. 174: 654, 1004. Yeager v. Weaver, 31 How. Pr. 337: 203. V. Weaver, 64 Pa St. 435: 184, 186, 301, 311, 650. Yeatman v. King, 3 N. D. 421: 1190, 1208. Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cr. 281: 546, 549, 553, 553, 554, 1178. Yell V. Lane, 41 Ark. 53: 873, Yellow River Imp. Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 214: 222, 233, 233, 635, 633. Yerby v. Cochrane, 101 Ala. 541 305, 577, 581, 603. V. Lackland, 6 Har. & J. 446 1048, 1049. Yerger, Ex parte, 8 Wall. 85: 933. Yerke v. United States, 173 U. S. 439: 703. Yolo Co. V, Colgan, 133 Cal. 365 60. York V. Carlisle, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 269: 773. V. Conde, 147 N. Y. 486: 39. York Co. V. Crafton, 100 Pa. St. 619: 654 York, etc. Ry. Co. v. Queen, 1 E. & B. 858: 697. York Hospital & Dispensary Ass'n V. York Co., 13 Pa. Dist. Ct. 539: 409. York's Appeal, 110 Pa. St. 69: 900. York's Appeal, 17 W. N. C. 33: 900. York School Dist's Appeal, 169 Pa. St. 70: 403. Young V. Bank of Alexandria, 4 Cranch. 384: 625. V. Beardsley, 11 Paige, 93: 635, 683. T. Commissioners, 187 Ind. 323 : 339. V. Commonwealth, 101 Va. 853: 134 V. Falmouth, 183 Mass. 80: 1357. V. Grattridge, L. R. 4 Q. B. 166: 840. V. Higgon, 6 M. & W, 19: 337, 239, 330. TABLE OF OASES OITED. CClXT The references are to the sections: Vol. I, §§ 1-308; Vol. H, §§ 809-722. "Young V. Hughes, 4 H. & N. 76 : 641. V. Martin, 3 Yeates, 313: 1046. V. McKenzie, 3 Ga. 40: 863, 1013. V. Salt Lake City, 34 Utah, 331 : 155, 785. ~Yoangblood v. Sexton, 33 Mich, 406: 483. Youngs V. Ransom, 31 Barb. 49: 868. V. Youngs, 130 111. 330: 749,765. Yturburen's Estate, 134 CaL 567: 43a 'Yunger y. State, 78 Md. 574: 497. Yung Jon, Ex parte, 88 Fed. 308: 319. z. Zable V. Louisville Baptist Or- phans' Home, 93 Ky. 89: 634 Zander v. Coe, 5 Cal. 330: 1053. Za^ner v. State, 90 Ala. 651: 463. -Zaaesville v. Zanesville Tel. & Tel. Ca, 63 Ohio St. 443: 7. Zanesville v. Zanesville Tel. & Tel. Co., 64 Ohio St, 67: 8. Zeigler v. Gaddis, 44 N. J. L. 863: 377, 438. V. South, eta R R. Co., 58 Ala. 594: 937. Zellers v. White, 208 IlL 518: 981. Zenith R & L. Ass'n v, Heimbach, 77 Minn. 97: 416. Zickler v. Union Bank & T. Co., 104 Tenn. 877: 466, 534, 563. Zimmerman v. Helser, 33 Md. 374: 618. V, Perkiomen, eta Ca, 81* Pa. St. 96: 563. Zouch V. Empsey, 4 Barn. & Aid. 533: 330. Zumstein v. Mullen, 67 Ohio St. 383: 36a Zurn V. Noedel, 113 Pa. St. 336: 941. Zwerneman v. Van Eosenbarg, 76 Tex. 538: 579, 583. STATUTES. CHAPTER I. THE LEGISLATIVK POWER AS DISTINGUISHED FROM OTHER SOVEREIGN . POWERS, AND THE GENERAL NATURE OF STATUTORY. LAW. § 1, T.h ft: order of subjects. — ^^The elementary nature of statutory-law;' the- source and. extent of its authority; the process of enactment; its commencement and duration, and the mode. of proving it, when necessary, are subjects which naturally precede any. consideration of the legal principles by which courts determine its meaning, construction and effect. Therefore, this order and sequence of topics will be pursued. § 2. The three departments of government and their respective functions. — In our republican system a written constitution is the great charter by which the sovereign peo- ple establish and maintain government, define, distribute and limit its powers. It is, the organic and paramount law.. In the federal constitution, and in the state constitutions,, the three fundamental powers — the legislative, executive- and judicial — have been separated and organized in three distinct departments. This separation is deemed to be of the greatest importance ; absolutely essential to the existence of a just and free government.' This is not, however, such 1 About the middle of the last cen- same body of magistrates, there can tury Baron Montesquieu uttered be no liberty, because apprehen- words of wisdom to patriots and sions may arise, lestjthe same mon- statesmen. He said: "When the arch or senate should. enact tyran-' legislativeandexecutivepowersare nical laws, to execute them in a united in the same person, or the tyrannical manner. Again there 1 GBNEEAL NATURE OF STAT0TOET LAW. a separation as to make these departments wholly independ- ent; but only so that one department shall not exercise the power nor perform the functions of another. They are mu- tually dependent, and could not subsist without the aid and is no liberty of the judiciary power if it be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary con- trol; for the judge would be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppres- sion. There would be an end of everything were the same man, or the same body, whether of nobles or of the people, to exercise these three powers — that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals." Spirit of Laws, B. 11, oh. VL Dr. Paley remarks in his Moral Philosophy, B. 6, ch. 8: "The first maxim of a free state is that the laws be made by one set of men, and administered by another; in other words, that the legislative and judicial characters be kept separate. When these offices are united in the same person or as- sembly, particular laws are made for particular cases,springingof ten- times from partial motives, and directed to private ends. Whilst they are kept separate general laws are made by one body of men, without foreseeing whom they may aSect; and when made, they must be applied by the other, let them affect whom they will." Blackstone, in his Commentaries (voL 1, K6), says: " In all tyrannical governments the supreme magis- tracy, or the right both of making and of enforcing laws, is vested in the same man, or one of the same body of men; and whenever these two powers are united together, there can be no public liberty. The magistrate may enact tyrannical laws and execute them in a tyran- nical manner, since he is possessed, in quality of dispenser of justice, with all the power which he as legislator thinks proper to give himself. But when the legislative and executive authority are in dis- tinct hands, the former will take care not to intrust the latter with so large a power as may tend to the subversion of its own independ- ence, and therewith of the liberty of the subject." He also says in another part of his Commentaries (vol. 1, 269): "In this distinct and separate existence of tlie judicial power in a peculiar body of men, nominated indeed, but not removable at pleasure by the crown, consists one main preservative of the public liberty, which cannot subsist long in any state unless the administration of common justice be in some degree separated both from the legislative and also from the executive power. Were it joined with the legislative, the life, liberty, and property of the subject would be in the hands of arbitrary judges, whose decis- ions would be then regulated only by their own opinions, and not by GENERAL NATUEB OF STATUTOKT LAW, 3 co-operatioQ of each other. Under the constitutions the leg- islature is empowered to "make laws; it has that power ex- clusively; the executive has the power to carry them by all executive acts into efiPect, and the judiciary has the exclu- sive power to expound them as the law of the land between suitors in the administration of justice. The legislature can do no executive acts, but it can legislate to regulate the ex- ecutive office, prescribe laws to the executive which that department, and every grade of its officers, must obey. The legislature cannot decide cases, but it can pass laws which will furnish the basis of decision, and the courts are bound to obey them.^ The functions of each branch are as distinct as the stomach and lungs in our bodies. They are intended to co-operate; not to be antagonistic; they are functions in the same system; when each functionary does its appropri- ate work no interference or conflict is possible.' §3. A distinguished writer and jurist says: ""When we speak of a separation of the three great departments of the government, and maintain that that separation is indispen- sable to public liberty, we are to understand this maxim in a limited sense. It is not meant to affirm that they must be kept wholly and entirely separate and distinct, and have no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree. The true meaning is, that the whole power of one of these departments should not be exer- cised by the same hands which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles cf a free constitu- tion. This has been shown with great clearness and accu- any fundamental principles of law; speaking of the legislative and ju- which, though legislators may de- dicial powers, said: "It is a well- part from, yet judges are bound to settled axiom that the union of observe. Were it joined with the these two powers is tyranny." Fed- executive, this union might soon eralist, No. 47. be an overbalance for the legis- * Smith v. Judge, 17 Cal. 557. lative." 'Reiser v. The Wm. Tell S. F. In Dash v. Van Kleenk, 7 John. Asso., 39 Pa. St. 147. 508, 5 Am. Deo. 291, Kent, C. J., * GENERAL NATURE OP STATUTORY LAW. racy by the author of the Federalist.* It was obviously the view taken of the subject by Montesquieu and Blaekstone in their commentaries; for they were each speaking, with ap- probation of a constitution of government which embraced this division of powers in a general .view;; but which at the same time established an occasional mixture of each with the others, and a mutual dependency of each- upon the others. The slightest examination of the British constitution will at once convince us that the legislative, executive and judiciary departments are by no means totally distinct and separate from each other. The executive magistrate forms an integral partof the legislative department; for parliament consists of king, lords and commons; and nolaw can be passed exceptby the consent of the king. Indeed, hepossesses certain prerog- ativesj such as, for instance, that of making foreign treaties, by which he can to a limited extent impart to them a legisla- tive force and operation. He also possesses the sole appoint- ing power to the judicial department, though the judges, when once appointed, are not subject to his will or power of removal. The house of lords also constitutes not only a vital and independent branch of the legislature, but is also a great constitutional council of the executive magistrate, and is in the-last resort the highest appellate judicial tribunal. Againr the other branch of the legislature, the commons, possess in some sort a portion of the executive and judicial power^ in exercising- the power of accusation by impeachment; and in this case, as also in the trial of peers, the house of lords sits- as a grand court of trial for public offenses. The powers of the judiciary department are indeed more narrowly confined to their own proper sphere. Yet still the judges occasion- ally assist in the deliberations of the house of lords by giv- ing their opinion upon matters of law referred to them for advice; and thus they may, in some sort, be deemed assess- ors to the lords in their legislative as well as judicial capac- ity.'" As co-ordinate branches of one government they are politically connected and bound together; but their powers * Federalist, No. 43. » Story on Const, § 535. GENEEAL NATOEE OF STATCTOET JLAW. • and functions are not blended ; they occupy no common ground, nor do they exercise any concurrent jurisdictfon. -■ To some extent, and for certain purposes, the powers ap- propriate in their nature to one department are' exercised by each of the others; sometimes by express direction of the supreme law;* but otherwise only when it is done in- cidentally or as a means of exercising its own proper power J § 4. Usually the constitution not only creates the three departments, but provides that those composing one depart- ment shall not exercise any of the powers properly belong- ing to either of the others. But it has been held that this prohibition is implied by the division into departments, so that the effect is the same whether the prohibition is ex- pressed or not.' Any statute which attempts to confer powers, or impose duties, upon one department which prop- erly belong to the others, violates the constitution and is- estate v. Clapp, 50 Minn. 239, 53 N. W. 655. 'Taylor v. Place, 4 R. I. 324; Wat- kins V. Holman, 16 Pet. 60, 61, 10 L. Ed. 873; Wyman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 6 L. Ed. 253; The Aud- itor V. Atchison, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Kan. 500, 7 Am. R. 575; Flint, etc. P. R. Co. V. WoodhuU, 35 Mich. 99, 13 Am. Rep. 233. The distribution of the powers of government into the'legislative, executive and judi- cial departments, and the appro- priate spiiere of each, are elabo- rately' discussed in the following cases: Fox v. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51, 13 So. 416, 46 Am. St. Rep. 98, 21 L. R. A. 529; Greenwood Cem. Land Co. v. Routt,- 17 Colo. 156, 38 Pac. 1135, 31 Am. St. Rep. 284, 15 L. R. A. 369; People v. Thompson, 155- 111. 451, 40 'N. E. 307; People v. Chase, 165 111. 527, 46 N. E. 454; State V. Hyde, 131 Ihd. 30, 32 N. E. €14pState v.-PeeUe, 131 Ind. 495, 23 N. E.'654; State v. Gorby, 123 Ind. 17, 23.N.'E. 678; State v. Barker, 116 Iowa,' 96, 89 N. W. 204; State V. Johnson, 61 Kan. 803, 60 Pac. 1068;-- State v. Higgins, 125 Mo. 364, 28- S. W. 638; Albright v. Fisher, 164 Mo. 56, 64 S. W. 106; Carter v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 791, 813, 33 S. E. 780, 45 L. R. A. 310. "The powersof these departments are not merely equal, they are exclusive, in respect to the duties assigned to each, and they are absolutely inde- pendent of each other. The en- croachment of one of .these depart- ments upon the other is watched with jealous care, and is generally promptly resisted, for the observ- ance of this division is essential to the maintenance of a republican form of government." Langenberg V. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 478, 31 N. E. 190, 16 L. R. A. 108. estate V. Johnson, 61 Kan. 803, 60 Pac. 1068. GENERAL NATUEE OF STATUTOKT LAW. void.' But no exact and complete delimitation of the sev- eral departments has yet been worked out, and the courts- differ as to the proper assignment of various governmental functions. Some courts hold that the power of appointing political oiBcers may be devolved upon any one of the de- partments including the judiciary.'" Other courts hold that acts conferring this power upon courts or judges are void." It has been questioned whether the power of appointment to office is not exclusively executive in its nature,'^ but it 'Wulzen V. Board of Supervis- ors, 101 Cal. 15, 35 Pao. 353, 40 Am. St. Rep. 17; People v. Chase, 165 111. 527, 46 N. E. 454; People v. Mallary, 195 111. 582, 63 N. E. 508, 88 Am. St. Rep. 212; State v. Carr, 129 Ind. 44, 28 N. E. 88, 28 Am. St. Rep. 163, 13 L. R. A. 177; Langen- berg V. Decker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N. E. 190, 16 L. R. A. 108; State v. Barter, 116 la. 96, 89 N. W. 204; In re Sims, 54 Kan. 1, 37 Pao. 135, 45 Am. St. Rep. 261,25 L. R. A. 110; In re Huron, 58 Kan. 152, 48 Pac. 574, 36 L. R. A. 822; In re Davis, 58 Kan. 368, 49 Pac. 160; State v. Johnson, 61 Kan. 803, 60 Pao. 1068; Felix V. Wallace Co. Com'rs, 62 Kan. 832, 62 Pac. 667, 84 Am. St. Rep. 424; Missouri, Kan. & Tex, Ry. Co. V. Simonson, 64 Kan. 802, 68 Pac. 653, 91 Am. St. Rep. 248; In re Durnford, 7 Kan. App. 89, 53 Pao. 92; Roberts v. Hackney, 109 Ky. 265, 58 S. W. 810; Robey v. Prince George's Co., 92 Md. 150, 48 Atl. 48 ; Beasley v. Ridout. 94 Md. 641, 52 Atl. 61; State v. Washburn, 167 Mo. 680, 67 S. W. 592, 90 Am. St. Rep. 430 ; In re Ridgefleld Park, 54 N. J. L. 388, 23 Atl. 674; Moreau v. Freehold- ers of Monmouth, 68 N. J. L. 480, 53 Atl. 208; Schwarz v. Dover, 68 N. J. L. 576, 53 Atl. 214; People V. Waters, 4 Misc. 1, 23 N. Y. S. 691; State v. Commissioners, 54 Ohio St. 333, 43 N. E. 587; State v. Guilbert, 56 Ohio St. 575, 47 N. E. 551, 60 Am. St. Rep. 756; Commonwealth v. Warwick, 172 Pa. St. 140, 33 Atl. 373; Carter V. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 791, 32 S. E. 780, 45 L. R. A. 310; Arkle v. Board of Com'rs, 41 W. Va. 471, 23 S. E. 804; In re Incorporation of North Milwaukee, 93 Wis. 616, 67 N. W. 1033, 33 L. R A. 638; United States v. Queen, 105 Fed. 269. lo Pox V. McDonald, 101 Ala. 51, 13 So. 416, 46 Am. St. Rep. 98, 21 U R. a; 529; Roberts v. Cain, 97 Ky. 722, 31 S. W. 729; State v. George, 22 Ore. 142, 29 Pac. 356, 29 Am. St. Rep. 586, 16 L. R. A. 737. "State v. Barker, 116 la. 96, 89 N. W. 204; Beasley v. Ridout, 94 Md. 641, 52 Atl. 61; Schwarz v. Dover, 68 N. J. L. 576, 53 Atl. 214. In the last case it is held to make no differ- ence whether the court is one pro- vided for by the constitution or created by the legislature. But in the case first cited it is stated, though not held, that "courts which are not provided for by the constitution may be authorized to discharge functions that are ex- ecutive or legislative in character." 12 State V. Hyde, 131 Ind. 30, 33 GENEEAL NATUBE OF STATUTOET LAW. 7 is generally held that it may be exercised by the legislative department.^' Various functions may be devolved upon courts or judges in the matter of the incorporation of cities, towns and villages, the removal of county seats and the like," but the ultimate question of the expediency of such removal or incorporation, or the determination of the terri- tory to be included within a municipality, is legislative in character and cannot be devolved upon the judiciary.'* A statute of Ohio in regard to the use of streets by telegraph and telephone companies provided that, if the company and municipality could not agree upon the mode of construc- tion, the former might apply to the probate court, which should direct in what mode the line should be constructed, so as not to incommode the public in the use of the street. The act provided for a petition, notice, hearing and order or decree, in the usual manner of judicial proceedings. At first the act was held void as an attempt to confer legisla- tive power on the judicial department, but on rehearing the act was sustained.'* An act requiring the judges of certain N. E. 644; State v. Peelle, 131 Ind. Amerious v. Perry, 114 Ga. 871, 40 495, 23 N. E. 654; State v. Gorby, S. E. 1004; Sinking Fund Com'rs 123 Ind. 17, 23 N. E. 678. In State v. George, 104 Ky. 260, 47 S. W. 779, V. Washburn, 167 Mo. 680. 67 S. W. 84 Am. St. Rep, 454; Eddy v. Kin- 593, 90 Am. St. Eep. 430, a law re- oaid, 38 Ore. 537, 41 Pac. 156, 655; quiring the governor to appoint State v, George, 33 Ore. 152, 39 one of three election commission- Pac. 356, 39 Am. St. Rep. 586, 16 L. ers for a city from three persons to R. A. 737; State v. Compson, 34 be named by a party central com- Ore. 35, 54 Pac. 349; Reed v. Dun- mittee was held void as an attempt bar, 41 Ore. 509, 69 Pac. 451. by the legislature to exercise the i* State v. Ueland, 30 Minn. 89, appointing power. The court, sit- 14 N. W. 58; Todd v. Rustad, 43 ting in banc, says: "The act of fill- Minn. 500, 46 N. W. 73; In re Town ing a public office by appointment of Union Mines, 39 W. Va. 179, 19 is essentially an administrative or S. E. 398. executive act, and, under the con- '5 In re Ridgefield Park, 54 N. J. stitution, can be exercised only by L. 388, 23 Atl. 674; In re Incorpo- an officer charged with the duty ration of North Milwaukee, 93 Wis. of executing the laws." p. 696. 616, 67 N. W. 1033, 38 L. R. A. 638. J3 People V. Freeman, 80 Cal. 333, "Zanesville v. Zanesville Tel. & 23 Pac. 173, 13 Am. St. Rep. 123; Tel. Co., 63 Ohio St. 443, 59 N. E. 8 GENEEAE NATURE OF STATUTOEY LAW. courts to divide a city into districts for the election of jus- tices of the peace was held valid." So of an act requiring the county judge to fix the number of deputies to be em- ployed by certain officers.^'' A' law requiring the plans for a court-house and jail to be approved • by the judge of the circuit court was held valid,i^ but'alaw authorizing a judge of the supreme court to designate the location and detfer-' mine the plans and specifications for a court-house was held void, as an attempt to confer legislative power.^" An act making the judge of a city court ex officio commissioner of roads and revenues for the county was held valid.^^ An act requiring railroad' companies to erect and operate gates at crossings, when* ordered to do so by the supreme court on the application of the local authorities and after notice to the company, was held not to confer legislative power upon the court.^ An' act of Maryland providing that on 109; on rehearing, 6'4' Ohio St. 67, 59 N. E. 781, 87 Am. St. Rep. 547, 53 L. E. A. 150; On rehearing the court says: "The institution and prosecution of a legal proceeding in court plainly comprehends the filing of a proper complaint, pro- cess for bringing the necessary- parties into court, and judicial in- quiry according to the usual rules and practice of courts. And this fact, alone, of conferring on a ju- dicial tribunal in the first instance the power to act in a given matter is of controlling importance in giv- ing judicial character to the nat- ure of the povrer; though that is • not necessarily a conclusive test, for, if it were, the existence of a statute would establish its validity; but it is decisive in that respect, unless it is reasonably certain that the power belongs exclusively to the legislative or executive depart- ment. . . . The principle obvi- ously is, that where any power is conferred upon a court of justice, to be exercised by it as a court, in the manner and with the formali- ties used in its ordinary proceed- ings, the action of said court is to ■ be regarded as judicial, irrespect- ive of the original nature of the power. The legislature, by confer- ring any particular power upon a court, virtually declares that it considers it a power which may be - mostappropriately exercised under the modes and forms of judicial' proceedings." pp. 8?, 84 i' State V. Higgins, 125 Ma 364, 28 S. W. 638. • 18 Clark V. Finley, 93 Tex. 171, 54 S. W. 343. 19 Board of Com'rs v. Brown, 147 Ind. 476, 46 N. E. 908. -" Morsau v. Freeholders of Mon- mouth, 68 N. J. L. 480. 21 Phinizy v. Eve, 108 Ga. 360, 38 S. E. 1007. 22 People V. Long Island R. R. Co., 134 N. Y; 506, 81 N. E. 873. The court GENEEAL NATURE OF STATUTOEY LAW. i) the petition to the circuit court of a certain proportion of the registered and qualified voters of a specified county, or of any election district, city or town thereof, asking that th'e question of granting or not granting licenses for the sale of liquors be submitted at the next general election to be held in the county, the court shall issue an order for an election on that question to the sheriff of the county, who shall give notice of the election, etc., was held void, as im- posing duties on the court not of a judicial nature.^ An' act of the same state making the court crier, an officer ap- pointed by the court, custodian of the court-house and re- sponsible for its care, was held void as indirectly imposing • upon the court the appointment of such custodian.^* Fur- ther illustrations are noted in the margin.^^ The legislature may not itself exercise judicial power,-' or invade or en- says: "No legislative power was given to the court. But the statute made the erection and operation of gates by railroad companies at places coming within those men- tioned, dependent upon the neces- sity of them for the safety of travel upon the streets, to be ascertained and determined in the manner pro- vided; and where the order is so made by the court, the statute is effective to enforce the duty of compliance with it. This is a con- dition not upon which the taking effect of the act is dependent, but upon which its application becomes effectual for the purpose and at the places within its contemplation. ... pp. 507, 508. " The act in question has the im- port of a perfect statute. And the fact that its operation in the appli- cation of it to the cases which might arise is dependent upon prescribed contingencies, furnishes no con- stitutional objection to it" p. 508. 23 Board of Supervisors v. Todd, 97 Md. 847. 2* Prince George's County v. Mitchell, 97 Md. 330. 25 Aicts held invalid as attempts to impose -upon courts or judges non-judicial functions: Eobey v. Prince George's County, 92 Md. 150, 48 AtL 48; People v. Waters, 4 Misc. 1, 23 N. Y. S; 691; United States v. Queen, 105 Fed-. 369. '-Acts held valid, though conferring powers ^outside of the ordinary judicial functions: Stevens v. Truman, 127 ' Cal. 155, 59 Pao. 897; McCrea v. Roberts, 89 Md. 338, 43 Atl. 39, 44 L. R. A. 485; Citizens' Savings Bank V. Green, 173 N. Y. 315, 65 N. E. 978; Campbellsville Lumber Co. v. Hub- bert, 113 Fed. 718, 50 C. C. A. 435; Dinsmore V. State, 61 Neb. 418, 85 N. W. 445. ' And see Moynihan's Ap- peal, 75 Conn. 358, 53 AtL 1123. 26 Felix V. Wallace Co. Com'rs, 62 Kan. 833, 63 Pac. 667, 84 Am. St. Rep. 434; Commonwealth v. War- 10 GENEEAL NATOKE OF STATUTOET LAW. croach upon the sphere of the judicial departments^ The- power to punish for contempt is judicial and cannot be conferred upon administrative officers ^^ or a legislative committee.^' This power is held to be inherent in courts- and one of which they cannot be deprived by the legisla- ture.'" The power to hear charges against public officers,, and remove them for cause, may be exercised by legislative or executive officers." So administrative and executive offi- cers- and boards may be authorized to inquire into and de- termine facts, conditions and qualifications, for the purpose of applying and carrying into effect acts passed by the legislature.''' But sometimes acts of this nature go too far wick, 173 Pa. St. 140, 30 Atl. 373; State V. Carr, 139 Ind. ii, 28 N. E. 88, 38 Am. St. Rep. 163, 13 L. E. A. 177. 27 Wulzen V. Board of Supervis- ors, 101 Cal. 15, 35 Pao. 353, 40 Am. St. Rep. 17; Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. V. Simonson, 64 Kan. 803, 68 Pac. 653, 91 Am,' St. Rep. 348. Com- pare the following in which the acts in question were held valid: People V. Hayne, 83 Cal. Ill, 83 Pac. 1, 17 Am. St. Rep. 217; Town- send V. State, 147 Ind. 624, 47 N. E. 19, 63 Am. St. Rep. 477, 37 L. R A. 394; People v. Cannon, 139 N. Y. 33,34.N:E. 759, 36 Am. St. Rep. 668; MoElWfee V. McElwee, 97 Tenn. 649, 37 S. W. 560. In Slaughter v. Louis- ville, 89 Ky. 113, 8 S. W. 917, the assessment of property was held to be a ministerial act, which the legislature could not perform di- rectly. ' •' 28 Langenberg v. Dicker, 131 Ind. 471, 31 N. E. -190, 16 L. R. A. 108; In re Sims. 54 Kan. 1, 37 Pac. 135, 45 Am. St. Rep. 361, 35 L. R. A. 110; In re Huron, 58 Kan. 153, 48 Pac. 574, 36 L. R. A. 833; Roberts v. Hackney, 109 Ky. 365, 58 S. W. 810;. People V. Leubisoher, 34 App. Div. 577, 54 N. Y. S. 869. 29 In re Davis, 58 Kan. 368, 49 Pao. 160. S" Carter v. Commonwealth, 96- Va. 791, 33 S. E. 780, 45 L. E. A. 310; State V. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205. 81 Croly V. Sacramento, 119 Cal. 229, 51 Pac. 333; Lynch v. Chase, 55- Kan. 367, 40 Pac. 666; Gibbs v. Board of Aldermen, 99 Ky. 490, 36- S. W. 534; State v. Smith, 35 Neb. 13, 53 N. W. 700; State v. Hay, 45 Neb. 321, 63 N. W. 821; State v.. Common Council, 90 Wis. 613, 64 N. W. 304. The contrary is held in Arkle v. Board of Com'rs, 41 W. Va. 471, 33 S. E. 804, as to the removal; of justices of the peace on charges. 32'Bowen v. Clifton, 105 Ga. 459, 31 S. E. 147; People v. Kipley, 171 111. 44, 49 N. E. 229; State v. Page, 60 Kan. 664, 57 Pac. 514; Tyler v.. Court of Registration, 175 Mass. 71, 55 N. E. 813; Northrup v. Maneka,. 126 Mich. 550, 85 N. W. 1128; State- V. Hatchaway, 115 Mo. 36, 21 S. W. 1081: France v. State, 57 Ohio St. 1,. 47 N. E. 1041; People v. Hasbrouck^ GENEEAL NATURE OF STATDTOET LAW. 11 and attempt to confer judicial power in violation of the 11 Utah, 391, 39 Pac. 918; E. A. Chatfield Co. v. New Haven, 110 Fed. 788; Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Cornell, 110 Fed. 816; Meflfert v. Medical Board, 66 Kan. 710, 72 Pac. 347. In France v. State, 57 Ohio St. 1, 47 N. E. 1041, the court, in speaking of the powers and duties conferred upon the state board of medical registration and exami- nation, says: "It would be difficult to draw the precise line between those functions that may be con- stitutionally devolved upon the other departments and those which pertain strictly to the judiciary; and so far as we are aware the at- tempt has not been made. But in numerous instances, from an early period in the history of the state, the legislature has invested various boards, bodies and oflSoers with the power, and charged them with the duty, of ascertaining facts, and hearing and deciding questions, when deemed necessary or exped- ient, in order to carry into execu- tion laws enacted to accomplish some public need or purpose, or deemed for the public good. Of this nature are those powers conferred upon boards of county commission- ers and township trustees, to deter- mine upon the necessity and pro- priety of establishing, improving, altering and vacating public roads and ditches, and to ascertain and decide whether the necessary steps required by the law have been taken in the proceedings; also, those with which other boards and officers have been clothed to deter- mine which of several bidders for public works or contracts is the lowest, responsible one; those which authorize county auditors to make additions to tax duplicates, and many others of a kindred nature which might be mentioned: all re- quiring in some manner and de- gree, and for some purpose, the ex- ercise of the power to hear and de- termine important questions, some- times involving large interests. , . , The powers of ,the board bear a close analogy to those of boards of school examiners, who- are authorized to grant certificates to teach in the public schools to applicants who are found, on ex- amination, to possess the necessary qualifications and furnish satisfac- tory evidence of good moral char- ter; and to revoke any certiflcate- granted, for intemperance, immoral conduct, or any other good cause. These boards, in the discharge of their duties, do not exercise the^ judicial power which the constitu- tion reserves to the courts, but are public agencies designated by the state to aid in making its common school system effective. And the- medical board is but an agency of like character, clothed with simi- lar powers, to ensure the effective execution of a law designed for th& promotion of the public health and welfare. The purpose of the stat- ute undoubtedly is, by enforcing the requirements it has prescribed for the admission of persons to the- practice of medicine in the state, to prevent those from engaging in the practice of that profession who, from lack of proper knowledge or 12 GENEKAL NATITEE OF STATDTOEY LAW. constitution.'' Courts cannot compel the legislature' to act nor control its action in matters committed to its discre- tion.'* The same provision of the constitution protects municipal legislatures from interference by the courts and they may not enjoin the passage of ordinances.'^ § 5 (4). The whole legislative power delegated to the federal government is vested in congress, with the excep- tions made in the constitution, as in the instance of maliirig treaties. Congress has only enumerated powers; the resi- due is retained by the states, and is vested by their consti- tutions in their legislatures, subject to restrictions and lim- itations in the federal constitution and that of the particu- lar state. In creating a legislative department of a state government, and conferring upon it the legislative power, the' people must be understood to have conferred the full and complete power as it rests in, and may be exercised by, the sovereign power of any country, subject only to such restrictions as they may have seen fit to impose, and to the limitations which are contained in the constitution of the United States.'' A state legislature has plenary power of legislation and may pass any and all laws not pro- •want of moral rectitude, are unfit '■'Peoplev. Thompson, 155111. 451, to be intrusted with its important 40 N. E. 307. and responsible duties. The power ^sj dju, Munio. Corp., § 308, n.; to pass upon the qualifications re- Albright v. Fisher, 164 Mo. 56, 64 -quired m-ust necessarily be com- S. W. 106. Contra: Trading Stamp mitted to some board or body other Co. v. Memphis, 101 Tenn. 181, 47 than the legislature, and may be, S. W. 136. In the following cases it not inaptly, characterized as ad- was held that mandamus would ministrative, rather than judicial, lie to compel the president of a city within the meaning of the consti- to sign ordinances duly passed: •tution." pp. 18, 19. State v. Meier, 72 Mo. App. 618; 83 People V. Chase, 165 111. 527, 46 Dreyfus v. Lanergan, 73 Mo. App. N. E. 454; People v. Mallory, 195 336. See 1 Dill. Munio. Corp. 408, 111. 582, 63 N. E. 508, 88 Am. St. note. Eep. 212; In re Durnford, 7 Kan. '"Cooley's Const. Lim. (4th ed.) App. 89, 53 Pac. 92; State v. Guil- 100; Dounell v. State, 48 Miss. 679, bert, 56 Ohio St. 575, 47 N. E. 551, 12 Am. Rep. 375; "Governor v. Mc- ■60 Am. St. Rep. 756. Ewen,5Humph.241;Knoxville,etc. ■ E. R. Co. V. Hioks, 9-B&,xt. 442. GENEEAL NATUKE OF STATUTORY LAW. 13: hibited by the constitution of the state or of the United States." So all the executive power which can be exercised is vested in the executive departiment, and all the operative- judicial power in the judiciary department." § 6 (5). The judicial po\^er. — The power which is en- tirely and exclusively vested in the judiciary departm^ent is the power conferred on judicial courts and tribunals to administer punitive and remedial justice to and between persons subject to, or claiming rights under, the law of the land. I The. exercise of this power includes invariably actor, reus, Sind judex, regular allegations, opportunity to answer, and a trial according to some settled course of judicial pro- ceedings. It is part of this judicial power to determine what the law is; and all questions involving, the validitj and effect of statutes when thus determined are authorita- tively settled.'' " Sheppard v. Dowling, 127 Ala, 1, 28 So. 791, 85 Am. St. Rep, 68; Mitchell V. Winkek, 117 Cal. 520, 49 Pac. 579: People v. Eichraond, 16 Colo. 274, 26 Pac. 929; In re Kinder- garten Schools, 18 Colo. 234, 32 Pac. 433, 19 L. E. A. 469; State v. Bulk- eley, 61 Conn. 287, 23 Atl. 186, 14 L. R. A. 657; Wilson v. Sanitary Trust- ees, 133 HI. 443, 27 N. E. 203; People V. Kirk, 163 111. 138, 45 N. E. 830, 53 Am. St. Rep. 277; People v. Onahan, 170 111. 449, 48 N. E. 1003; Ex parte Roberts, 166 Mo. 207, 65 S. W. 726; State V. French, 17 Mont. 54, 41 Pac. 1078, 30 L. R. A. 415; Magneau V. Fremont, 30 Neb. 843, 47 N. W. 280, 27 Am; St. Rep. 436, 9 L. R. A. 786; Koch v. New York, 5 App. Div. 276, 39 N. Y. S. 164; People v. Young, 18 App. Div. 162, 45 N. Y. S. 772; Probasco v. Raine, 50 Ohio St. 378, 34 N. E. 536; Southern Gum Ca V. Laylin, 66 Ohio St. 578, 64 N. E. 564; Phillips v. Lewis, 3 Tenn. Cases, 230", Stratton Claimants v. Morris Claimants, 89 Tenn. 497, 15 S. W. 446; Henley v. State, 98 Tenii. 665, 41 S. W. 353; State v. Brown- son, 94 Tex. 436, 61 S. W. 114; State- V. Cherry, 22 Utah, 1, 60 Pao. 1103; Brown v. Epps, 91 Va. 726, 21 S. E. 119, 27 L. R. A. 676; Prison Ass'ji v. Ashby, 93 Va. 667, 25 S. E. 893; Northwestern National Bank v. Su- perior, 103 Wis. 43, 79 N. W. 54; State. V. Henderson, 4 Wyo. 535, 35 Pac. 517. Compare Britten v. Elec- tion Commissioners, 129 Cal. 337, 61 Pac. 1115, 51 L. R A. 115. M Taylor v. Place, 4 R I. 324. '9 Shumway v. Bennett, 29 Mich. 465;- Taylor v. Porter, 4 Hill, 140, 40 Am. Dec. 274; Vanzant v. Waddel,. 2Yerg. 260; State Bank v. Cooper, id. 599; Jones' Heirs v. Perry, 10 id. 5C; Greene v. Briggs, 1 Curtis, 811; State V. Dews, R M. Charlt. 400; Sears v. Cottrell, 5 Mich. 254. See Smith V. Judge, 17 CaL 558; Statfr 14 GENERAL NATDEE OF STAT0TOEY LAW. § 7 (6). The legislative power.— It results from this di- •vision of the fundamental powers that the legislature is con- fined to the exercise of the law-making power; its sole func- tion is the enactment of laws. None of these great powers -are defined in constitutions. They are distributed by name, and, therefore, their scope and limits have to be determined from their intrinsic nature. They are deemed thus suffi- ciently distinguishable. A state legislature, by this grant of legislative power, is vested with all power which is of that nature, whether it had been exercised wholly by the parlia- ment of Great Britain, or in part, by prerogative, by the crown." As legislative power is merely a power to make V. Dexter, 10 R. I. 341; Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken, etc. Co., 18 How. 373, 15 L. Ed. 373. ■"O In Merrill v. Sherburne, 1 N. H. 303, Woodbury, J., said: "No par- ticular definition of judicial power is given in the constitution, and considering the •general nature of the instrument none was to be ex- pected. Critical statements of the meanings in which all important words were to have been employed would have swollen into volumes; and when these words possessed a customary signification a definition of them would have been useless." Lowrie, C. J., in Reiser v. The William Tell Saving Fund Associa- tion, 39 Pa. St. 146, said: " We must ag.iin insist that the making of laws and the application of them to cases as they arise are clearly and essentially different functions, and that one of them is allotted by the constitution to the legislature and the other to the courts. 9 Ca- sey. 495. Chief Justice Gibson ex- pressed this in Greenough v. Green- •ough. 1 Jones, 494: 'Every tyro or -sciolist knows that it is the prov- ince of the legislature to enact, of the judiciary to expound, and of the executive to enforce.' " In Maynard v. Valentine, 1 W. Coast Rep. 843, Greene, C. J., speak- ing of the distinction between leg- islative and judicial functions, said: "It could not be destroyed without destruction of one or the other function. For it consists in diver- sity of the deep-seated organic re- lations which court and legislature respectively bear to the central sovereignty which speaks and acts through them. The sover- eign, through the legislative organ, speaks spontaneously, and imposes on that organ no obligation to reply to any petition. It speaks through its courts upon petition only, and obliges its courts to answer every petition. The voice of the court is explanatory, and assertative of that of the legislature; the voice of the legislature is determinative of that of the court. Legislatures declare about persons and things in gen- eral, and, in particular, what the sovereign will is. Courts declare what, according to that will, the GENEEAL NATURE OF STATDTOEY LAW. 15 laws, its nature may be inferred from the definition of statu- tory law; for a statute formulates whatever is resolved, or- ■dained or enacted by the forms of legislation in the exercise •of that power. §8 (7). Statutory law in general. — A statute is, in a general sense, the written will of the legislature rendered authentic by certain prescribed forms and solemnities," pre- scribing rules of action or civil conduct.*'' This is compre- hensive as applied to persons. " Statute law may, we think," «ays "Wilberforce, " be properly defined as the will of the nation expressed by the legislature, expounded by the courts of justice. The legislature, as the representative of the nation, expresses the national will by means of statutes. These statutes are expounded by the courts so as to form the body of the statute law."*' Mr. Austin says: "A law in the literal and proper sense of the word may be defined AS a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being by an intelligent being having power over him."" He also says: "Legislative powers are powers of establishing laws and issuing other commands."*' In what capacity does a legislature act in issuing other commands? In other words, in what other way, or to what other end, may " legislative powers " act or issue commands than to establish laws? It would seem to be a truism that the product of law-making is law. The foregoing defini- tions confine law to persons. If it is so confined, then the legislature in the exercise of the law-making or legislative power may not legislate in regard to things. Nor should tliose doctrines and principles which have been accepted as part of the common law, relating to things, be regarded as law. The truth is that law is a rule, not necessarily a rule •of conduct, though a rule of conduct is a law — a branch, parties before them are bound or <2 j Black. Com. 44 free to do or suffer. In fine, the " wjib. St. L. 8. legislature gives, and the court ap- ** Austin's Jurisprudence, voL 1, plies, the law." 2 Wash. Ty. 3. p. 3, § 2. " 1 Kent's Com. 447. « id., § 230. 16 GENERAL NATOEE OF .STATUTOET LAW. not the whole of it. As, a rule a statute may, besides pre- scribing a rule of civil conduct to sentient .subjects, create or establish legal qualities, and relations, operating as a fiat. Statutes may be institutive, creating and organizing legal entities and endowing them with qualities and powers — for example, public and private corporations. They create offices, courtSjiand other governmental agencies; they de- fine crimes, and torts; property, corporeal and incorporeal; titles, contracts; prescribe remedies and punishments; they impart a legal vitality to and regulate all the minutia of civil polity, including, every social and business relation or institution deemed conducive to the well-being and happi- ness of the, governed.*^ § 9 (8). As a rule for persons, it is not a transient, sud- den order from a superior to or concerning a particular per- son, but something permanent, uniform and universal.*' It is a rule, because not merely advisory, but imperative; it emanates from the suprenie power as a command, and does • not depend for effect, on.the approval or consent of its sub- jects; it is a rule ol civil conduct, because it does not extend into the subjective domain of morals or religion; it is pre- scribed, and therefore operates prospectively, though it may under certain circumstances, and limitations operate retro- spectively, as will be seen hereafter.** It is permanent, uni- form and universal, not in the sense of being irrepealable or necessarily operating upon all the persons and things within the jurisdiction of the legislature, but because a law in gen- eral has a continuing effect and operates impartially through- out the state or some district of it, or upon the whole or a class of the public.*' <" License Cases, 5 How. 504, 583, would be diflScult, perhaps impos- 13 L. Ed. 256; Munu t. lUiuois, 94 sible, to define the extent of th^ U. S. 113, 135, 24 L. Ed. 77. legislative power of the state, ua <' 1 Black. Com. 44. less by saying that so far as it is- <8 Bee post, ch. XVII. not restricted by the higher law of « In Slack v. Maysville, etc. R. E. the state and federal constitutions, Co., 13 B. Mon. 23, Marshall, J., it can do everything which can be speaking for the court, said: " It effected by means of a law. It is GENEEAL NATURE OF STATDTOEY LAW. 17 § 10 (9). Rules of action. — Courts judicially formulate rules, of action, but only by applying to a particular party an existing law. The court ascertains by trial that the party is within a rule which is law, and the facts necessary to its special operation upon him. "What that law enjoins in general the court adjudicates and administers in the par- ticular case. Thus, in a statute before me is this provision : "Every person guilty of fighting any duel, although no death or wound ensues, is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding one year." This is a statute — a law. Mr. A. is accused of the offense and brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, by proper form of accu- the great supervising, controlling, creative and active power in the state, subject to the fundamental restrictions just referred to. What- ever legislative power the whole commonwealth has, is by the con- stitution vested in the legislative department, which, representing the popular majorities in the sev- eral local divisions of the state, and under no other restraint but such as is imposed by the funda- mental law, by its own wisdom and its own responsibilities, may regulate the conduct and command the resources of all, for the safety, convenience and happiness of all, to be promoted in such manner as its own discretion may determine. The legislative department per- forms and finishes its office by the mere enactment of a law." The nature and scope of legisla- tive power in the enactment of laws as treated in an article on "The Constitutionality of Local Option Laws " in 13 Am. h. Keg. (N. S.) 129, are too narrow. Con- trary to the assumptions there made, it is believed that all valid 3 acts of the legislature, whether na- tional or state, are laws. The enu- merated powers granted to con- gress are legislative in their nature ; no other would vest in a state leg- islature under a general grant of legislative power. Other clauses in the constitutions, requiring or regulating the action of the legis- lature in reference to specific sub- jects in the internal system or pol- icy of the state, are not intended to confer or regulate any other than the power of making laws — saving the special jurisdiction in cases of impeachment, and such as relate to the autonomy of the sep- arate branches or are incidental to the exercise of its legislative func- tion. Hope V. Deaderick, 8 Humph. 1, 47 Am. Dec. 597; Lusher v. Soites, 4 W. Va. 11; Myers v. Manhattan Bank, 20 Ohio, 295; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204-335, 5 L. Ed. 243; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 26 L. Ed. 377; Von Hoist, Const. L., § 38. The taxing power is legislative. Marr v. Enloe, 1 Yerg. 453; Lipscomb v. Dean, 1 Lea, 546. 18 GENEEAL NAT0EE OF STATUTOEY LAW. sation and by proper arrest, and not pleading guilty a trial takes place. The court ascertains by the verdict of a jury that A. is guilty of the acts denounced in the statute. The sentence based on that verdict is that "you, Mr. A., be im- prisoned in the penitentiary one year." The statute was general that every person so guilty should be so imprisoned. That was making a law — prescribing a rule of conduct. The court having judicially ascertained that A. had done these acts applied the law to him — repeats the statutory rule of action on A. Enacting the rule is legislative ; trying A. and applying the rule to him, repeating and formulating it for accomplishing the imprisonment provided for in the rule, is judicial. § 11 (10). legislative rules of action — Essential lim- itations. — Even rules of action are not valid laws, if, when enacted by the legislature, they are judicial in their nature or trench on the jurisdiction and functions of the judiciary. The legislature may prescribe rules of decision which will govern future cases; these rules will have the force of law; so general rules of practice, regulating remedies and so operating as not to take away or impair existing rights, may be made applicable to pending as well as subsequent actions.^" But it has no power to administer judicial relief, — it cannot decide cases, nor direct how existing cases or con- troversies shall be decided by the courts ; it cannot interfere by subsequent acts with final judgments of the courts.'' It so Rigga V. Martin, 5 Ark. 506, 41 Woods v. Buie, 5 How. (Miss.) 285; Am. Deo. 103; Smith v. Judge, 17 United States Bank v. Longworth, Cal. 558; United States v. Samper- 1 Mcljean, 35, Fed. Cases, No. 923; yac, 1 Hempst. 118; Cutts v. Har- Taggart v. McGinn, 14 Pa. St. 155; dee, 38 Ga. 350; Ratlibone v. Brad- Van Norman t. Judge, 45 Mich. 204, ford, 1 Ala. 312; Coosa R. & B. v. 7 N. W. 796. Barclay, 30 id. 120; Hope v. John- si "A legislative act is said to be son, 3 Yerg. 123; Lookett v. Usry, one which predetermines what the 28 Ga. 345; Ralston v. Lothain, 18 law shall be for the regulation of Ind. 303; Evans v. Montgomery, 4 future cases falling under its pro- Watts & S. 318; Oriental Bank v. visions, while a judicial act is a de- Freeze, 18 Me. 109, 86 Am. Dec. 701; termination of what the law Is in Read V.Frankfort Bank, 23 id. 318; relation to some existing thing 3ENEEAL NATUEE OF STATUTOEY LAW. 19 ■cannot set aside, annul or modify such judgments,"^ nor grant or order new trials/' nor direct what judgment shall be entered or relief given/^ No declaratory act, that is, ■one professing to enact what the law now is or was at any past time, can aflfect any existing rights or controversies.^' •done or happened. . . . When- ever an act determines a question ■of right or obligation or of property as the foundation upon whicli it proceeds, such an act is to that ex- tent judicial." Wulzen v. Board of Supervisors, 101 Cal. 15, 24, 35 Pac. 353, 40 Am. St. Rep. 17. 62 Roche V. Waters, 73 Md. 264, 19 Atl. 535, 7 L. R. A. 588; Denny v. Mattoon, 3 Allen, 361, 79 Am. Deo. 784; Gilman v. Tucker, 128 N. Y. 190, 38 N. E. 1040, 26 Am. St. Rep. 464, 13 L. R. A. 304; Roberts v. State, 30 App. Div. 106, 51 N. Y. S. 691 ; State v. New York, N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 71 Conn. 43, 40 Atl. 925. 63 Atkinson v. Dunlap, 50 Me. Ill; OrifBn v. Cunningham, 20 Gratt. 31; Reid, Adm'r, v. Strider, 7 id. 76, •65 Am. Deo. 120; Calhoun v. Mc- Lendon, 42 Ga. 405; Reiser v. Wm. Tell, etc. Assoc, 39 Pa. St. 147; Carleton v. Goodwin, 41 Ala. 153; O'Conner v. Warner, 4 Watts & S. ■327; Arnold v. Kelley, 5 W. Va. 446; De Chastellux v. Fairohild, 15 Pa. St. 18, 53 Am. Deo. 570; Greenough V. Greenough, 11 Pa. St. 489, 51 Am. Dec. 567; McCabe v. Emerson, 18 Pa.*St. Ill; United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 20 L. Ed. 519; United •States V. Samperyac, 1 Herapst. 118; Bagg's Appeal, 43 Pa. St. 512, 83 Am. Dec. 583; Taylor v. Place, 4 a I. 324; Erie, etc. R. R. Co. v. Casey, 1 Grant's Cas. 274; Miller v. Fiery, 8 Gill, 147; Crane v. McGin- nis, 1 Gill & J. 463, 19 Am. Deo. 337; Trask v. Green, 9 Mich. 366; Bates v. Kimball, 2 D. Chip. 77; Burch v. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374; Common- wealth V. Johnson, 43 Pa. St. 448; Inhabitants of Durham v. Inhab. of L., 4 Greenl. 140; Ex parte Dar- ling, 16 Nev. 98, 40 Am. Rep. 495; Davis V. Village of Menas^a, 31 Wis. 491; Kendall v. Dodge, 3 Vt. 360; United States v. Prospect Hill Cem- etery, 8 App. Cas. (D. C.) 2; State V. Flint, 61 Minn. 539, 63 N. W. 1113. 6* Janesville v. Carpenter, 77 Wis. 288, 46 N. W. 128, 20 Am. St. Rep. 123, 8 L. R. A. 808; Perkins v. Scales, 2 Tenn. Cases, 335. The legislature cannot control the ac- tion of the court in settling a bill ot exceptions. Adams v. State, 156 Ind. 596, 59 N. E. 24; Johnson v. Gebhauer, 159 Ind. 371, 64 N. E. 855. •'■^Lindsay v. U. S. Savings & Loan Ass'n, 130 Ala. 156, 34 So. 171, 43 L. R. A. 783; Tilford v. Ramsey, 43 Mo. 410; People v. Supervisors, 16 N. Y. 435, 433; Ogden v. Black- ledge, 3 Cranch, 278, 3 L, Ed. 876; Gordon v. Inghram, 1 Grant's Cas. 153; Dash v. Van Kleeok, 7 John. 477, 5 Am. Dec. 391; Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. 613; McLeod v. Burroughs, 9 Ga. 313; Lambertson V. Hagan, 3 Pa. St. 35; Peyton v. Smith, 4 MoCord, 476; Hall v. Goodwyn, id. 443; Grigsby v. Peak, 57 Tex. 143; Van Norman v. Judge, 45 Mich. 304» It was held (Alvord 20 GENERAL NATUEE OF STATUTOEr LAW. § 12 (11). The merits of every legal controversy depend on the rights of the parties as determined by the law as it was when the rights in question accrued, or the wrong com- plained of was done.^' A statutory right, however, is in- choate until reduced to possession or fixed and perfected by a judgment.^' It is judicial to determine what the law was or is ; and the kind and measure of redress due to parties, founded upon the facts of a case, by application of that law. New laws cannot be passed to affect existing controversies, or to interfere with the administration of justice according to those principles. To pass new rules for the regulation of new controversies is in its nature a legislative act; but if these rules interfere with the past or the present, and do not look wholly to the future, they violate the definition of a law as a rule of civil conduct; because no rule of civil conduct can with consist- V. Little, 16 Fla. 158) that an act extending the time to appeal, passed after the expiration of time allowed therefor by existing law, did not affect vested rights, be- cause it applied only to the rem- edy. So does a statute of limita- tions; but an act would not be sustained which revived a right of action after it was barred by the existing law. Girduer v. Stephens, 1 Heisk. 880, 3 Am. Rep. 700; Ad- amson v. Davis, 47 Mo. 268; Thomp- son V. Read, 41 Iowa, 48; Pitman V. Bump, 5 Oreg. 17; Wood on Lim., § 11. The legislature is not only incapable of performing judi- cial functions, but it can confer no other than judicial powers on the courts. The Auditor v. Atchison, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Kan. 500, 7 Am. R. 575; Burgoyne v. Supervisors, 5 Cal. 9; Dickey v. Hurlburt, id. 343; Hay burn's Case, 2 Dall. 409; Rail- way Co. V, Board Pub. Works, 28 W. Va. 264. See United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 14 L. Ed. 43. 86 Pacific, etc. Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450, 17 L. Ed. 805; Vanderkar V. Railroad Co., 13 Barb. 390; Peo- ple v. Supervisors, 3 id. 333. 5' Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429, 14 L. Ed. 210; The Irresistible, 7 Wheat. 551, 5 L. Ed. 520; Calhoun V. McLendou, 42 Ga. 407; United States V. Mann, 1 Gallison, 177, Fed. Cas. No. 15,718; United States V. Passmore,_4 Dall. 372; Town of Guilford v. Supervisors, 13 N. Y. 143; Kampton v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. St. 329; Stoever v. Imraell. 1 Watts, 258; Williams v. Commis- sioners, 35 Ma 345; Tivey v. Peo- ple, 8 Mich. 128; Commonwealth v. Duane, 1 Binn. 601, 3 Am. Deo. 497. It devolves on the courts, not the legislature, to determine the meaning of "head of a family," as used in the constitutional provis- ion for a homestead. GENERAL NATURE OF STATUTORY LAW. 21 enoy operate upon what oocwred before the rule itself was promulgated.^^ Whether in their inquiries the legislature and the courts proceed upon the same or different evidence does not change the nature of legislative acts. Nor can their inquiries, deliberations, orders and decrees be both ju- dicial and legislative, because a marked difference exists be- tween the functions of judicial and legislative tribunals. The former decide upon the legality of claims and conduct; the latter make rules upon which in connection with the constitu- tion these decisions should be founded.^' Legislative power prescribes rules of conduct for the future government of the citizen or subject; while judicial power punishes or redresses wrongs growing out of a violation of rules previously estab- lished. The distinction lies, in short, between a sentence and a rule.^" § 13 (13). Statutes have no extraterritorial elfect — Comity. — Statutes derive their force from the authority of the legislature which enacts them; and hence, as a neces- sary consequence, their authority as statutes will be limited to the territory or country to which the enacting power is limited.*^ It is only within these boundaries that the legis- ts Merrill v. Sherburne, 1 N. H. Ids. Co., 181 Mass. 522, 63 N. E. 950; 204. Mandell Brothers v. Fogg, 183 Mass. 59 Id. ; State V. Dews, E. M. Charlt. 583; Sanders v. St. Louis & N. O. 400; Bedford v. Shilling, 4 S. & R. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 26; Stanley v. 401, 8 Am. Dec. 718; Ogden v. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 100 Mo. 435, 13 Blacliledge, 3 Cianch, 373, 3 L. Ed. S. W. 709, 8 L. R. A. 549; Connell v. 276; McLeod v. Burroughs, 9 Ga. Western Union Tel. Co., 108 Mo. 313. 459, 18 S. W. 883; State v. Gritzner, 60 Ex parte Shrader, 83 Cal. 283; 184 Mo. 512, 36 S. W. 89; Rixhe v. Cooley's Con. L. 110, 111. Western Union Tel. Co., 96 Mo. App. f-i Juilliard v. May, 130 111. 87, 33 406, 70 S. W. 265; Everett v. Morri- N. E. 477; Warren v. First National son, 69 Hun, 146, 23 N. Y. S. 377; Bank, 149 111. 9, 88 N. E. 133, 35 L. Greenville Nat. Bank v. Evans- R A. 746; Boston & Me. R. R. Co. Snyder- Buell Co., 9 Okl. 853, 60 Pao. V. Trafton, 151 Mass. 339, 23 N. E. 349; Carson v. Railway Co., 88 Tenn. 839; Healey v. Reed, 153 Mass. 197, 646; Becker v. La Crosse, 99 Wis. 26 N. E. 404; Johnson v. Mut. Life 414, 75 N. W. 84, 67 Am. St. Rep. Ins. Co., 180 Mass. 407, 62 N. E. 733; 874, 40 L. R. A. 829; Frame v. Thor- Attorney-General v. Netherlands mann, 103 Wis. 653, 79 N. W. 39; 22 GENERAL NATUEE OF STATUTOEY LAW. lature is law maker, that its laws govern people, that they operate of their own vigor upon any subject.^ No other laws have effect there as statutes. Statutes of other states, or national jurisdictions, are foreign laws, of which the courts do not take judicial notice. If relied upon they must be pleaded and proved as other facts.*' In the absence of any evidence on the subject the laws of a foreign state are presumed to be the same as in the state of the forum.'* A court will not presume or hold a foreign law to be invalid because such a law would be invalid under the constitution of its own state.^ The construction put upon a statute of a foreign state by its highest court will be followed by the Hilton V. Guyot, 159 IT. S. 113, 16 S. C. Rep. 139, 40 L. Ed. 95; MoLough- lin V. Raphael Tuck Co., 191 U. S. 267. The act of congress admit- ting Missouri into the Union estab- lished the middle of the main chan- nel of the Mississippi river as the eastern boundary of the state, but gave it c6ncurrent jurisdiction over the entire width of the river. It viras held that an action for wrong- ful death, occurring on the river east of the main channel, could he brouglit in Missouri under the Missouri statutes. Sanders v. St. Louis & N. O. Anchor Line, 97 Mo. 26. 62 State V. Cutshall, 110 N. C. 538, 15 S E. 261, 16 K R. A, 130. 63 Marcy v. Howard, 91 Ala. 133, 8 So. 586; Cummings v. Montague, 116 Ga. 457; Bank of Commerce v. Fuqna. 11 Mont. 285, 28 Pao. 291, 28 Am St. Rep. 461; Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Willet, 10 Okl. 383, 61 Pac. 1066; Howe v. Ballard, 113 Wis. 375, 89 N. W. 136. 64 Barringer v. Ryder, 119 Iowa, 121, 93 N. W. 56; Smith v. Mason, 44 Neb. 610, 63 N. W. 41; Fisher v, Donovan, 57 Neb. 361, 77 N. W. 778, 44 L. R. A. 383; Greenville National Bank v. Evans-Snyder-Buell Co., 9 Okl. 353, 60 Pac. 249; Osburne v. Blaokburne, 78 Wis. 209, 47 N. W. 175, 23 Am. St. Rep. 400, 10 L. R. A. 367; Slaughter v. Bernard, 88 Wis. Ill, 59 N. W. 576; Hyde v. German Nat. Bank, 115 Wis. 170. It has been held that this presumption does not apply in case of penal stat- utes. Sohoenberg v. Adler, 105 Wis. 645, 81 N. W. 1055. 65 Fidelity Ins., Trust & Safe De- posit Co. V. Nelson, 30 Wash. 340. The court says: "Here there is proof of a law of a sister state, and, if we were to indulge in presump- tions at all, we would presume that it was passed with all due for- malities, is within the constitu- tional powers of the legislative body which passed it, and is a valid and existing law, rather than pre- sume that, because our constitu- tion prohibits such law, the Penn- sylvania constitution must like- wise do so." GENERAL NATUEE OF STATUTOEY LAW. 23 courts of other states.^^ Statutes of other states may be proved and taken into consideration in proper oases, subject to the provisions of domestic statutes and of the constitu- tion; but thej' are so considered only by the principles of the common and international law, originating in the comity which exists between nations and by force of the federal constitution between the states of the Union.*' The observance or recognition of foreign laws rests in comity and convenience, and in the aim of the law to adapt "^Fred. Miller Brewing Co, v. Capital Ins. Co., Ill la. 590, 82 N. W. 1033, 83 Am. St. Rep. 529; Supreme Council V. Green, 71 Md. 363, 17 Atl. 1048, 17 Am. St. Rep. 537; Bronson V. St. Croix Lumber Co., 4i Minn. 348, 46 N. W. 570; Kimball v. Davis, 53 Mo. App.,194; Kulp v. Fleming, 65 Ohio St. 331, 62 N. E. 334, 87 Am. St. Rep. 611; Howe v. Ballard, 113 Wis. 375, 89 N. W. 136. The con- struction put by the courts of one state upon the statute of another state does not give rise to a federal question, but otherwise If its valid- ity is impugned. Glenn v. Garth, 147 U. S. 360, 13 S. C. Rep. 350, 37 L. Ed. 203; Lloyd v. Matthews, 155 TJ. S. 222, 15 S. C. Rep. 70, 39 L. Ed. 138; Banholzer v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 178 U. S. 403, 30 S. C. Rep. 973, 44 L. Ed. 1124; Johnson v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 187 U. S. 491, 23 S. C. Rep. 194. s'Mandel v. Swan Land & Cat- tle Co., 154 III. 177, 40 N. E. 463, 45 Am. St Rep. 124, 37 L. R. A. 313; Shaw V. Brown, 35 Miss. 346, 316; Minor v. Card well, 37 Mo. 353; Clarke v. Pratt, 20 Ala. 470; Har- rison V. Harrison, id. 629, 56 Am. Dec. 337; Cockrell v. Gurley, 26 id. 405; Woodward v. Donally, 27 id. 196; Mobile & O. R. Ca v. Whit- ney, 39 id. 471; Bank of Augusta V. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 10 L. Ed. 374; Carey v. Cincinnati, etc. R. R. Co., 5 Iowa, 357; Debevoise v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 377, 50 Am. R. 683; Land Grant Railway v. Com- missioners, 6 Kan. 252; Pickering V. Fisk, 6 Vt. 107; Andrews v.Her- riot, 4 Cow. 508, and note; Saul v. fiis Creditors, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 569, 16 Am. Dec. 212; 3 Am. & Eng. Cyclop. L. 503; Nichols v. Burlington, etc. Ry Co., 78 Minn. 43, 80 N. W. 776. Articles 798 and 799 of the penal code of Texas provide for the. pun- ishment of robbery, theft,'Eind the knowingly receiving of stolen property, though perpetrated in a foreign country or state, if the property was brought into the state, provided that by the law of the foreign country or state the in- culpatory act would have been the offense charged in the indictment. It was held in Cummins v. State, 12 Tex. App. 131, that in such a case the law of the foreign country or state is an element of the offense and an issuable fact to be alleged in the indictment, but the indict- ment need not aver that the ac- cused was punishable or amenable to the laws of the foreign country or state. 24: GENERAL NATURE OF STATUTOKT LAW. its remedies to the great ends of justice.*' But there is a limit to this principle of comity; and cases may and do arise where the observance of foreign laws would neither be con- venient nor answer the purposes of justice. Foreign laws are not regarded where they conflict with our own regula- tions, our local policy, or do violence to our views of religion or public morals.*' The principles of comity do not require , the courts of one state to enforce rights under the statutes of another, to the prejudice of its own citizens, nor when complete justice cannot be done.™ "'Comity,' in the legal sense," says the supreme court of the United States, "is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other. But it is the recognition which one nation allows within its ter- ritory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of an- other nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws." '^ Whatever force and obligation the laws of one country have in another depends upon the laws and municipal regu- lations of the latter; that is to say, upon its own proper jurisprudence and polity, and upon its own express or tacit consent. A municipality of one state by accepting a stat- ute of another state cannot bind itself to perform the con- ditions contained in such statute. The city of La Crosse was authorized by the legislature of "Wisconsin to construct a bridge and approaches across the Mississippi river to some point in Minnesota. The legislature of Minnesota author- ized the city to construct and maintain a wagon road from a certain highway in the latter state to the boundary line 68 Pickering y. Fisk, 6 Vt. 107; '» Marshall v. Sherman, 148 N. Y. Story, Conf. L., § 35. 9, 42 N. E. 419, 51 Am. St. Rep. 654, 69 Id. ; Dale v. Atchison, etc. R. R. 34 L. R. A. 757. Co., 57 Kan. 601, 47 Pac. 521; Man- n Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, dell Bros. v. Fogg, 182 Mass. 583; 163, 16 & C. Rep. 139, 40 L. Ed. 95. Hancock National Bank v. Far- num, 20 R. L 466, 40 Atl. 341. GENERAL NATURE OF STATUTORY LAW 25 ■between the two states on condition of being liable for in- juries to travelers by reason of any improper construction ■or want of repair in the road. The statute was accepted -and the bridge and road built. In a suit to recover for -such injuries, it was held that the city was powerless to bind itself in such manner and that it was not liable.''^ When a statute or the unwritten or common law of the country forbids the recognition of the foreign law, the lat- ter is of no force whatever. When both are silent, then the question arises, 'which of the conflicting laws is to have efl'ect. Generally, force and effect will be given by any state to foreign laws in cases where from the transactions of the parties they are applicable, unless they affect injuri- ously her own citizens, violate her express enactments, or are contra honos mores?^ The courts of one state will not enforce the penal," nor •the police, revenue or political laws of another.'^ Whether a statute is penal in the sense that it will not be enforced '2 Becker V. La Crosse, 99 Wis. 414, .123; Sooville v. Canfleld, 14 John. 75 N. W. 84, 67 Am. St. Rep. 874, 40 338; Commonwealth v. Green, 17 Ij. R. a. 829. The court says: "To Mass. 515; FoUiott v. Ogden, 1 H permit the city, no matter how Black. 133; Ogden v. FoUiott, 3 T. desirable it may be, to expend its ^R. 733; Wolff v. Oxholm, 6 M. & S. .money, and to obtain rights and 99; King of Two Sicilies y. Wilcox, •privileges, beyond its own limits, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 301; Holman v. John- .and beyond the limits over which son, 1 Cowp. 343; James v. Cather- its creator has jurisdiction, would wood, 3 D. & R. 190 (16 Eng. C. L. be unwise and dangerous, to say 165); Randall v. Van Rensselaer, 1 ■theleast,andagainstpublicpolicy." John. 95; Stevens v. Brown, 30 W. 's Lawrence's Wheaton (3d ed.), Va. 450; Woods v. Wicks, 7 Lea, 163; Bouv. L. Die, tit. Conflict of 40. See South Carolina R. R. Co. Laws; Story, Conf. L., §§ 33, 39; v. Nix, 68 Ga. 573; Whart. Am. L., Minor v. Cardwell, 37 Mo. 354, 90 § 353. Am. Dec. 390; 3 Am. & Eng. Cyclop. 75 James v. Catherwood, 3 D. & L. 503, 503; Caldwell v.Vanvlissen- R. 190; Planche v. Fletcher, 1 gen, 9 Hare, 425; Fenton v. Living- Doug. 251; Bristol v. Sequeville, 5 -stone, 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 497; Gard- Exoh. 275; Quarrier v. Colston, 1 «er V. Lewis, 7 Gill, 377; Beard v. Phil. 147. See Henry v. Sargeant, 3asye, 7 B. Mon. 144 13 N. H. 321, 40 Am. Dec. 143. 'iThe Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66, 26 GENERAL NATDKE OF STATDTOET LAW. in a for-iign state is often a .diflBcult question and is one upon which there is a difference of opinion. The supreme court of the United States says: "The question whether a statute of one state, which in some respects may be called penal, is penal in the international sense, so that it cannot be enforced in the courts of another state, depends upon the question whether its purpose is to punish an offense against the public justice of the state, or to afford a private remedy to a person injured by the wrongful act."™ Crimes are in their nature local, and the jurisdiction of them is local." They are cognizable and punishable exclusively in the country where they are committed.™ § 14 (13). As every nation possesses an exclusive sover- eignty and jurisdiction within its own territory, its laws affect and bind directly all property, whether real or per- 76 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 673, 13 S. C. Eep; 234, 36 L. Ed. 1123. This case arose out of the following facts: A statute of New York provided that, if any certifi- cate or report made by the officers of a corporation was false in any material representation, all who had signed it should be liable for all debts of the corporation con- tracted while they were in office. A judgment was obtained in New York upon such a liability and suit brought on the judgment in Maryland. The supreme court of that state held that the judgment was founded on a penal liability and dismissed the suit. (70 Md. 191, 16 Atl. 651.) The case was removed to the federal supreme court, which reversed the decision of the state court and sustained the action. In speaking of the statute the court says: "As the statute imposes a burdensome liability on the officers for their wrongful act, it may well be considered penal, in the sense that it should be strictly construed. But as it gives a civil remedy, at the private suit of the creditor only, and measured by the amount of his debt, it is as to him clearly remedial. To maintain such a suit is not to administer a punishment imposed upon an ofifender against the state, but simply to enforce a private right secured under its laws to an individual We can see no just ground, on principle, for holding such statute to be a penal law, in the sense that it cannot be enforced in a foreign state or coun- try." For a further discussion of the question see Taylor v. Western Union Tel. Co., 95 Iowa, 740, 64 N. W. 660; Kimball v. Davis, 52 Mo. App. 194; Gardner v. New York & New Eng. R R. Co., 17 R I. 790, 24 Atl. 831. 77 Rafael v. Verelst, 2 W. Black. 1058. 78 Story, Conf. L., § 630. GENERAL NAT0EE OF STATDTOEY LAW. 2T sonal, within that territory; and all persons who are resi- dent within it, whether natural-born subjects or aliens, and also all contracts made and acts done within it. A state may, therefore, regulate the manner and circumstances- under which such property, in possession or in action, within it shall be held, transmitted, bequeathed, transferred or sued for; the condition, capacity, and state of all persons within^ it; the validity of contracts and other acts done within it; the resulting rights and duties growing out of these con- tracts and acts; and the remedies and modes of administer- ing justice in all cases calling for the interposition of its- tribunals to protect and vindicate and secure the wholesome agency of its own laws within its own domains.''' Transitory rights accruing under any municipal laws may "be enforced in another jurisdiction, subject to the principles just stated, that they be not repugnant to its policy or preju- dicial to its interests; and personal states and relations, originating under and valid by the law of the domicile or place of contract, will be universally recognized as valid, subject to the same condition.'" A legal title, duly acquired in any one country, is a good title over all the world.'^ § 15 (14). Where either by common law or statute a right of action has become fixed and a legal liability incurred, if transitor}'^, it may be enforced in the courts of any state- which can obtain jurisdiction of the defendant, provided it is not against the public policy of the laws of the state TS story, Conf. L., §§ 18, 29, 30; so Nashville, eta R. E. Co. v. Fos- Chicago, etc. R R. Co. v. Doyle, 60 ter, 10 Lea, 351; State Bank Ee- Miss. 977; Debovolse v. N. Y. etc ceiver v. Plainfield Bank, 34 N. J. R. R. Co., 98N.Y. 377, 50 Am. Rep. Eq. 450; "Whart. Am. L., oh. V;: 683; Phillips v. Hunter, 2 H. Black. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 402; Sill V. Worswiok, 1 H. Black. 519, 5S9, 10 L. Ed. 274; Sherwood 673; Campbell v. Hall, 1 Cowp. 208; v. Judd, 3 Bradf. 419; Sanford v_ Liverm. Dis. 26-30; Hyde v. Wa- Thompson, 18 Ga. 554. bash, etc. R. R. Co., 61 Iowa, 441, 47 8i Simpson v. Fogo, 1 H. & M. 195; Am. Rep. 820; Lawrence's Wheat. Crispin v. Doglioni, 3 S. & T. 96;: 160, 161; Davis v. Jacquin, o Harr. Beard's Ex'r v. Basye, 7 B. Mon.. & J. 100. 144. :28 GENE3AL NATUEB OF STATnTOEY LAW. where it is sought to be enforced. The statute has no ex- traterritorial force, but rights under it will always in comity be enforced, if not against the policy of the laws of the forum. In such cases the law of the place where the right was acquired or the liability was incurred will govern as to the right of action,^^ while all that pertains merely to the remedy will be controlled by the law of the state where the action is brought.^' § 16 (15). Extraterritorial operation of laws in case of colonization of a new country. — It was declared by the lords of the privy council in England, over a hundred and fifty years ago, upon appeal from the foreign plantations, that if there be a new uninhabited country found out by English subjects, as the law is the birthright of every sub- ject, so wherever they go they carry the laws with them ; therefore, such new found country is governed by the laws of England.^* English statutes enacted prior to the settle- 82 Herrick v. Minneapolis, etc. R. E. Co., 31 Minn. 11, 47 Am. R.771; Knight V. West Jersey R. R. Co., 108 Pa. St. 350, 56 Am. R. 200; Den- Jiick V. R. R. Co., 103 U. S. 11, 26 L. Ed. 439; Leonard v. Columbia St. Nav. Co., 84 N. Y. 48, 38 Am. R. 491; Central R. R. Co. v. Swint, 73 Ga. 651; Morris v. Chicago, etc. R. R Co., 65 Iowa, 727, 23 N. W. 143, 54 Am. R. 39; Shedd v. Moran, 10 111. App. 618; Ramsey V. Glenn, 33 Kan. 271, 6 Pac. 265; Boyce v. Wabash Ry. Co., 63 Iowa, 70, 19 N. W. 210, 50 Am. E. 730; Keenan v. Stimson, 32 Minn. 377, 20 N. W. 364; Bishop v. Globe •Co., 135 Mass. 132; Taylor v. Penn. Co., 78 Ky. 348, 39 Am. R. 344. See Willis V. R. R. Co., 61 Tex. 432; Vawter v. Pac. Ry. Co., 84 Mo. 679, 54 Am. R. 105. 83 Id. ; Burlington, etc. R. R Co. v. Thompson, 81 Kan. 180, 47 Am. R. 497; Mooney v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 60 Iowa, 346, 14 N. W. 343. "A contract, so far as concerns its formal making, is to be determined by the law of the place where it is solemnized, unless the leoo situs of property disposed of otherwise re- quires; so far as concerns its in- terpretation, by the law of the place where its terms are settled, unless the parties had the usages of another place in view; so far as concerns the remedy, by the law of the place of suit; and so far as concerns its performance, by the law of the place of performance." Whart. Conf. L. (2d ed.), §401. «iMem. 3P. Wms. 75; 1 Black. Com. 107; Blankard v. Galdy, 3 Salk. 411; Dutton v. Howell, Show. P. C. 32; Adj.-Gen. v. Ranee Sur- nomoye Dossee, 9 Moore (Ind. App.), 387; Commonwealth v. Leach, 1 Mass. 60; Commonwealth V. Knowlton, 2 id. 534; Boebm v. GENERAL NATUBE OP STAT0TOET LAW, 29* ment of the colonies in America were brought thither witb the common law; or rather the common law, and the statutes amendatory of it, by the colonists from England, as a birthright; not to operate of their own vigor in the colonies, as statutes, but as part of the unwritten law. The ^colonists brought the laws of the mother country as they brought the mother tongue; not all the laws, but such as were adapted to their needs in the new country under the novel conditions and circumstances which there existed.^ § 17 (16). The existence of this law in the colonies was recognized and sanctioned by the royal charters, subject to modification by colonial usage and legislation. Our colo- nial ancestors could live under the old laws, or make new ones. When they legislated, their own laws governed them; when thej' did not, the laws they brought with them were their rules of conduct.*' The English statutes- thus imported, though the written law in England, and there in force as the expression of the sovereign will, did not cling to the emigrant- and attend him to the colonies against his will to preserve his subjection to the crown;, but he brought it as a boon for his protection.^^ In the Engle, 1 Dall. 15; Bogardus v. Trin- ton's Am. L., § 32, note) truly states^ ity Church, 4 Paige, 198. See Chal- the force of English laws brought mars' Colonial Op. 206, 238. to this country by the colonists. 85 State V. Rollins, 8 N. H. 550, He said: "The settlers of colonies 561; Commonwealth v. Knowlton, in America did not carry with 2 Mass. 534; Patterson v. Winn, 5 them the laws of the land as being Pet. 333, 8 L. Ed. 108; Clawson v, bound by them wherever they Primrose, 4 Del. Ch. 643; O'Ferrall should settle. They left the realm to V. Simplot, 4 Iowa, 400; Vidal v. avoid the inconveniencies and hard- Girard's Heirs, 3 How. 128, 11 L. Ed. ships they were under where some 205; Webster v. Morris, 66 Wis. 366, of these laws were in force, partic- 38 N. W. 853, 57 Am. R. 378; Dodge ularly ecclesiastical laws, those for V. Williams, 46 Wis. 93; Nelson v. the payment of tithes, and others.. McCrary, 60 Ala. 301. Had it been understood that they se Sackett v. Saokett, 8 Pick, 309 ; were to carry those laws with them, 1 Kent's Com. 473; Commonwealth they had better have stayed at V. Knowlton, supra. home among their friends unex- 87 The declaration of Dr. Frank- posed to the risks and toils of a new lin quoted by Mr. Wharton (Whar- settlement. They carried with :30 GENEEAL NATUEE OF STATUTOEY LAW. ■colonies these statutes were interwoven with the common law. Their authority was the same as that which gave force and sanction to the common law; the force of each depended on the same consideration — the presence of this •spirit in the emigrant's mind and their adaptation to his condition and circumstances in the colonies. In 1T74 the congress declared the right of the colonies to the common law and statutes of the mother country.^' § 18 (17). Eriglisli statutes passed after the establish- ment of the colonies. — The colonies were subject to the authority of parliament; they were a part of the British domain.^^ It could, and to some extent it did, legislate di- rectly for their government. But its enactments did not them a right to such part of the laws of the land as they should judge advantageous or useful to them: a right to be free from those that they thought hurtful, and a right to make such others as they -should think necessary, not infring- ing the general rights of English- men; and such new laws as they were to form as agi-eeable as might be to the laws of England." See speech of Burke on moving resolu- tions of conciliation, March 23, 1775. 88 Journal of Cong. Oct. 14, 1774. 89 In a late work, entitled "Parlia- mentary Government in the Brit- ish Colonies," by Alpheus Todd, p. 128, it is said: " Subject, however, to the constitutional oversight and discretion of the crown, by which all colonial legislation is liable to be controlled or annulled, if exer- cised unlawfully or to the preju- -dioe of other parts of the empire, •complete powers of legislation ap- pertain to all duly constituted co- lonial governments. Every local legislature, whether created by -charter from the crown or by im- perial statute, is clothed with su- preme authority, within the limits of the colony, to provide for the peace, order and good government of the inhabitants thereof. (See Baron Burke's judgment in Kielley V. Carson, 4 Moore's Privy Council Rep. 85.) This supreme legislative authority is subject, of course, to the paramount supremacy of the imperial parliament over all mmor and subordinate legislatures within the empire. The functions of con- trol exercisable by the imperial leg- islature are practically restrained, however, by the operation of cer- tain constitutional principles. . . . It may suffice to observe that the right of local self-government con- ceded to all British colonies wherein representative institutions have been introduced confers upon the local legislature, with co-operation and consent of the crown, as an in- tegral part of such institution, am- ple and unreserved powers to de- liberate and determine abso utely in regard to all matters of local con- cern." GENEEAL NATURE OF STATUTOEY LAW. 31 extend to the colonies unless the intention to so extend them was manifested in the statutes.'" 'Nov did such stat- utes, in which no such intention was expressed, become part of the unwritten law of the colonies.^' In some instances, statutes of England passed after the emigration, and not in terms made applicable to the col- onies, were adopted by the colonial courts; thus by long practice they acquired the authoritj'' of law.'^ By statutory and constitutional provision, the common law and English statutes, prior to specified dates, have been very generally adopted, or assumed by the courts to be in force so far as consistent with our condition and system of government, not only by states formed from the colonies, but in the newer states.'' The legislative and juridical history of the colonies does not confirm the theory that English laws were imposed on the colonies by authority of parliament, or that their adoption is traceable alone and everywhere to the nationality of the colonists. They unconsciously, by usage and custom, adopted laws adapted to their situation and needs, according to such enlightenment as they had, under the conjoint influence of dissenting religion and national bias. They legislated to the same end, and under the same influence; independently of the crown, despite the restric- tions in their constitutions, and the practice or requirement in some cases to legislate in the name of the king and the ostensible recognition of his veto power.'* 9° MoKineron v. Bliss, 31 Barb. Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 8 180. See Brioe v. State, 2 Overt. Mass. 534; Conrad v. De Montoourt, 354; Egnew v. Cochrane, 2 Head, 138 Mo. 811, 39 S. W. 805; Reno 829. Smelting, Milling & Reduction 91 Matthews V. Ansley, 31 Ala. 20; Works v. Stevenson, 80 Nev. 269, Carter v. Balfour, 19 Ala. 839; 31 Paa 817, 19 Am. St. Rep. 364; Sackett v. Sackett, 8 Pick. 809; McKennon v. Winn, 1 Okl. 327, 33 Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Pac. 583, 22 L. R. A. 501; Carson v. Mass. 534. Center, 33 Ore. 512, 52 Pac. 506; 92 Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Morris v. Vanderen, 1 Dall. 64, 67; Mass. 534. Respublica v. Mesca, id. 73, 93 Wunderle v. Wunderle, 144111. 94 Edmund Burke, in his speech 40, 33 N. E. 195, 19 L. B. A. 84; in moving resolutions of concilia^ 32 GENERAL NATDEB OF STATUTOKT LAW. The original British colonies had been practically self- governing, and the result of the revolution was to confirm their right of self-government. The people of the several colonies, in provisional union, won in that struggle the sov- ereignty of themselves. The republican system which re- placed the colonial constitutions abrogated only the prior laws which were inconsistent with the genius and form of the new government. § 19 (18). The first settlements were not all made by English people, nor were all the English settlements made- by persons of the same class or from the same motives. Von Hoist has truly remarked, that " the thirteen colonies had tion March 32, 1775, said: "When I know that the colonies in general owe little or nothing to any care of ours, and that they are not squeezed into this happy form by the constraints of watchful and suspicious government, but that, through a wise and salutary neg- lect, a generous nature has been suffered to take her own way to perfection — when I reflect upon these effects, when I see how prof- itable they have been to us, I feel the pride of power sink, and all presumption in the wisdom of human contrivances melt and die away within me, — my vigor re- lents, — I pardon something to the spirit of liberty." Having ad- dressed a series of considerations to show the futility and inexped- ience of employing force against the revolting colonies, he said: " Lastly, we have no sort of expe- rience in favor of force as an instru- ment in the rule of our colonies. Their growth and their utility has been owing to methods altogether different. Our ancient indulgence has been said to be pursued to a fault. It may be so; but we know, if feeling is evidence, that our fault was more tolerable than our at- tempt to mend it, and our sin more salutary than our penitence. . . . But there is still behind a third consideration, concerning this ob- ject, which serves to determine my opinion on the sort of policy which ought to be pursued in the man- agement of America, even more than the population and its com- mei'ce; Imean its temper and char- acter. In this character of Amer- icans, a love of freedom is the pre- dominating feature which marks and distinguishes the whole; and as an ardent is always a jealous af- fection, your colonies become sus- picious, restive, and untractable, whenever they see the least attempt to wrest from them by force, or shuffle from them by chicane, what they think the only advantage worth living for. This fierce spirit of liberty is stronger in the Eng- lish colonies, probably, than in any other people of the earth, and this from a great variety of powerful causes.-" QENEBAL NATURE OF STATUTOET LAW, 33 been founded at very different times and under very differ- ent circumstances. Their whole course of development, their political institutions, their religious views and social relations, were so divergent, the one from the other, that it was easy to find more points of difference than of similar- ity and comparison. Besides, commercial intercourse be- tween the distant colonies, in consequence of the great extent of their territory, the scantiness of the population, and the poor means of transportation at the time, was so slight, that the similarity of thought and feeling, which can be the result only of a constant and thriving trade, was wanting." ^5 It is not surprising, therefore, that the same English statutes were not equally applicable to the local condition in all the colonies. In Dana's Abridgment'* it is said, "there is no question more difficult to be answered than this: ' What British stat- utes were adopted in the British colonies ? ' In the char- tered colonies but few were adopted and practiced upon ; in the proprietary colonies, not many; in the royal colonies, usually a great many." § 20 (19). Continuance of laws after a change of sov- ereignty. — Laws, customary and statutory, continue in force, though they originate under a sovereign whose power has ceased by cession of the country and all political juris- diction, or by conquest. " The usage of the world is," says Chief Justice Marshall, "if a nation be not entirely subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occupation, until its fate shall be determined at the treaty of peace. If it be ceded by the treaty the acquisi- tion is confirmed, and the ceded territory becomes a part of the nation to which it is annexed; either on the terms stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on such as its new master shall impose. On such transfer of territory, it has^ never been held that the relations of the inhabitants with each other undergo any change. Their relations with their 95 Von Hoist, Const. Hist. U. S., vol. I, p. 3. 96 Vol. 6, ch. 196, art. 7. 3 34: GENEEAL NATDEE OF STATUTOEY LAW. former sovereign are dissolved, and new relations are cre- ated between tiiem and the government which has acquired their territory. The same act which transfers their country transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it ; and the law, which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals remains in force until altered by the newly created power of the state." " Among civil- ized nations having established laws, the rule is that laws, usages and municipal regulations, in force at the time of the conquest, remain in force until changed by the new sov- ereign.'' For a still stronger reason, this would be true in case of acquisitions by purchase and cession.'' " The American Ins. Co. v. Can- ter, 1 Pet. 541, 7 L. Ed. 242; United States V. Percheman, 7 id. 51, 8 L. Ed. 604; Mitohel v. United States, 9 Pet. 711, 9 L. Ed. 283; Mitchell v. Tucker, 10 Mo. 262; Leitensdorfer V. Webb, 20 How. 176, 15 L. Ed. 891; Langdeau v, Hanes, 21 Wall. 521, 22 L. Ed. 606; Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. V. McGlinn, 114 U. S. 542, 5 S. C. Rep. 1005, 29 L. Ed. 270; Whart Am. L., § 154. 38 United States v. Powers' Heirs, 11 How. 577, 13 L. Ed. 817; Chew v. Calvert, 1 Miss. (Walk.) 54; Fowler V. Smith, 2 CaL 89, 568; Blankard V. Galdy, 2 Salk.'411; Macoleta v. Packard, 14 Cal. 179; Campbell v. Hall, 1 Cowp. 209. Fowler v. Smith, 2 CaL 89, 568, was a case which arose before there was any legislation of the state of California changing the original Mexican law of interest. It was an action to foreclose a mortgage for purchase-money. There was an express promise to pay interest at two per cent, per month. It was stated that by the law of Mexico all contracts to pay a higher rate than six per cent, per annum, either upon money loaned or otherwise, were void. Murray, J., speaking for the court, said: "I cannot ap- proach the point [error having been alleged to the ruling of the trial court that the contract was not usurious] without great hesitation, well knowing that I shall have to contend with what, by many, is considered the settled rule upon this subject. But the frequency of these pleas, and the growing dis- position of counsel to apply the principles of the civil or Mexican law to every contract entered into before the passage of the act abol- ishing all laws previously existing in California, require that some ad- judication should be had which may govern these oases for the future. The argument of the ap- 99 United States v. Powers' Heirs, 11 How. 577, 13 I* Ed. 817; McNair V. Hunt, 5 Ma 800, 308. GENERAL NATtTEE OF STATDTOET LAW. 35 § 21 (20). Laws of states in rebellion. — The laws of the insurgent states passed during the rebellion, not enacted in pellant is based upon the well- recognized principle of interna- tional law that the laws of a ceded country remain in force until changed by the conquering or ac- quiring power. This principle is to be found in almost every work upon the subject of national law, and is reiterated and affirmed by the coui'ts of England and the United States. Its application to this case can, however, only be de- termined by an examination of the rule and the particular circum- stances under which it is sought to be applied. "The law of nations is said to be founded on right, reason, sound morality and justice; but although it is said to be binding upon na- tions in their intercourse and trans- actions, still we find the courts of the United States and Europe in many instances differing in their application of the rules, and even disregarding them. As the world has advanced in civilization and learning, the influence of religion has been felt and recognized by the christian countries of Europe in their intercourse with each other. War has been stripped of many of its most disgusting feat- ures. It is no longer considered as the normal condition of man and nations; but only justifiable when resorted to to preserve national honor, prosperity and happiness. ... "In an acquired territory con- taining a population governed in their business and social relations by a system of laws of their own, well understood and generally ac- cepted, it is but reasonable that the inhabitants should continue to regulate their conduct and com- mercial transactions by their own laws, until the same are changed. The reason is obvious and founded, in many instances, on the differ^ ence of language and systems of jurisprudence, the peculiar cir- cumstances of the country, the confusion consequent on such change, and the time necessary to ascertain the applicability of the new laws. It will be observed that the rule presupposes that the ac- quired country contains a popula- tion governed by well settled laws of their own. Let us inquire whether these reasons apply with equal force to this case. " California, at the time of its ac- quisition by the United States, con- tained but a sparse population. It had long been looked upon as one of the outposts of civilization. Its commercial, agricultural and min- eral resources undeveloped, it was considered of little importance by the Mexican government. The body of Mexican laws had been ex- tended overit; but there was uoth- ing upon which they could act, and they soon fell into disuse. The sys- tem of government was patriar- chal, and administered without much regard to the forms of law, which were scarcely alike in any two districts. Such was the state of the country when the discovery of our mineral wealth roused the 36 GENERAL NATURE OF STATUTORY LAW. aid of the rebellion but relating to the domestic affairs of the people of the state as a community, were valid after the war and the restoration of the states to all their rights whole civilized world to its impor- tance. In a few months the emigration from older states ex- ceeded five times the original pop- ulation of the country. A state gov- ernment vras immediately formed to meet the wants of this unex- pected population. The whole world was amazed by our sudden progress; and even the federal gov- ernment, startled from her usual caution by so novel a spectacle, be- held us take our place as a sover- eign state, before her astonishment had subsided. Emigration brought with it business, litigation, and the thousand attendants that follow in the train of enterprise and civili- zation. The laws of Mexico, writ- ten in a different language, and founded on a different system of jurisprudence, were to them a sealed book. The necessities of trade and commerce required prompt action. This flood of pop- ulation had destroyed every an- cient landmark; and finding no established laws or inctitutions, they were compelled to adopt cus- toms for their ovrn government. The proceedings in courts were conducted in the English language; and justice was administered by American judges without regard to Mexican laws. Custom was for all purposes law. No law concern- ing usury was recognized or sup- posed to exist. Under this peculiar system this country acquired its present wealth and prosperity. But it would have been much bet- ter for the permaicnt interests of this country, that its progress had been less rapid, if, after escaping from the tutelage of a territorial government, we are to be fettered by the dead" carcass of a law which expired at its birth, for want of human transactions on which to subsist; the application of which would overturn almost every con- tract entered inlo before the act abolishing all laws, etc., — would unhinge business and entirely de- stroy confidence in the country. "There is no case like the present- to be found in the history of the world. In every instance cited in the books the acquired country had a population of its own. governed by knowh laws; and the rate of emigration had been small, com- pared to the number of the origi- nal inhabitants. History may be searched in vain for an instance parallel with the emigration to this couutry. If it would be unjust to compel a densely populated state to take notice of the laws of the con- queror or acquiring power, with- out any other act than that of sub- mission or cession, it would be still more unjust in this country, where the American population so greatly outnumbered the natives, to com- pel us to apply their law, instead of our own, to oontracta In this case, the rule consequent upon the discovery of an uninhabited terri- tory might almost apply; and to construe these contracts by a sys- tem of laws not adapted to the ag& GENERAL NATtJEE OF STATDTOET LAW. 37 in the Union.^ The same general form of government, the same general laws for the administration of justice and the protection of private rights, which had existed in the states prior to the rebellion, remained during its continuance and afterwards. As far as the acts of the states did not impair, or tend to impair, the supremacy of the national authority, or the just rights of the citizens under the constitution, they have, in general, been treated as binding.^ These laws, necessary in their recognition and admin is- nor to the spirit of our institutions, altering the plain meaning of the parties, and giving to them condi- tions which were never intended, would work the grossest injustice." A rehearing was granted, and at a subsequent term a different con- clusion was arrived at, and thefore- going views were rejected. A ma- jority of the court, by Heydenfeldt, J., said: ''When the territory now comprised in the state of California was under Mexican dominion, its judicial system was that of the Roman law, modified by Spanish and Mexican legislation. Upon the formation of the present state gov- ernment that systemwas ordained by a constitutional provision to be •continued until it should be changed by the legislature." 2 Cal. 568. See Ryder v. Cohn, 37 Cal. 69, per Rhodes, J., dissenting. When the King of England con- quers a country, there, the con- queror, by saving the lives of the people conquered, gains a right and property in such people, in con- sequence of which he may impose upon them such laws as he pleases. But until such laws are given by the conquering prince, the laws and customs of the conquered country hold place, unless they are contrary to the conqueror's religion, enact sometliing malum in se, or are silent; in all such cases the laws of the conquering country prevail. 2 P. Wms. 75. iHorn y. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, 31 L. Ed. G57; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 19 L. Ed. 337; Sprott v. United States, SO Wall. 459, 23 L. Ed. 371, 8 Ct. of 01. 499; Williams V. Brufify, 96 U. S. 176, 34 L. Ed. 716; Watson v. Stone, 40 Ala. 451, 91 Am. Dec. 484; Home Ins. Co. v. United States, 8 Ct. of CI. 449; Hawkins v. Filkins, 24 Ark. 286; Harlan v. State, 41 Miss. 566; Berry V. Bellows, 30 Ark. 198; Shattuck V. Daniel, 53 Miss. 834; Cook v. Oliver, 1 Woods, 437, Fed. Cas. No. 3164; Hatch v. Burroughs, id. 439, Fed. Cas. No. 6203; Seymour v. Bailey, 66 111. 288. '■i Williams v. Brufly, 96 U. S. 176, 34 L. Ed. 716; Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 454, 24 L. Ed. 1071; Livings- ton V. Jordan, Chase's Deo. 454; Selden v. Preston, 11 Bush, 191; Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 600, 23 Am. Rep. 340; Dillard v. Alex- ander, 9 Heisk. 719; Rockhold v. Blevins, 6 Baxt. 115; Dow v. John- son, 100 U. S. 158, 25 L. Ed. 632; Dorr V. Gibboney, 3 Hughes, 383, Fed. Cas. No. 4006. 38 GENEEAL NATURE OF STATUTOEY LAW. tration to the existence of organized society, were the same, with slight exception, whether the authorities of the state acknowledged allegiance to the true or the false federal power. They were the fundamental principles for which civil society is organized into government in all coun- tries, and must be respected in their administration under whatever dominant authority they may be exercised. It is only when in the use of these powers substantial aid and comfort was given or intended to be given to the rebellion, when the functions necessarily reposed in the state for the maintenance of civil society were perverted to the manifest and intentional aid of treason against the government of the Union, that these acts are void.' § 22 (21). Federal and state statutes, — The sovereign power of making laws in the United States is divided and qualified; a part is vested in the federal congress, and a p;irt in the several state legislatures. Congress has a legis- lative power only in respect to certain subjects enumerated in the federal constitution; the state legislatures have a general legislative power within the several states. They have not an unlimited power; for the power of each is di- minished by the legislative power granted to congress, and it is also restricted by various provisions in the state con- stitutions.* The acts of congress passed in the exercise of the enumer- ated powers are the supreme law of the land, — in the states, in the District of Columbia, in the territories throughout 3 Pprott V. United States, 20 mission to the authority, however Wall. 464, 28 L. Ed. 371; Thorring- spurious, of the de facto power, ton V. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 19 L. Ed. 361. Baker v. Wright, 1 Bush, 500: Lay The occupation of a place by a v. Succession of O'Neil, 29 La. Ann. Confederate army and the instal- 722; Railroad v. Hurst, 11 Heisk. lation of a temporary civil govern- 625. nient under its military cover, sus- * Donnell v. State, 48 Miss. 679, pended co-extensively with their 12 Am. Rep. 375; Thayer v. Hedges, potential range the government 22 Ind. 282; Blair v. Ridgely, 41 and the laws of the state, and not Mo. 63, 97 Am. Dec. 248; Sears v, only compelled but legalized sub- Cottrell, 5 Mich. 251, 256. GENERAL NATURE OF STATUTOEY LAW. 39 the federal domain, or over such part as such acts are by their terms intended to operate. The state government cannot gainsay such laws, nor resist their authority. All individuals within the territory to which such laws are ap- plicable are subject to their constraining and restraining effect. In the same sense, the state laws are supreme within the state on all the subjects to which they constitutionally relate. The federal government cannot gainsay such laws nor resist their authority." Both federal and state laws in their proper domain of subjects are supreme laws of the land; the former as con- cerning the interests of all the states or the Union, and the latter as concerning the local affairs and internal interests of the particular state. State laws must give way to valid acts of congress ° and to treaties made by the federal gov- ernment.'' The construction given to a federal statute by the federal supreme court is binding upon the state courts,' and will be followed out of comity even in a matter not cognizable in the federal courts.' So the construction of a ' Ableman v. Booth, 31 How. 506, inconsistent with it. Old Town 16 L. Ed. 169; Cohens v. Virginia, Bank v. McCormick, 96 Md. 341; 6 Wheat. 264, 380-390, 5 L. Ed. 257; R. H.Herron Co. v. Superior Court, Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. 136 Cal. 279, 68 Pac. 814. Ed. 23; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. 8 Haseltine v. Central National S. 251, 25 L. Ed. 648; Ex parte Sie- Bank, 155 Mo. 66, 56 S. W. 895; bold, 100 U. S. 371, 25 L. Ed. 717; Board of Trustees v. Cuppett, 53 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, Ohio St. 567, 40 N. E. 792; First 343, 4 L. Ed. 97; Donnell v. State, National Bank v. Chapman, 9 Ohio 48 Miss. 679, 13 Am. Eep. 375; Coo- C. C, 79; Portland National Bank ley. Const Lim. 7-27. v. Scott, 20 Ore. 421, 26 Pac. 276. 6 Chan V. Brandt, 45 Minn. 93, 47 9 York v. Conde, 147 N. Y. 486, 43 N. W. 461. N. E. 193, affirming 71 Hun, 614. 7 Blythe v. Hinckley, 137 Cal. 431, But no principle of comity requires 59 Pao. 787; Adams v. Akerlund, the courts of one state to follow 168 111. 633, 48 N. E. 454; Scharpf v. the construction put upon an act Schmidt, 173 111. 255, 50 N. E. 183. of congress by the courts of an- State insolvent laws are displaced other state. Southern Ry. Co. v. by the national bankruptcy act Harrison, 119 Ala. 539, 24 So. 553, 73 only to the extent that they are Am. St. Rep. 9a6, 43 L, R. A. 385. 40 GENERAL NATnEB OF STATUTOET LAW. state statute by the state supreme court will be followed by the federal courts.'" § 23 (22), Both the federal and state laws belong to one system, and, though emanating from different legislative bodies, they are not hostile nor foreign to each other. In each state, the laws of congress applicable thereto operate of their own vigor. All persons must take notice of them, and are presumed to know them; all branches of the state government take notice of them; they are within the judi- cial knowledge of the state courts. The laws of one state are foreign to other states, and are so regarded in their jurisprudence even as administered in the federal courts. But the la ws of each state are laws operat- ing within the territorial sovereignty of the Union, and therefore, as to the federal courts, they are not foreign laws. All the federal courts take judicial notice of the public statutes of the states. In O wings v. Hull,'' a resort was had to the laws of Louisiana to determine the evidentiary value of a copy of a bill of sale on record in a notary's office. Mr. Justice Story, speaking for the court, said: "We are of opinion that the circuit court [sitting in the district of Maryland] was bound to take judicial notice of the laws of Louisiana. The circuit courts of the United States are created by congress, not for the purpose of administering the local law of a single state alone, but to administer the laws of all the states in the Union, in cases to which they respectively apply. The judicial power conferred on the general government by the constitution extends to many cases arising under the laws of the different states. And this court is called upon, in the exercise of its appellate 10 Covington V. Kentucky, 173 U. 208; Schaeffer v. Werling, 188 U. S. 231, 19 S. C. Rep. 383, 43 L. Ed. S. 516, 23 S. C. Rep. 449. In People 679; Knights Templars and Ma- v. Linda Vista Irr. Dist., 128 Cal. sons' Life Indemnity Co. v. Jarnian, 447, 61 Pac. 86, the court refused to 187 U. S. 197, 23 S. C. Rep. 108; follow a construction given to a Iowa Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 187 U. California statute by the United S. 335, 23 S. C. Rep. 126; Manley v. States supreme court Parli, 187 U. S. 547, 23 S. C. Rep. » 9 Pet. 624, 9 L. Ed. 246. GENEEAti NATURE OF STATUTOET LAW. 41 jurisdiction, constantly to take notice of and administer the jurisprudence of all the states. That jurisprudence is then, in HO just sense, a foreign jurisprudence, to be proved in the courts of the United States, by the ordinary modes of proof by which the laws of a foreign country are to be established ; but it is to be judicially taken notice of in the same manner as the laws of the United States are taken notice of by these courts."'^ § 24 (23). Territorial statutes. — It is settled that con- gress has a plenary power of legislation over territory be- longing to the United States, subject to the restrictions re- sulting from our republican system and the constitutional guaranties of personal rights." "All territory," says Waite, C. J., speaking for the supreme court," " within the jurisdic- tion of the United States, not included in any state, must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of con- gress. The territories are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States. They bear much the same relation to the general government that the coun- ties do to the states, and congress may legislate for them as states do for their respective municipal organizations. The organic law of a territory takes the place of a constitution as the fundamental law of the local government. It is ob- ligatory on and binds the territorial authorities ; but con- 12 Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. ordinate and limited parts of one 65, 80, 81, 14 L. Ed. 847; Junction complete system of government. Ey. Co. V. Bank of Ashland, 13 On principle, then, in the courts of Wall. 326,20 L Ed. 385; Cheever the United States, the judgment of T. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108, 19 L. Ed. a state court ought to be regarded 604; Woodworth v. Spafford, 3 Mc- as a domestic judgment— a judg- Lean, 168, 170, Fed. Cas. No. 18,020; ment given within the territorial Bennett v. Bennett, Deady, 309, Fed. sovereignty of the United States, Cas. No. 1318; Hathaway v. Mut. and provable in the ordinary way Life Ins. Co., 99 Fed. 534. In Ben- by the certificate of the custodian nett V. Bennett, the court said: of the original — the clerk of the "The national and state govern- court." ments, although vested with dis- i^ Whart. Am. L., § 404. tinct jurisdictions, are in no sense "First National Bank v. Yank- foreign to each other, but are sub- ton, 101 U. S. 129, 25 L. Ed. 1016. 4:2 GENERAL NATUEE OF STATUTOET LAW. gress is supreme, and, for the purposes of this department of its governmental authority, has all the powers of the- people of the United States, except such as have been ex- pressly or by implication reserved in the prohibitions of the constitution. In the organic act of Dakota there was no- express reservation of the power in congress to amend th& acts of the territorial legislature ; but none was necessary. Such a power is an incident of sovereignty, and continues until granted away. Congress may not only abrogate law» of the territorial legislatures, but it may itself legislate di- rectly for the local government. It may make a void act of the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. In other words, it has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the territories, and all the clepartraents- of the territorial government. It may do for the territories what the people, under the constitution of the United States, may do for the states." '* A territorial act to be valid must conform to the constitution of the United States and to the- grant of power from congress.'" It has also been held that a territorial act must be reasonable or it will be void, and ' the territorial legislature is likened in this respect to the- legislative body of -a municipality." Where a section of a 15 Mormon Church v. United parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 489, 5 a G- States, 136 U. S. 1, 10 S. C. Rep. 792, 34 Rep. 935, 29 L. Ed. 89. L. Ed. 478; Cope v. Cope, 187 TJ. S. i' People v. Daniels, 6 Utah, 288, 683, 11 S. C. Rep. 233, 34 L. Ed. 833; 22 Pac. 159. The court says: "In. Allen V. Reed, 10 Okl. 105, 63 Pac. the organic act, congress, under 867; Goodson v. United States, 7 restrictions, express or implied, con- Okl. 117,54 Pac. 433; Territory v. fers upon the territorial legislature O'Connor, 5 Dak. 397, 41 N. W. 746, authority to legislate with respect 3 L. R. A. 355. to such subjects as concern the '"Taylor V, Stevenson, 3 Idaho, people of the territory. When the 180. 9Pao. 643; Stevenson v. Moody, authority with respect to the sub- 3 Idaho, 260, 18 Pac. 903; Territory jeot is specific, and its extent is- V. Guyott, 9 Mout. 46, 83 Pac. 134; clearly defined, the discretion of Farris v. Henderson, 1 Okl. 384, 33 the legislature within constitu- Pac. 380; People v. Daniels, 6 Utah, tional limitations cannot be ques- 388, 83 Pao. 159; Territory v. Blom- tioned; the denial of such disore- berg, 2 Ariz. 204, 11 Pac. 671; Ex tion would be a denial of the powee- GENERAL HATTJEE OF STATUTOET LAW. 43- territorial act is void, because not within its title, as re- quired by the laws of congress, the approval of the act by congress cures the defect." After a territorial act has been approved by congress it cannot be repealed or amended by the territorial legislature." § 25 (24). The existence of this authority in congress- was from the early days of the republic a foregone conclu- sion. It does not rest in any acknowledged specific grant- in the constitution, nor did it await a discovery of any other power from which by general agreement it was to be im- plied. In American Insurance Co. v. Canter,^ Marshall, C. J., said : " Perhaps the power of governing a territory be- longing to the United States which has not, by becoming a state, acquired the means of self-government, may result- necessarily from the fact that it is not " within the jurisdic- tion of any particular state, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire terri- tory. Whichever may be the source whence the power is derived, the possession of it is unquestioned." And in an- other part of the opinion he said : " In legislating for them [the territories] congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of a state government."^' In the late case of congress; but when the power will not presume that congress in- is given in general terms, and the tended to authorize the legislature- extent to which it may be exer- to make an unjust, an unreason- cised upon the subject is not ex- able, an unequal, or an oppressive pressly limited and clearly defined law." pp. 293, 293. in the organic act, then the terri- i* Karasek v. Peier, 23 Wash. 419,. torial legislature must exercise its 61 Pao. 33, 50 L. R. A. 345. discretion. So far as that discre- w Martin v. Territory, 8 Okl. 41, tion is expressly limited by the 56 Paa 712; Murphy v. Utter, 186- constitution or the organic act U. S. 95, 22 S. G. Rep. 776, 46 L. Ed- such limitation must be observed; 1070. but when it is not, the legislature 2» 1 Pet. 511, 541, 7 L. Ed. 342. must follow the dictates of reason '^^ Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. and justice. The law must be rea- 445, 15 L. Ed. 691; Benner v. Porter,, sonable and just, because the court 9 How. 235, 243, 13 L. Ed. 119. 44 GENEEAL NATUEE OF STATUTOET LAW. which has been referred to,"^ the chief justice, delivering the •opinion of the court, recognizes the same uncertainty of derivation, and repeats the announcement absolutely that the existence of the power is conceded.^' 22 First Nat. Bank v. Yankton, 101 U. S. 129, 25 L. Ed. 1046. 23 In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 15 L. Ed. 691, the learn- ing on this point was exhausted. In the opinion of the court, deliv- ered by Taney, C. J., it is said: "The counsel for the plaintiff has laid much stress upon that article in the constitution which confers on congress the power 'to dispose -of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; ' but, in the judg- ment of the court, that provision has no bearing on the present con- troversy, and the power there given, whatever it may be, is confined, and was intended to be confined, to the territory which at that time belonged to or was claimed by the United States, and was within their boundaries as settled by the treaty with Great Britain; and can have no influence upon a territory after- wards acquired from a foreign gov- ernment. It was a special provision for a known and particular terri- tory, and to meet a present emer- gency, and nothing more." In another part of the opinion the -authority of congress over territory subsequently acquired was thus discussed: "And indeed the power exercised by congress to acquire territory and establish a government there, ac- cording to its own iinlimited dis- cretion, was viewed with great jealousy by the leading statesmen of the day. And in the Federalist (No. 88), written by Mr. Madison, he speaks of the acquisition of the Northwestern Territory by the con- federated states, by the cession from Virginia, and the establishment of a government there, as an exercise of power not warranted by the ar- ticles of confederation, and danger- ous to the liberties of the people. And he urges the adoption of the constitution as a security and safe- guard against such an'exercise of power. "We do not mean, however, to question the power of congress in this respect. The power to expand the territory of the United States by the admission of new states is plainly given; and in the construc- tion of this power by all the depart- ments of the government, it has been held to authorize an acquisi- tion of territory, not fit for admis- sion at the time, but to be admitted as soon as its population and situa- tion would entitle it to admission. It is acquired to become a state, and not to be held as a colony and governed by congress with absolute authority; and, as the propriety of admitting a new state is committed to the sound discretion of congress, the power to acquire territory for that purpose, to be held by the United States until it is in a suit- able condition to become a state GENERAL NATUEE OF STATUTOET LAW. 45- § 26 (25). Territories have but temporary governments — Are in tutelage to become states. — The federal consti- tution provides for the admission of new states.^* The pro- vision is general and. has been applied not only to the ad- mission of new states in territory belonging to the govern- ment when the constitution was adopted, but to new states formed in newly acquired territory. It has been decided to be contrary to the constitution to acquire territory with any other view than to the formation and admission of new states.^' " The very fact," says Mr. Wharton, " that territories are infant states, to be admitted into the Union on maturity,. upon an equal footing with the other states, must rest upon the same discretion." 24 Seo. 3, art. 4 25 In the majority opinion In Dred Scott v. Sanford, already cited, the chief justice said : "There is certainly no power given by the constitution to the federal govern- ment to establish or maintain col- onies bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure; nor to enlarge its territorial limits in any way, except by the admis- sion of new states. That power is plainly given; and if a new state is admitted, it needs no further leg- islation by congress, because the constitution itself defines the rela- tive rights and powers and duties of the state, and the citizens of the state and the federal government. But no power is given to acquire a tei-ritory to be held and governed permanently in that character." He amplifies thus on another page: " The principle upon which our governments rest, and upon which alone they continue to exist, is the union of states, sovereign and in- dependent, within their own limits in their internal and domestic con- cerns, and bound together as one people by a general government possessing certain enumerated and restricted powers, delegated to it by the people of the several states,. and exercising supreme authority within the scope of the powers granted to it, throughout the do- minion of the United States. A power, therefore, in the general government to obtain and hold colonies and dependent territories over which they might legislate without restriction, would be in- consistent with its own existence in its present form. Whatever it acquires it acquires for the benefit of the people of the several states who created it. It is their trustee acting for them, and charged with the duty of promoting the interests of the whole people of the Union in the exercise of the powers spe- cifically granted." See historical notes in opinion of Mr. Justice- Campbell in same case, pp. 507-508> Whart. Am. L., §§463, 464 46 GENERAL NATUEE OF STATDTOET LAW. «hows that they are to be governed on the same general principles, as far as is applicable, as are states, just as in- fants, mutatis mutandis, are governed on the same general principles, so far as concerns safeguards, as are adults." ^' Only a political change is produced by admission into the Union as a state. Congress then ceases to legislate for its people, or in regard to their internal and domestic concerns. They have thus been admitted to the exercise of the right of self-government. The territorial laws enacted by con- gress or the local legislature continue in force so far as they are consistent with the new condition of statehood and. the provisions of the state constitution." 26 Id., § 464. ritory v. Lee, 3 Mont. 134; Am. 27 Ante, § 19. See Benner v. For- Ins. Ca v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 7 L. ter, 9 How, 234, 13 L. E4 119; Ter- Ed. 24a CHAPTER II. THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS AND HOW THEIR EXISTENCE IS ESTABLISHED, § 27 (26). The legislature. — It is a primary requisite to the enactment of laws that there be a legal legislature. In time and place the members entitled so to do must lawfully convene.* A legislature elected under a void apportion- ment act is a de facto legislature and its acts are valid.^ When a majority of the members of the house meet and organize at the regular place of meeting, they constitute the legal house, though the governor and senate recognize the minority who have also organized at another place.' The senate of New Jersey consists of twenty-one members and seven are elected each year. It has been held that it is not a continuous body, but must be organized anew each year, and that, where nine old members and one new or- ganized one body and four old members and seven new or- ganized another, the latter, being organized by a majority, was the legal senate.* But where the question is whether a statute was legally passed, the courts will not go back of the journals to inquire whether the legislature was legally -constituted.' The American legislature, acting under written constitu- iTennant's Case, 3 Neb. 409; State < State v. Rogers, 56 N. J. L. 480, -7. Judge, 29 La. Ann. 223; Macon, 28 AtL 726. ■etc. E. R. Co. V. Little, 45 Ga. 370; "Auditor-General v. Supervisors, Gormley v. Taylor, 44 Ga. 76. See 89 Mich. 653, 51 N. W. 483; State v. Eohrbacker V.Jackson, 51 Miss. 735; Smith, 44 Ohio St 348, 7 N. E. 447. People V. Hatch, 33 111. 9, 151. In both these cases an act was as 2 State V. Cunningham, 81 Wis. sailed on the ground that it never 440, 51, N. W. 724, 15 L. R. A. 561. received the vote of a majority of *In re Gunn, 50 Kan. 155, 33 Pac. the senate. It was set up that a 470, 948, 19 L. R. A 519. minority of the senate met in the 48 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. tions, can only exercise a delegated power. It must keep within the limits of power granted to it and observe the di- rections as to membership, the time of meeting and length of its sessions, procedure in its deliberations, the number of votes necessary for any purpose, and the making of its records. § 28 (27). How existence of statute established — Eng- lish rule. — The British parliament, including the three great estates of the realm — the king, lords and commons, — possesses a transcendent power. It enacts laws by a pro- cedure devised by itself, and it is subject to no paramount law. When a statute is framed and recorded according to its traditional forms as an act of parliament, it is a record which expresses the will of the sovereign power. General acts are " enrolled by the clerk of the parliament, and de- livered over into the chancery, which enrollment in the chancery makes them the original record." Private acts filed, sealed, and remaining with the clerk of parliament, are also original records.' The record is deemed a high absence of the majority, voted to versive of the independence of the unseat certain of the majority and legislature as a co-ordinate branch to seat others in their places, who, ' of the government. There is no joining with the minority, passed authority for it in the constitution the act. But the court refused to and laws of this state, and it is op- consider these facts, and in the lat- posed to the practice and polity of ter case it is said: " As to the aver- our system of government." p. 366. ment that the passage of the act And see People v. Mahaney, 13 was part of a conspiracy, entered Mich. 481 ; Lyons v. Woods, 153 into between the president of the U. S. 649, 14 S. C. Rep. 959, 38 L. Ed. senate and seventeen members, 854. carried into effect in the absence ^King v. Arundel, Hob. 110; 5 from the state of a majority of the Comyn's Dig. Parliament; 1 Phil, members of the senate, it is suflB- Evi. 316. Anciently, the manner oient to say that such suggestions of proceeding in parliament was have frequently been made for the much different from what it is at purpose of inducing judicial in- the present day; for, formerly, the quiry into the conduct of legislative bill was in the form of a petition, bodies, but the inquiry has as fre- and these petitions were entered quently been declined by the courts upon the lords- rolls, and upon these as not only indecorous, but as sub- rolls the royal assent was likewise ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 49 record. It imports absolute verity, and must be tried by it- self, teste meipso. This is the dignity and quality of all technical records. No plea can raise any other question re- garding a record than that of its existence. Upon that issue the record itself is the only evidence; the trial is merely by the record. A record or enrollment is a monument of so high a nature, and imports in itself such absolute verity, that if it be pleaded that there is no such record there is no trial by witnesses, jury or otherwise than by the court in- specting the record itself.' The court being bound to take judicial notice of thfe laws, no plea can be necessary or per- mitted denying the existence of the record of an act of par- entered; and upon this, asaground- work, the judges used, at the end of the parliament, to draw up the act of parliament into the form of the statute which was afterwards entered upon the rolls, called the statute-rolls; which were different from those called the lords-rolls, or the rolls of parliament; upon these statute-rolls neither the bill nor petition from the commons, nor the answer of the lords, nor the royal assent, were entered, but only the statute, as it was drawn up and penned by the judges; and this was the method till about Henry the Fifth's tima In his time, it was desired that the acts of parliament might be drawn up and penned by the judges before the end of parliament; and this was by reason of a complaint then made, that the statutes were not equally and fairly drawn up and worded. After the parliament was dissolved or prorogued in Henry the Sixth's time, the former method was altered, and these bills con- tenentes forr.iam actus parliamenti were first used to be brought into the house. The bills (before they were brought into the house) were ready drawn, in the form of an act of parliament, and not in the form of a petition, as before; upon which bill it was written by the com- mons, soite baile al seigneurs; and by the lords, soit bayle al roye; and by the king, le roy le veut; all this was written upon the bill, and the bill, thus indorsed, was to remain with the clerk of the parliament, and he was to enter the bill thus drawn at first, in the form of an act of parliament or statute, upon the statute-rolls, without entering the answer of the king, lords or commons upon the stat- ute-rolls, and then issued out writs to the sheriffs, with tran- script of the statute-rolls, viz. : of the bill drawn at first in the form of a statute and without the an- swer of the king, lords and com- mons, to the bill, to proclaim the statute. Bac. Abr., title Court of Parliament, F. '2 Black. Com. 331. 50 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. liament. In Prince's Case,' it was resolved " that against a general act of parliament, or such act whereof the judges ex officio ought to take notice, the other party cannot plead nul tiel record; for of such acts the judges ought to take notice; but if it be misrecited the party ought to demur in law upon it. And, in that case, the law is grounded upon great reason; for God forbid, if the record of such acts should be lost or consumed by fire or other means, that it should tend to the general prejudice of the commonwealth; but rather, although it be lost or consumed, the judges, either by the printed copy, or by the record in which it was pleaded, or by other means, may inform themselves of it." s §29 (28). legislative records. — The conclusiveness of records is a conclusion of the common law. We have in America the common law so far as it is suited to our condi- tion. A technical record here has the same effect as by the common law of England, except as it is modified by the written law, or conditions are so changed as to render the common law inapplicable. The conditions in respect to legislation in this country, where a mandatory procedure is prescribed in a constitution, are not the same as in Eng- land.i" *8 Coke, 28. are so transcendent and absolute 9 Dwairis on St. 613: Sherman v. that it cannot be confined, either Story, 30 Cal. 276, 89 Am. Dec. 93; for causes or persons, within any Eld V. Gorham, 20 Conn. 8. bounds. 4 Inst. 36. ' And so long,' lOThe dissenting opinion of adds Sir William Blackstone, 'as Smith, C. J., in Green v. Weller, 33 the British constitution lasts, it Miss. 704, is instructive on this may be safely affirmed that the point. He says: "In Gi-eat Britain power of parliament is absolute there is no written fundamental and uncontrolled.' 2 Com. 162. law defining and limiting the pow- "A void act of legislation neces- ers of the government, by which sarily implies the existence of a the validity of the acts of any of superior and controlling power in the departments may be tested, the state. There are but two con- The parliament, in a political and ceivable reasons for which an act legislative sense, is omnipotent and can be void. First, for want of supreme. The power and jurisdic- power in the legislature to pass it. tion of parliament, says Lord Coke, Second, because it has not been BNACTMENT OF LAWS. 61 § 30 (29). A legislature in our republican system of gov- ernment is a representative body. Its power is delegated by a charter from the people — a constitution. This is a passed in the method required to make it valid. And the univer- sally received doctrine in England is, that an act ol! parliament of which the terms are explicit, and the meaning plain, cannot be questioned or its authority con- trolled in any court whatever. The idea, therefore, of an unconstitu- tional law of parliament can have no e.xistence under the English system of government. The par- liament rolls, which are transcripts of the acts, made up under the supervision of officers appointed by parliament, and declared by law to be records, necessarilj', I may say naturally, are conclusive evi- dence of the existence of the stat- ute, and imply the due perform- ance of the necessary prerequisites in their "enactment. It is a rule which flows from the absolute and unlimited jurisdiction and power of parliament. "The principles of the common law, unsuited to our conditions, or repugnant to the spirit of our gov- ernment, have no existence within this commonwealth. It required no act of positive legislation to re- peal them. They have been ex- cluded by the silent operation of our institutions. It' is clear, there- fore, that this rule, as a principle of the common law, can have no ■operation within this state. " For under the American theory of government the jus summi im- perii, the supreme, absolute, un- controlled authority does not reside in any of the departments of the government, nor in all of them united. It is inherent in the people, from whom all power is derived, and upon whose consent all gov- ernment is founded. The consti- tution derives its existence from the immediate act and consent of the people. It is a law to the gov- ernment which derives its just powers therefrom, or from the as- sent of the governed, for whose benefit that power is intrusted. As the constitution is the supreme law, all the acts of the government or the departments thereof, done in contravention of its provisions, are inoperative and void. An act of the legislature which has not been passed in conformity with the directions of the constitution, is equally void with one whose terms violate its provisions. Bill of Rights, art. 3. "The judiciary, like all the de- partments, are bound by the con- stitution, and sworn to support it. It is, therefore, their duty to pro- nounce an act of the legislature null, and to refuse to give it effect, if it be void for either of these ■ causes." In Sherman v. Story; 30 Cal. 353, 89 Am. Dec 93, is a lucid and thorough exposition of the com- mon law on this subject, and it seems to have been properly ap- plied to the case under considera- tion, for there was no departure from a constitutional practice com- plained of. 52 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. sacred instrument, and upon it as a foundation is reared the whole fabric of our civil government. It confers all the powers deemed necessary to that government; in its limita- tions is all the security of the people against usurpation. Therefore, it is one of the beneficent axioms of our consti- tutional jurisprudence that the people are the source of all the power possessed and exercised by the organized state; its restrictions are of the nature of prohibitions and manda- tory. The authority which confers the power to make laws has the acknowledged right to qualify the grant and per- emptorily regulate the exercise of the power conferred, so that acts of legislation to be valid must not only be within the grant and not exceeding the restrictions imposed, but also be passed or adopted in the mode or by the procedure prescribed." § 31 (30). Constitutional provisions prescribing parlia- mentiiry procedure. — The federal constitution and that of nearly every state in the Union contain directions in re- spect to the manner of enacting as well as of authenticating statutes. These directions vary in terms and to a consider- able extent in substance. As to some very important par- ticulars compliance will not appear upon the face of the statute. The procedure thus regulated and directed includes the meeting of the two houses, their action respectively in the introduction, amendment and passage of bills, commu- nications between the houses, the time of presenting bills to the governor for approval, and of his action thereon. In part their procedure is historically entered, and in some particulars required to be entered in the legislative journals ; in part it so occurs that material points will not be or are not required to be mentioned in any record or official memo- rial; as, for instance, when a bill is presented to the gov- ernor, or when he approves it. Legislative journals were in 11 Legg V. Mayor, etc., 42 Md. 203; id. 546; Moody v. State, 48 id. 115, Moog V. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597; 17 Am. Rep. 28; Supervisors v. Hee- Jones V. Hutchinson, 43 id. 731; nan, 2 Minn. 330. Perry County v. Railroad Co., 58 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 53 use in the British parliament at the time our legislative prac- tice under constitutions commenced, and had been for cen- turies. If the process of enacting laws is not regulated by constitution ; or, if so regulated, the provisions on that sub- ject are deemed addressed solely to the law-making depart- ment, the journals hold the same place in our polity and juris- prudence as is assigned to them by the common law. They cannot be appealed to to impeach the regular record of a statutory enactment. That record whatever it may be im- ports absolute verity; imports the regular enactment of the statute by the proper forms of legislation ; it speaks in its own words the sovereign will. Found in the proper custody it proves and identifies itself; it is a record not to be con- tradicted by the legislative journals, nor by any other evi- dence.'^ § 32 (31). Courts holding enrolled act conclusiye — Missouri, — If the enrollment or original record of a statute is regular on its face; that is, if the act is framed with no infirmity on its face, is duly promulgated," or properly authenticated and deposited in the proper oifice, it is con- clusively presumed to have been regularly enacted; the rec- ord is invulnerable to collateral attack and proves itself. This is the rule in several states having constitutions regu- lating the legislative procedure and requiring legislative journals to be kept. A leading case on this subject is Pa- cific Eailroad v. The Governor.'* The act under discussion had been vetoed by the gov- ernor, and the question was whether it had been subse- quently passed by the proceedings required by the consti- tution.'* 12 Sherman v. Stoiy, 30 Cal. 253, '^ The case arose under the con- S9 Am. Dec. 93; People v. Burt, 43 stitution of 1820, which contained Cal. 560; Railroad Tax Cases, 13 these provisions: ". . . They Fed. 723. See ante, % 29; post, % 57. [the houses] shall each, from time 13 State Lottery Co. v. Riohoux, to time, publish a journal of their ■23 La, Ann. 743, 8 Am. Rep. 602; proceedings, except such parts as "Whited V. Lewis, 25 La. Ann. 568. may, in their opinion, require se- ll 33 Mo. 353, 66 Am. Dec. 673. crecy; and the yeas and nays on 54 ENACTMENT OE LAWS. Scott, J., delivering the opinion of the court, used this- language: "Whilst the power of the courts to declare a law unconstitutional is admitted on all hands as being neces- sary to preserve the constitution from violation, yet such power is claimed and exercised in relation to laws which show on their face that the constitutional limit has been transcended. The reason of this principle limits the claim of jurisdiction to such cases. The constitution is designed to limit the powers of the government, and to confine each of the departments to its appropriate sphete. If the legislature exceed its powers in the enactment of a law, the courts being sworn to support the constitution must judge that law by the standard of the constitution and declare its [injvalidity. But the question whether a law on its face violates the constitution is very different from that growing out of the non-compliance with the forms required to be observed in its enactment. In the one case a power is exercised, not delegated, or which is prohib- ited, and the question of the validity of the law is deter- any question shall be entered on with his objections, to the house in- the journal, at the desire of any which it shall.have originated, and two members." Art. 3, sec. 18. the house shall cause the objec- Sea 21. "Bills may originate in tions to be entered at large on its either house, and may be altered, journal, and shall proceed to recon- amended or rejected by the other; sider the bill. If, after such re- and every bill shall be i-ead on consideration, a majority of all three different days in each house, the members elected to that house unless two-thirds of the house shall agree to pass the same, it where the same is depending shall shall be sent together with the ob- dispense with this rule; And every jections to the other house, by bill, having passed both houses, which it shall be in like manner shall be signed by the speaker of reconsidered, and if approved by the house of representatives and by a majority of all the members the president of the senate." elected to that house, it shall be- Art. 4, sec. 10. " Every bill wliich come a law. In all such cases the shall have been passed by both votes of both houses shall be taken houses of the general assembly, by yeas and nays; the names of shall, before it becomes a law, be the persons voting for and against presented to the governor for his the bill shall be entered on the approval. If he approve, he shall journal of each house respectively, sign it; if not, he shall return it, . . . " ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 55 mined from the language of it. In the other, the law is not, in its terras, contrary to the constitution ; on its face it is regular, but resort is had to something behind the law it- self in order to ascertain whether the general assembly, in making the law, was governed by the rules prescribed for Its action by the constitution. This would seem like an in- quisition into the conduct of the members of the general assembly, and it must be seen at once that it is a very deli- cate power, the frequent exercise of which must lead to endless confusion in the administration of the law." § 33 (32). Further on in the opinion the learned judge said : " The sense of the words in which the forms to be observed in legislation are prescribed may be matter of doubt. Different opinions may be entertained as to the meaning of the language in which they are expressed, as well as to the end or object of them. This very case fur- nishes an illustration of the truth of this remark. The members of the general assembly may conscientiously be- lieve that they have pursued the constitutional course.'^ i^In State v. Mead, 71 Mo. 266, ness is entertained, aflSx his signa- the conditions here deprecated ture, which fact shall be noted on were fully adopted as a result of the journal and the bill imme- subsequent changes in the consti- diately be sent to the other housa tution. The act in question was When it reaches the other house passed under a constitution con- the presiding officer thereof shall taining the following provision : immediately suspend all other busi- " No bill shall become a law until ness, announce the reception of the the same .shall have been signed by bill, and the same proceedings the presiding officers of each of the shall thereupon be observed in two houses in open session. And every respect as in the hoase in before such officer shall affix his which it was first signed. If in signature to any bill he shall sus- either house any member shall pend all other business, declare object that any substitution, omis- that such bill will now be read, and sion or insertion has occurred, so that if no objection be made he that the bill proposed to be signed will sign the same, to the end that is not the same in substance and it shall become a law. The bill form as when considered and shall then be read at length, and if passed by the house, or that any no objection be made he shall in particular clause of this article of the presence of the house, in open the constitution has been violated session, and before any other busi- in its passage, such objections shall 56 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. But to give the executive and judicial departments a right to revise this exercise of thei"- judgment, would it not be subjecting the legislature to a surveillance which, instead of making it a co-ordinate department, would subject it to a dependence on the others? There is a fitness in making each department the sole judge of the rules prescribed for its conduct; this is necessary to render them co-ordinate, and not dependent on each other. . . . We do not maintain that the legislature can prevent a scrutiny into its acts, which the constitution designed should be made, by any mode of authentication it may adopt. We have en- deavored to show that the constitution never contemplated that objections of the character urged against the law whose validity is now under consideration should be raised against a bill passed with the approval of the governor. There is no reason why objections of like character should be raised against a bill passed against his will. . . . Upon the whole, we are of the opinion that the objections taken against the mode of passing this law by the general assem- bly on its reconsideration are untenable, and the constitu- tion and law preclude an inquiry as to the existence of such objections; the constitution regarding the provisions alleged to have been violated in the passage of this law as merely directory, and, being so, a departure from them, even if there was a departure, would not render the law void." A later constitutional provision requiring that, on the final passage of a bill, the vote shall be taken by yeas and be passed upon by the house, and, ered by the governor in connection if sustained, the presiding officer therewith." shall withhold his signature, but if The first clause was held manda- suoh objection shall not be sus- tory, but the others directory, ex- tained, then any five members may cept that in case of protest they embody the same over their signa- were submitted with the bill to the tures, in a written protest, under governor, and to be considered by oath, against the signing of the him, — that this was the remedy bill. Said protest, when offered in provided by the constitution for the house, shall be noted upon the any supposed infraction of those journal, and the original shall be clauses, annexed to the bill to be consid- ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 57 nays and entered on the journal, and that a majority of the members of each house must be recorded as voting in favor of the bill, is held to be mandatory." § 34 (33). Same — Louisiana. — All the constitutions of Louisiana have required each house of the general assembly to keep and publish weekly a journal of its proceedings, and to enter therein the yeas and najj^s of the members on any question at the desire of any two of them. And also has provided that " ISTo bill shall have the force of a law until on three several days it be read in each house of the general assembly, and free discussion be allowed thereon, unless, in case of urgency, four-fifths of the house where the bill shall be depending deem it expedient to dispense with this rule." In State Lottery Co. v. Kichoux,i' it was said by the court: ""When a legislative act is duly promulgated according to the constitution and laws under which it is passed, we find no authority in the judiciary department to look behind it and determine its validity or invalidity from the proceed- ings of the general assembly in adopting it. Such a course, it would seem, is not sustainable on the theorv of the inde- pendent and separate action of the three branches of the state government. Where a legislative act is attacked on the ground that it contains provisions that are unconstitu- tional, the question of its validity is properly within the scope of judicial action. The courts have power, when a constitutional question is raised, to examine whether the thing ordered, permitted or forbidden to be done may have effect under the sanction of the constitution. The question should be, is tlie law itself constitutional as to its provisions and what it declares, and not whether it is constitutional as to the manner of its enactment or the proceedings by which it was enacted." But later cases sustain the view that the enrolled bill may be impeached, by the journals.'' 1' state V. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 55 See Whited v. Lewis, 25 La. Ann. S. W. 6:^6. And see State v. Wray, 568. 109 Mo. 594, 19 S. W. 86; State v. "State v. Laiche, 105 La. 84, 29 Field, 119 Mo. 593, 24 S. W. 752. So. 700; State v. Secretary of State, 18 23 La. Ann. 743, 8 Am. Eep. 602. 43 La. Ann. 590, 9 So. 776; HoUings- 58 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. § 35 (34). Same — Mississippi. — In Mississippi the same- subject was thus discussed in Green v. Weller:^" "It may be that legislative acts may be passed without a compliance with the requirements of the constitution. If such defect or violation appear on the face of the act, or by that which constitutes the record, which can be judicially noticed, the power of the court to determine the question is indispu- table. But if the proper record shows that the act has re- ceived the sanctions required by the constitution as evidence of its having been passed agreebly to the constitution, and its provisions be not repugnant to the constitution, the regu- larity and stability of government and the peace of soci- ety require that it should have the force of a valid law."^^ ^ 36 (35). Same — Other states The constitution of I^evada requires particular proceedings in the passage of a legislative act. Each house must keep a journal of its own proceedings which shall be published; that "every bill shall worth V. Thompson, 45 La. Ann, 223, 13 So. 1, 40 Am. St. Rep. 220. 20 33 Miss. 690. 21 Const. 1868, art. 4, sees. 14, 23. See Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268. A contrary view was announced in Brady v. West, 50 Miss. 68, but the latter case was expressly overruled in Ex parte Wren, 63 Miss, 513, 538, 56 Am. Rep. 825, in whicli the court says: "The fundamental error of any view which permits an appeal to the journal to see if the consti- tution has been observed in the passage by both houses of their en- actments, is the assumed right of the judicial department to revise and supervise the legislature as to the manner of its performance of its appointed constitutional func- tions. It is the admitted province of the courts to judge and declare if an act of the legislature violates the constitution; but this duty of the courts begins with the com- pleted act of the legislature. It does not ante- date it. The legjisla- ture is one of the three co-ordinate and co-equal departments inta which the powers of government are divided by the constitution, possessing all legislative power and not subject to supervision and con- trol during its performance of its constitutional functions, nor to ju- dicial revision afterward of the manner in which it obeyed the constitution its members are sworn to support. From necessity the ju- dicial department must judge of the conformity of legislative acts to the constitution, but what are legislative acts must be determined by what are authenticated as ffuch according to the constitution."^ pp. 533, 534. The earlier doctrine was again confirmed in Hunt v.. Wright, 70 Miss. 298, 11 So. 60& ENACTMENT OF LAWS. SO' be read by sections on three several days in each house,, unless in case of emergency two-thirds of the house where such bill may be pending shall deem it expedient to dis- pense with this rule; but the reading of a bill by sections on its final passage shall in no case be dispensed with, and the vote on the final passage of any bill or joint resolution shall be taken by yeas and nays to be entered on the journals of each house; and a majority of all the members elected to each house shall be necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution ; and all bills or joint resolutions so passed shall be signed by the presiding oflBcers of the respective houses, and by the secretary of the senate and clerk of the assem- bly." ^^ It is there held that the court, for the purpose of informing itself of the existence and terms of a law, cannot look beyond the enrolled act certified by these officers who- are charged by the constitution with the duty of certifying and with the duty of deciding what laws have been enacted.^' Like rulings have been made under similar constitutional provisions in Pennsylvania,^* lowa,^'* ilSTew Jersey,^* Cali- 22 Art. 4, sec. 18. sign the bill as finally engrossed. 23 State V. Swift, 10 Nov. 176, 21 and passed. It is likewise certified Am. Rep. 721; State v. Glenn, 18 by indorsement by the clerk of the Nev. 39, 1 Pao. 186; State v. Beck, house in which it originated. With 25 Nev. 68, 56 Pao. 1008. these attestations of authenticity -* Const. 1873, art. 3, sec. 4; art. 3, upon it, it is then filed in the office sec. 12; Commonwealth v. Martin, of the secretary of state. This has 107 Pa. St. 185; Kilgore v. Magee, been the course of proceeding from 85 id. 413. certainly a very remote period ta 2s Const. 1846, art. 3, sees. 9, 11; the present time; under our pres- Const. 1857, art. 3, sees. 9, 17; Clare ent constitution the written ap- V. State, 5 Iowa, 510; Duncombe v. proval of the governor is requisite. Prlndle, 12 id. 1. There seems, therefore, to be no 26 Const. 1876, art. 4, sec. 4 In the doubt whatever that these copies, leading case in that state on this thus authenticated and filed, are to- subject (Pangborn v. Young, 33 N. be regarded as enrolled bills, cor- J. L. 29), the court by Beasley, C. responding in their general charao- J., said: "From the earliest times, ter, and partaking, if not in all, at so far as I am able to ascertain, it least in most respects, of the na- has been the invariable course of ture of parliamentary rolls. In the legislative practice in this state, statute book they are frequently for the speaker of each house to referred to as enrolled bills; and if •60 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. fornia," Maiae,^' North Dakota,"' ISTorth Carolina/" South Dakota," and New York since the adoption of the constitu- tion of 1846.'" 'we go back to provincial times we ■find indorsed upon these copies, with the executive approval, a di- j-eotion to enroll them, which meant nothing more than to file them. These are the charaoteris- 4;ics and nature of the copies of leg- islative bills deposited according to the ordinary routine intheoflSce of the secretary of stata . . . The principal argument in favor of this judicial appeal from the en- rolled law to the legislative jour- nal, and which vpas much pressed in the discussion at the bar, was, that the existence of this power was necessary to keep the legisla- ture from overstepping the bounds of the constitution. The course of reasoning urged was that if the court cannot look at the facts and examine the legislative action, that department of the government can, at will, set at defiance, in the 27 Yolo County v. Colgan, 132 Cal. • 265, 64 Pac. 403, 84 Am. St. Eep.41, in which prior cases are reviewed. -See Fowler v. Pierce, 2 Cal. 165; Weill V. Kenfield, 54 Cal. 111. 28 Weeks v. Smith,8 1 Me. 538, 18 Atl. '293. The court says: "But when the original act, duly certified by the presiding officer of each house to have been properly passed, and approved by the governor, showing upon its face no irregularities or 'violation of constitutional methods, is found deposited in the secretary's office, is the highest evidence of "the legislative will, and must be ■considered as absolute verity, and cannot be impeached by any irreg- ularity touching its passage shown ■by the journal of either house. Legislative journals are made amid the confusion of a dispatch of busi- ness, and are therefore much more likely to contain errors than the certificates of the presiding officers are to be untrue. Moreover, public policy requires that the enrolled statutes of our state, fair upon their faces, should not be put in question. after the public have given faith to their validity. No man should be required to hunt through the jour- nals of a legislature to determine whether a statute, properly certi- fied by the speaker of the house and president of the senate and ap- proved by the governor, is a statute or not." p. 547. 2» Territory v. O'Connor, 5 N. D. 397, 41 N. W. 746. 8»Carr v. Coke, 116 N. C. 228, 22 S. E. 16, 47 Am. St. Rep. 801, 38 L. E. A. 737. But this is modified by later decisions to the extent that what the constitution expressly re- quires to be entered in the jour- nals must be so entered or the act will be invalid. Smathers v. Com- missioners, 135 N. C. 480, 34 S. E. 554; Union Bank v. Commissioners, 119 N. C. 214, 25 S. E. 916, 34 L. R. A. 487. And see post, § 53. siNarregang v. Brown County, 14 S. D. 357, 85 N. W. 602: Slate V. Bacon, 14 S. D. 394, 85 N. W. 605. '2 Art. 3, sec& 11, 15; People v. Supervisors, 8 N. T. 317, 337, 338. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 61 § 37 (36). Same — New Tort.— Though the constitutioi* of New York provides that the votes required on the pas- sage ol bills shall be taken by yeas and nays and entered on the journals, it is nevertheless held that a certificate made enactment of statutes, the re- straints of the organic law. This argument, however specious, is not solid." The answer of the court, briefly stated, was that if the leg- islature intends a violation of the constitution in the enactment of a statute it is futile to rely on its journals or any extrinsic evidence to show the irregularity. The jour- nals are under its direction, and not kept or authenticated in a man- ner to weigh as evidence against enrolled acts. " In my estimation," said the chief justice, ''the doctrine in question if entertained would, as against legislative encroachments, be useless as a guard to the consti- tution, and it certainly would be attended with many evils. Its practical application would be full of embarrassment. If the courts, in order to test the validity of a statute, are to draw the compari- son between the enrolled copy of an act and the entries on the leg- islative journal, how great, to have the effect of exploding the act, must be the discrepancy between the two? Will the omission of any provision, no matter how un- important, have that effect? The difficulty of a satisfactory answer to theseand similar interrogatories is too apparent to need comment. And, again, to notice one among the many practical difficulties which suggest themselves, what is to be the extent of the application of this doctrine? If an enrolled statute of this state does not carry within itself conclusive evidence of its own authenticity, it would seem that the same principle must, be extended to the statutes, how- everauthentioated, of other states." The court also mentions that in tha- frame of the state government there are three co-ordinate branches, in all things equal and independent, each in its sphere- the trusted agent of the public; and it is arrogating an authority, not given to the judiciary, to in- quire into the veracity of the cer- tificate by which the legislature by its officers authenticates its enactments. In the opinion of the court, the power to certify to the public laws itself has enacted is one of the trusts of the con- stitution to the legislature of the- state. The decision in Pangborn V. Young, 38 N. J. L. 89, has been approved and followed in later cases. Standard Underground Cable Co. v. Attorney-General, 46- N. J. Eq. 870, 19 Atl. 733, 19 Am. St. Rep. 394 (Court of Errors and Ap- peals); Mason v. Cianbury, 68 N, J. L. 149. But it is held that the en- rolled act, in case of a private, spe- cial or local bill, is not conclusive- that notice of the intention to apply therefor was given as required by the constitution. State v. Trenton, 57 N. J. L. 318, 81 Atl. 233; Attor- ney-General V. Tuckerton, 67 N. J.. L. 120, 60 Atl. 603. ■62 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. pursuant to a statute by the secretary of state on acts being ■deposited in his office, certifying the day, month and year when the same became a law, excludes all resort to any other evidence of its passage, and makes the act so deposited and certified the original record of it, invulnerable under the common-law rules applicable to enrolled acts of parliament. The statute '^ provides that such certificate shall be conclusive ■evidence of the facts therein declared.'* §38(37). Same — Indiana. — The Indiana constitution of 1851 required each house to keep a journal of its proceed- ings and publish the same.'^ It also provides that " every bill shall be read by sections, on three several days in each house, unless, in case of emergency, two-thirds of the house where such bill may be depending shall, by a vote of yeas and nays, ■deem it expedient to dispense with this rule; but the read- ing of a bill by sections, on its final passage, shall in no case be dispensed with; and the vote on the passage of every bill or joint resolution shall be taken by yeas and nays." '^ By an- other section it is declared that "a majority of all the mem- bers elected to each house shall be necessary to pass every bill or joint resolution ; and all bills and joint resolutions so passed shall be signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses." '' A like vote after a veto will adopt the bill, and give it the force of law; but no similar certificate of the pre- siding officers in that case is provided for.'' If the governor fail for three days, Sundays excepted, to act upon a bill after it is presented to him, it becomes a law without his signature, unless a general adjournment prevents its return, and he does not, within five days after the adjournment, file his objections .thereto in the office of the secretary of state, ifo verifica- 33 1 E. S., p. 187, §§ 10, 11. Thomas v. Dakin, 22 id. 9; Eumsey 3< See People v. Devlin, 33 N. Y. v. New York, etc. R. E. Co., 130 N. 269, 283, 88 Am. Dec. 377; People Y. 88, 28 N. E. 763. T. Commissioners, 54 N. Y. 276, 13 '» Art. 4, sec. 13. Am. Rep. 581; Purdy v. People, 4 s^ Art. 4, sec. 1& Hill, 384; People v. Purdy, 2 id. 37 Art. 4, sec. 25. 31; De Bow v. People, 1 Denio, 14; '8 gee art. 5, sec. 14 "Warner v. Beers, 23 Wend. 125; ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 63 tion of these facts appears to be provided for in the constitu- tion preliminary to the deposit of the act with the secretary of state. The constitution also prohibits the presentation to the governor of any bill during the last two days before the final adjournment. § 39 (38). In Evans v. Browne,'' the act appears without the governor's approval. It was accompanied, however, by a statement signed by the governor, and it may be inferred he caused it to be filed. In his statement he explains that it was a house bill amended in the senate, and the amend- ments concurred in by the house the day after forty-two members had resigned by delivering their resignations to him in writing, and thereby as claimed reducing the num- ber below a constitutional quorum. The bill was certified ■by the presiding officers. It was held that where a statute is authenticated by the signature of the presiding officers ■of the two houses, the courts will not search further tp as- certain whether such facts existed as gave constitutional warrant to those officers to thus authenticate the act as having received legislative sanction in such manner as to give it the force of law.. The court says : " The framers of our government have not constituted it [the judiciary] with fac- ulties to supervise co-ordinate departments and correct or prevent abuses of their authority. It cannot authenticate a statute; that power does not belong to it; nor can it keep the legislative journal. It ascertains the statute law by looking at its authentication, and then its function is merely to expound and administer it. It cannot, we think, look beyond that authentication, because of the constitution it- self.""" § 40 (39). In Bender v. State,"' it was held not for the court to look beyond the enrolled act of the legislature to ascertain whether there had been a compliance with the in- 89 30 Ind. 514, 95 Am. Dec. 710. 40 N. E. 1051; State v. Board of « Tliere is the same ruling in the Com'rs, 140 Ind. 506, 40 N. B. 113. following cases : "Western Union "' 53 Ind, 254. Tel. Ca V. Taggart, 141 Ind. 281, 6i ENACTMENT OF LAWS. junction of the constitution that " No bill shall be presented to the governor within the last two days next preceding the final adjournment of the general assembly." § 41. Same — Kentucky. — The subject has received careful consideration in a recent case in Kentucky. The court held that the enrolled bill signed by the presiding officers and approved by the governor was conclusive evi- dence of its passage according to the constitution. The reasoning of the court is very persuasive and is in part as follows: "That the actor successive acts of some agency somewhere or somehow must be held conclusive is entirely evident, unless we open the doors to all competent proof, including that of the member on the floor, an absurdity not to be thought of. The result is we must accept as conclusive either the entries of the clerk in the journals or the more deliberate acts of the presiding officers. " In some of the courts, where the journals are held to be competent evidence to impeach the enrolled bill, it is said that when those records are merely silent the presumption is absolute that the required steps were in fact taken. This seems to us hardly logical. . . . These courts assume that the failure of the clerk to make the entry and in this- violate the constitution requiring the entry to be made was an oversight or mistake, and treat the entry as made, sup- plying the omission, and yet are not willing to assume it to be a mistake or mere misapprehension of the inferior of- ficer, if an entry is made, showing steps taken not in con- formity with the constitutional requirements. " Even if resort is had to the journals it would seem as consistent to overlook the sins of commission by the clerk,, and treat his entry showing a violation of the constitution as not true, as to overlook his sins of omission and supply the defects in his record. To avoid the necessity of resort- ing to these fine-spun distinctions we are convinced that th& consistent and safe rule is to assume that the legislature, in obedience to the constitution, has taken the steps required by that instrument in the passage of every law, attested by ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 65 the signatures of its presiding oflBcers, the journals to the contrary notwithstanding. " The enrolled bill, so attested and signed and approved by the executive, is easy of access and inspection, but what shall we say of the journals ? At the session at which the law now under consideration was adopted those records consist of over 4,000 pages. They seem to have been hur- riedly an4 imperfectly indexed, as in the nature of things they must ever be. The assiduous lawyer who plods through these volumes may fail to find the evidence of an important step required by the constitution to support a statute which has been promulgated as the law of the land, and the court in this case declares as a matter of fact that the prima facie law so promulgated is not, in fact, the law. In an adjoining circuit the court is more fortunate, and the missing step is found, or the erroneous entry is found cor- rected elsewhere in the record. So the law is upheld, and this confusing result will be reached, not because liie law depends upon the testimony or the pleadings in any given case, for the courts must take judicial notice of the jour- nals, if they are controlling, as well as of the signatures of the presiding officers, if these are t'o be held conclusive; but the confusion comes from the nature of the record to be in- spected. This is usually prepared by the subordinate offi- cers hurriedly, amidst the excitement and confusion incident to legislative bodies, and with small concern for those de- tails which are to become so important if the record is to be subjected to judicial scrutiny. " But it is said, since the constitution requires the jour- nals to be kept, it must be because they are to be used as evidence of legislative compliance or non-compliance with the constitutional requirements. We can see, however, much use for these journals other than the one suggested. Besides being necessary for the conduct of the business, it is to be remembered that our government is a representa- tive one, and the journals show the respective parts borne by each representative in the enactment of the laws and the 66 Enactment of laws. conduct of the public business. Eesponsibility cannot be shifted or made to rest upon the body as a whole. "We know that the enrollment of bills receives careful attention at the hands of special committees for that purpose. It is the final act of the body, the climax of the work before the finishing hand of the presiding ofHcer sets his approval thereto. It receives and merits attention for that reason, and there is small room for imposition or fraud. The en- rolled act is well nigh necessarily the very act passed by the body, but the chances of mistake are very great in the make-up of the journals, as they are ordinarily kept, and if it be understood that the enrolled bill may be impeached bj' them the chances of fraud are likewise great. They are usually read from loose sheets or hurriedly made memo- randa, and are approved with slight attention, and then passed to the journal clerk or some copyist, to be transcribed formally in the journal. They receive usually no further consideration at the hands of the body." *^ §42. Same — Texas, Washington, South Carolina. — The same ruling has been made in each of these states. The Texas supreme court says: " Our constitution provides that, after the passage of a bill, it shall be signed by the presiding olHcer of each house in presence of the house; and we are of opinion that when a bill has been so signed, and has been submitted to and approved by the governor, it was in- tended that it should afford conclusive evidence that the act had been passed in the manner required by the constitution. Such being the rule of the common law, we think, in the absence of something in the constitution expressly showing a contrary intention, it is fair to presume that the same 12 Lafferty v. Huffman, 99 Ky. monwealth v. Shelton, 99 Ky. 120, 80, 35 S. W. 123, 33 L. R A. 203. 35 S. W. 128; Commonwealth v. In this case the journals failed to Hardin Co. Ct, 99 Ky. 188, 35 S. W. show the necessary vote on the 275; Wilson v. Hines, 99 Ky. 221, final passage of the bill, which the 35 S. W. 627, 87 S. W. 148. Com- constitution required to be entered pare Norman v. Kentucky Board of therein. There is the same hold- Managers, 93 Ky. 537, 20 S. W. 901, ing in the following cases: Com- 18 L. E. A. 556. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 67 rule should prevail in this state. There is no provision in the constitution indicating in any direct manner such con- trary intention; and the fact that it is provided that jour- nals shall be kept and that certain things should be entered therein we think insufficient to show any such purpose."" In State v. Jones" it is said: "Each of the three depart- ments into which the government is divided are equal, and •each department should be held responsible to the people it represents, and not to the other departments of the govern- ment, or either of them. ... To preserve the harmony ■of our form of government it must be held that these sev- eral mandatory provisions are addressed to the department which is called upon to perform them, and that neither of the other departments can in any manner coerce that de- partment into obedience thereto. Courts have gone behind the final records of the legislative department upon what seems to us a false theory. They have assumed that the mandatory provisions of the constitution are safer, if the en- forcement thereof is intrusted to the judicial department, *3 Williams V. Taylor, 83 Tex. 667, judgment in the premises, — the '672, 19 S. W. 156. In this case the judgment will be held void in any court further says: "It would seem suit in which its validity may be upon first blush that there should involved. But if the court have be a broad distinction between the jurisdiction no other court would authority to declare an act of the have power in any collateral pro- legislature void for the want of ceedingtoreviseits judgment, how- power to pass the law in any man- ever irregular its proceedings may ner, and the jurisdiction to annul have been. Much stronger reasons a statute upon the ground that exist why we should hesitate to some provision of the constitution annul the action of the legislature .as to the mode of its passage has upon grounds of irregularity in its not been observed. The same dis- procedure than exist when we are tinction exists with reference to asked to declare void the judgment the judgments of the courts them- of a court." p. 671. For prior cases selves. If, when the validity of a see Blessing v. Galveston, 42 Tex. judgment is called in question, it 641; Houston, etc. E. R. Co. v. appear that the court was without Odum, 53 Tex. 843. jurisdiction — that is to say, that it « 6 Wash. 459, 461-463, 34 Pac. had no power to hear and deter- 201, 23 L. R. A. 340. mine the case and to render any 68 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. than if so intrusted to the legislature ; in other words, they . have acted upon the presumption that their department is- the only one in which sufficient integrity exists to insure the preservation of the constitution. How the courts have obtained this idea is somewhat difficult to ascertain, but that they entertain it, and have allowed it to influence their decisions, is so evident that even a superficial examination of such decisions will satisfy any one of the fact." The earlier cases in South Carolina supported the contrary doctrine,*^ but these were overruled in State v. Chester,*^ wherein the court says: "We announce that the true rule is, that when an act has been duly signed by the presiding officers of the general assembly, in open session in the sen- ate-house, approved by the governor of the state, and duly deposited in the office of the secretary of state, it is suffi- cient evidence, nothing to the contrary appearing on its face, that it passed the general assembly, and that it is not com- petent either by the journals of the two houses, or either of them, or by any other evidence, to impeach such an act. And this being so, it follows that the court is not at liberty to inquire into what the journals of the two houses may show as to the successive steps which may have been taken in the passage of the original bill." § 43. Same — United States supreme court. — In Field V. Clark,*' the claim was made that an act of congress never became a law, for the reason that the journals showed that, as it passed the houses, it contained a section, not found in the enrolled bill. The bill, however, was duly certified by the presiding officers of the two houses, approved by the president and deposited with the secretary of state. The court held that this enrolled bill was conclusive evidence of its passage in the form in which it there appeared. We quote from the opinion as follows: "As the president has « State V. Piatt, 3 S. C. 150, 16 <" 39 S. C. 307, 17 So. 752. Am. Eep. 647; State v. Hagood, 13 <" 143 U. S. 649, 13 S. C. Rep. 495, S. C. 46; State v. Smalls, 11 S. C. 36 L. Ed. 394. 363; Bond Debt Cases, 13 S. C. 300. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 69 mo authority to approve a bill not passed by congress, an en- ToUed act in the custody of the secretary of state, and hav- ing the oiBcial attestations of the speaker of the house of representatives, of the president of the senate, and of the president of the United States, carries on its face a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of en- acting and executing the laws, that it was passed by con- gress. The respect due to coequals and independents re- quires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed congress, all bills authenti- cated in the manner stated; leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the act, so au- thenticated, is in conformity with the constitution. . . . " It is admitted that an enrolled act, thus authenticated, is •sufficient evidence of itself — nothing to the contrary ap- pearing upon its face — that it passed congress. But the contention is, that it cannot be regarded as a law of the United States if the journal of either house fails to show that it passed in the precise form in which it was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses, and approved by the president. It is said that, under any other view, it be- ■comes possible for the speaker of the house of representa- tives and the president of the senate to impose upon the people as a law a bill that was never passed by congress. But this possibility is too remote to be considered in the present inquir\f. It suggests a deliberate conspiracy to which the presiding officers, the committees on enrolled bills and the clerks of the two houses must necessarily be parties, all acting with a common purpose to defeat an ex- pression of the popular will in the mode prescribed by the •constitution. Judicial action based upon such a suggestion is forbidden by the respect due to a co-ordinate branch of the government. The evils that may result from the rec- ognition of the principle that an enrolled act, in the custody of the secretary of state, attested by the signatures of the presiding ofilcers of the two houses of congress, and the ap- 70 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. proval of the president, is conclusive evidence that it wa& passed by congress, according to the forms of the constitu- tion, would be far less than those that would certainly re- sult from the rule making the validity of congressional en- actments depend upon the manner in which the journals of the respective houses are kept by the subordinate officers charged with the duty of keeping them." *^ § ii (41). Courts holding enrolled act not conclnsive — Constitutional provisions as to procedure mandatory. — The authority of the organic law is universally acknowl- edged; it speaks the sovereign will of the people. Th& sovereign power of the state being inherently in them, their injunctions in the constitution regarding the process of legislation are as authoritative as are those touching the sub- stance of it. If the former are treated as directory to the- legislature, acts passed in violation of them, either by inten- tion, inadvertence, or erroneous construction, are neverthe- less valid • and the same would be true of like violations of the constitution in respect to the substance of legislation. The law has always been recognized as clear and indispu- table, and has been settled without dissent, that acts which *8 This ruling has been followed in the mode required by law, and to in later cases. Lyons v. Woods, be unimpeachable by the recitals, 153 U. S. 649, 14 S. G. Rep. 959, 38 or omission of recitals, in the L. Ed. 854; Harwood v. Wentworth, journals of legislative proceedings- 162 U. S. 547, 16 S. C. Rep. 890, 40 which are not required by the L. Ed. 1069. In the latter case the fundamental law of the territory court says: "We see no reason to to be so kept as to show everything modify the principles announced done in both branches of the legis- in Field v. Clark, and, therefore, lature while engaged in the consid- hold that, having been officially at- eration of bills presented for their tested by the presiding ofiBcers of action." And see Comstock v. the territorial council and house of Tracy, 46 Fed. 162; Gardner v. Col- representatives, having been ap- lector, 6 Wall. 499, 18 L. Ed. 890;. proved by the governor, and hav- South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S, ing been committed to the custody 260, 24 L. Ed. 154; Post v. Super- of the secretary of the territory, as visors, 105 U. S. 667; San Mateo- an act passed by the territorial leg- County v. Railroad Co., 8 Sawyer,, islature, the act of March 21, 1895, 288. is to be taken to have been enacted ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 71 are unconstitutional on their face are nullities. And it was settled early in our constitutional jurisprudence that it was the peculiar function and duty of the judiciary to pronounce on their validity. In the exercise of this function the judiciary does not trench on the domain of the legislative department, though it pronounces judgment on its ofiBcial work. The courts are bound by statutes when they are constitutional, but when otherwise it is the duty of the courts to treat them as void. Acts which contravene any provision of the constitution in their substance are invalid though the constitution has not declared that consequence. The function of the courts is the same to determine the va- lidity of acts questioned on the ground of having been passed by a proceeding not in accordance with the proced- ure prescribed in the constitution. In a large majority of the states in which the question has arisen, the courts have held constitutional provisions in reference to parliamentary procedure in legislation to be mandatory, and against per- mitting any careless or dishonest officer's certificate or use of the great seal, or filing for record of documents having the form of legislative acts, to give the force of law to such acts, if they have not been constitutionally enacted. These courts unite in holding that a valid statute can be passed only in the manner prescribed by the constitution; and when the provisions of that instrument in regard to the manner of enacting laws are disregarded in respect to a particular act, it will be declared a nullity though having the forms of authenticity.'" The foregoing remains as writ- es Alabama: Jones v. Hutohin- Arkansas: Burr y. Ross, 19 Ark. son, 43 Ala. 731; Moody v. State, 48 350; Vinsant v. Knox, 27 Ark. 366; Ala 115, 17 Am. Rep. 28; State v. State v. Little Rook, etc. E. R. Co., Buckley, 54 Ala. 599; Dane V. Mc- 31 Ark. 701; Worthen County Arthur, 57 Ala, 454; Perry County Clerk v. Badgett, 33 Ark. 496; V. Railroad Co., 58 Ala. 546; Moog Smithee v. Garth, 33 Ark. 17; State V. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597; Sayre v. v. Crawford, 35 Ark. 337; Smithee Pollard, 77 Ala. 608; Stein v. Lee- v. Campbell, 41 Ark. 471; Webster per, 78 Ala. 517; Robertson v. State, v. Little Rock, 44 Ark. 536; State 130 Ala. 164, 30 So. 494. v. Corbett, 61 Ark. 326, 33 S. W. 686. 72 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. ten in the first edition. It is no longer true that " in a large majority of the states " the courts have held that the en- rolled act may be impeached by a resort to the journfils. A comparison will show that the courts are now about equally divided on the question. The current of judicial decision Colorado: In re Roberts, 5 Colo. 535; Robertson v. People, 20 Colo. 879, 38 Pac. 326. See In re General Appropriation Bill, 16 Colo. 539, 29 Pac. 879. Florida: State v. Green, 36 Fla. »154, 18 So. 334; State v. Hocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 So. 767. Illinois: Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 111. 279, 58 Am. Deo. 571; People v. Starne, 35 111. 131; People v. De "Wolf, 63 111. 253; Ryan v. Lyncli, 68 111. 160; Miller v. Goodwin, 70 111. 659; Illinois Central R. R. Co. V. People, 143 111. 434, 33 N. E. 133, 19 L. R A 119; People v. Knopf, 198 III. 340, 64 N. E. 1137. Kansas: State v. Francis, 36 Kan. 724; Homzighausen v. Knoche, 58 Kan. 646, 50 Pac. 879; State v. An- drews, 64 Kan. 474, 67 Pac. 870. Maryland: Berry v. Baltimore, etc. R. R Co., 41 Md. 446, 20 Am. Rep. 69; Legg v. Mayor, 43 Md. 303. Michigan: Green v. Graves, 1 Doug. 351; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; Attorney-General v. Joy, 55 Mich. 94; Sackrider v. Board of Supervisors, 79 Mich. 59, 44 N. W. 165; People v. Burch, 84 Mich. 408, 47 N. W. 765; Fillmore v. Van Horn, 129 Mich. 53, 88 N. W. 69. Minnesota: Board of Supervisors v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 330; State v. Hastings, 24 Minn. 78; Burt v. Wi- nona, etc. R R Co., 31 Minn. 473, 18 N. W. 385, 289; Palmer v. Zum- brota, 72 Minn. 266, 75 N. W. 380; Miesen v. Canfield, 64 Minn. 513, 67 N. W. 633; Kelley v. Gallup, 67 Minn. 169, 69 N. W. 812. Nebraska: State v. McLelland, 18 Neb. 236; In re Granger, 56 Neb. 260, 76 N. W. 588; State v. Abbott, 59 Neb. 106, 80 N. W. 499; Webster V. Hastings, 59 Neb. 563, 81 N. W. 510; State v. Burlington, etc. R R. Co., 60 Neb. 741, 84 N. W. 254; State V. Fremont, etc. R R Co., 60 Neb. 749, 84 N. W. 257; State v. Frank, 60 Neb. 327, 83 N. W. 74; State v. Frank, 61 Neb. 679, 85 N. W. 956. New Hampshire: Opinion of Jus- tices, 35 N. H. 579; Opinion of Jus- tices, 53 N. H. 633. Ohio: Fordyce v. Goodman, 20 Ohio St. 1; State v. Price, 8 Ohio C. C. 35. And see State v. Smith, 44 Ohio St. 348, 7 N. E. 447; State v. Kiesewetter, 45 Ohio St. 354, 13 N. E. 807. Oregon: Currie v. Southern Pac. Co., 21 Ore. 566, 28 Pac. 884; State V. Rogers, 33 Ore. 348, 30 Paa 74; McKiunon v. Cotner, 30 Ore. 588, 49 Pac. 956. But after lapse of ten years the court refuses to go back of the enrolled act. Mitchell v. Campbell, 19 Ore. 198, 24 Pac. 455. Tennessee: Memphis F. Co. v. Mayor, 4 Cold. 419; Gaines v. Ker- rigan, 4 Lea, 608; Williams v. State, 6 Lea, 549; Trading Stamp Co. v. Memphis, 101 Tenn. 181, 47 S. W. 136; Brewer v. Huntingdon, 86 Tenn. 732, 9 S. W. 166; Nelson v. Haywood County, 91 Tenn. 596, 30 s: W. 1. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 73 in the last ten years has been strongly against the right of the courts to go back of the enrolled act. Undoubtedly the decision of the supreme court of the United States in Field V. Clark ^° has had much to do in creating and augmenting this current,. but it may also be due to the greater simplicity, certainty and reasonableness of the doctrine, which holds the enrolled act to be conclusive. Many courts and judges, while feeling compelled to follow former decisions holding that the enrolled act may be impeached by the journals, have done so reluctantly and have expressed doubts as to the validity of the doctrine,^' and in many cases, as will appear in the foUoWjing sections, have qualified and restricted it in important particulars. § 45 (42), Legislative journals as evidence.— The sub- ject of proof has been a prominent one in the discussion of Utah: Lyman v. Martin, 2 Utah, 136; Ritchie v. Eichards, 14 Utah, 345, 47 Pao. 670. Virginia: Wise v. Bigger, 79 Va. S69. West Virginia: Osburn v. Staley, 5 W. Va. 85, 13 Am. Eep. 640; Price V. Moundsville, 43 W. Va. 533, 27 -S. E. 218, 64 Am. St. Eep. 878. Wisconsin: Meracle v. Down, 64 Wis. 333, 25 N. W. 412; McDonald V. State, 80 Wis. 407, 50 N. W. 185; In re Eyan, 80 Wis. 414, 50 N. W. 187; Milwaukee County v. Isenring, 109 Wis. 9, 85 N. W. 131, 53 L. E. A. 635. Wyoming: ^rown v. Nash, 1 Wyo. 85; State v. Swan, 7 Wyo. 166, 51 Pac. 209, 75 Am. St. Eep. 889. Additional oases from some of the states in the foregoing list will be found cited in the following sections. 50 143 U, S. 649, 13 S. C. Eep. 495, .36 L. Ed. 294. 51 People V. Starne, 35 111. 121: State V. Andrews, 64 Kan. 474, 67 Pac. 870; Webster v. Hastings, 56 Neb. 669, 77 N. W. 187; State v. Frank, 60 Neb. 337, 83 N. W. 74; S. C, 61 Neb. 679, 85 N. W. 956. In the Illinois case the court says: " We are not, however, prepared to say that a different rule might not have subserved the public interest equally well, leaving the legisla- ture and the executive to guard the public interest in this regard, or to become responsible for its neglect." p. 136. In State v. Moore, 37 Neb. 13, 55 N. W. 299, occurs the following: "Were the question a new one in this state, we would say that a bill duly deposited in the office of the secretary of state, bearing the signatures of the pre- siding officers of the respective houses of the legislature and of the governor, imports absolute verity, and that the courts could not look beyond the signatures of these offi- cers to ascertain what either house has done as to any items in said bill." p. 15. 7i ENACTMENT OF LAWS. the constitutional provisions relative to legislative procedure. The inconvenience, and sometimes great hardship, to the public resulting from allowing records and published stat- utes to be, at any time, modified or avoided by extrinsic evidence has been the principal cause of the diversity of judicial opinion which exists on this subject. The tendency, however, of the law's growth is to preserve the supremacy of constitutional authority, leaving it to the wisdom of the legislature to mitigate any incidental inconvenience by closer observance of the prescribed procedure, and more diligent attention to the making and preservation of a pub- lic record of the essentials. The cases cited in the preceding section hold the constitutional injunctions imperative; and as the constitutions require the keeping and publication of legislative journals, these are treated as sources of informa- tion to be relied on by the courts as well as the public. In Fordyce v. Godman,^^ the court says "if it could be shown that the requisite vote were not given on the passage of a bill, and the evidence were rejected because the bill was- properly authenticated, the court would, in effect, hold that a single presiding officer might, by his signature, give the force of law to a bill which the journal of the body over which he presides and which was kept under the supervis- ion of the whole body showed not to have been voted for by the constitutional number of members." The court con- cluded that " the plain provisions of the constitution are not to be thus nullified, and the evidence which it requires to be kept under the supervision of the collective body must control when a question arises as to the due passage of a bill." ^' § 46. Unreliability of the journals. — There is necessa- rily a substantial similarity in the manner in which the orig- 82 20 Ohio St. 1. kins, 94 U. S. 260, 24 L. Ed. 154;. 53 Berliner V. Town of W., 14 Wis. Osburn v. Staley, 5 W. Va. 86; 378; Bound v. Railroad Co.. 45 Wis. Berry v. Baltimore, etc. E. R. Co., 543; Meracle v. Down, 64 Wis. 823, 41 Md. . W. 123, 33 L. R. A. 203; Lincoln v. Pac. 340. Haugan, 45 Minn. 451, 48 N. W. ■T8 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. The intention of constitutional provisions that they should -operate as conditions, or be treated as mandatory, is inferred largely from' the accompanying requirement that legislative journals be kept, preserved and given publicity by publica- tion, and that certain steps in the process of legislation be therein recorded.^* The parliamentary history of any act in question in the legislative journals is the only evidence which the cases generally recognize,"^ though some cases in- timate that other evidence may be considered.^' Parol evi- dence of the action of the two houses is excluded.** So parol evidence is not admissible to show that a quorum was not present,''^ or that the bill passed was different from the en- rolled act.*^ Nor is the original bill with its indorsements 61 Osburn v. Staley, 5 W. Va. 86; People V. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; .Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 111. 297, 58 Am. Dec. 571; State v. Buckley, 54 Ala. 599; Jones v. Hutchinson, 43 id. 721. 62 Moog V. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597; ■Osbuni V. Staley, 5 W. Va. 86; Happel V. Biethauer, 70 111. 166, 23 Am. Rep. 70; Wise v. Bigger, 79 Va. 269; State v. MoLelland, 18 Neb. 236; Board of Supervisors v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 330; People v. Ma- haney, 13 Mich. 481; Webster v. Little Rook, 44 Ark. 536; Sraithee -V. Campbell, 41 id. 471; Weill v. Kenfield, 54 Cal. Ill; State v. Francis, 26 Kan. 724; Williams v. State, Lea, 549; Moody v. State, 48 Ala. 115, 17 Am. Rep. 38; Gaines V. Harrigan, 4 Lea, 608; Perry County V. Railroad Co., 58 Ala. 546; Jones V. Hutchinson, 43 id. 721; , Stein V. Leeper, 78 id. 517; Spangler V. Jacoby, 14 111. 297, 58 Am. Deo. 671; Ex parte Howard-Harrison Iron Co., 119 Ala. 484, 24 So. 516, 73 Am. St. Rep. 938; State v. Wilson, ,133 Ala. 259, 26 So. 482; Robertson V. State, 180 Ala. 164, 30 So. 494; Jackson \. State, 131 Ala. 31, 31 So. 380; FuUington t. Williams, 98 Ga. 807, 37 S. E. 183; Fillmore v. Van Home, 129 Mich. 52, 88 N. W. 69; Sjoberg v. Security Savings & Loan Ass'n, 73 Minn. 203, 75 N. W. 1116, 72 Am. St. Rep. 616; In re Granger, 56 Neb. 260, 76 N. W. 588; State V. Abbott, 59 Neb. 106, 80 N. W. 499; State v. Smith, 44 Ohio St. 348, 7 N. E. 447: State v. Kiese- wetter, 45 Ohio St. 254, 13 N. E. 807; State v. Swan, 7 Wyo. 166, 51 Pac. 209. 75 Am. St. Rep. 889. «3 State V. Piatt, 3 S. C. 150, 16 Am. Rep. 647. s* Berry v. Baltimore, etc. R. R Co., 41 Md. 446, 20 Am. Rep. 69; Wise V. Bigger, 79 Va. 269; Sack- rider V. Board of Supervisoi-s, 79 Mich. 59, 44 N. W. 165; Sjoberg v. Security Savings & L. Ass'n, 73 Minn. 203, 75 N. W. 1116, 73 Am. St. Rep. 616. "s Auditor-General v. Supervisors, 89 Mich. 552, 51 N. W. 483. ^ Ames v. Union Pac. E, E. Co., 64 Fed. 16i ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 79 admissible for the purpose of impeaching the enrolled act or contradicting the journals.*'' In short, the enrolled bill and the journals are the only evidence which the courts will consider, and these cannot be aided or contradicted by other documents or evidence of any kind."* In State v. Frank ^' the house journal failed to show the yeas and nays on the final passage of the bill in question, but it was held competent to show by parol that the vote was so taken and entered 'in the journal and that the journal had been mutilated by removing the sheet which contained this matter. The court says: "It is doubtless the duty of courts to take judicial notice of the laws enacted by the legis- lature, and of the records kept by the two branches thereof. To enable the court to ascertain what was done by the legis- lature, it may call to its assistance evidence of the character of that produced in the trial below. This evidence did not contradict the house journal; it merely established the rec- ord as in fact made by the legislature. It is fallacious to argue that such evidence contradicts the record; it merely supplies missing parts thereof aud enables the court to know what the record in fact was when the legislature made it; not what it is after having been mutilated, through either accident or design. To hold that such evidence is not com- petent would result in the absurdity that, in case the jour- nals of a session should be destroyed, all the acts passed at that session would be invalidated. The journals of the legis- lature are like any other records. Should they be lost or destroyed in whole or in part, the missing portions can be supplied by evidence of the same character as required when 6'? In re Granger, 56 Neb. 260, 76 N. E. 807; White v. Hinton, 3 Wyo. N. W. 588; State V. Abbott, 59 Neb. 753, 80 Pao. 953, 17 L. E. A. 66; 106, 80 N. W. 499; State v. Jones, United States v. Ballin, 144 U. S. 22 Ohio C, C. 682. 1, 13 S. C. Eep. 507, 36 L. Ed. 321. 68 Ex parte Howard-Harrison But see State v. Secretary of State, Iron Co., 119 Ala. 484, 24 So. 516, 72 43 La. Ann. 590, 9 So. 776. Am. St.Rep. 938; Jackson v. State, «» 60 Neb. 327, 88 N. W. 74; S. C. 131 Ala. 21, 31 So. 380; State v. on rehearing, 61 Neb. 679, 85 N. W. Kiesewetter, 45 Ohio St. 254, 12 956. so ENACTMENT OF LAWS. the contents of any lost or destroyed record are to be estab- lished or proved."™ The journals cannot be aided or helped out by reference to the original papers and memoranda kept by the clerk and from which the journals proper were made up.'' Nor has the clerk any right to correct the journal after it has been filed with the secretary of state for safe keeping, and any such corrections will be disregarded by the court.'^ Where the senate at the beginning of the session dispensed with the reading of the journal for the entire session and author- ized the secretary to make all necessary corrections from day to day, it was held that corrections could be made at any time during the session, and where such corrections ap- peared at the end of the journal, it was held that it would be presumed that they were made during the session." In another case the printed journal of the senate showed that a certain act was passed by a vote of twenty-six yeas to seven nays, and gave the names respectively. The writ- ten journal gave the same vote but did not give the names of those voting in the negative, and in recording the names of those voting in the affirmative gave the seven names shown by the printed journal to have voted in the negative. The act was held to have been properly passed, and the grounds of the decision are stated as follows : " The written ""> State V. Frank, 61 Neb. 679, 680, secretary of state for safe keeping 681, 85 N. W. 956. after it has been signed by the '1 Montgomery Beer Bottling speaker and himself. From and Works V. Gaston, 136 Ala. 425, 38 after that time he has no custody So. 497, 85 Am. St. Rep. 43; State of it, no control over it, no right to V. Wilson, 123 Ala. 359, 36 So. 483. its possession, except for the spe- '2 Id. In the latter of the two cific purpose above referred to, no cases last cited the court says: "It power to alter it nor to prevent cannot be doubted, we think, and others altering it, and is under no is indeed quite obvious, that the duty to keep it' safely or to pre- clerk's official connection with the serve it from mutilation or inter- original journal — all his duties polation." with respect to it except the duty " People v. Burch, 84 Mich. 408, of copying it for the printer— 47 N. W. 735. ceases upon his delivering it to the ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 81 journal of the senate, as respects the proceedings upon the passage of this bill, is clearly defective. It is true that the statute (Gen. St. 18T8, c. 5, § 23) provides that the written journal therein directed to be made and recorded ' shall be considered the true and authentic journal;' but the same section also provides the manner in which the daily record shall be prepared and printed, and which is required to be read and examined and compared each day with the min- utes of the record of the clerk, and is thereafter printed and made up in the bound volumes of the journal, and 'full faith and credit ' are to be given to the journals properly printed and certified. (Sec. 38.) In this case it was clearly shown that the written journal was not made as the statute required, but was made up and completed long after the adjournment of the session, from the printed journal, and that there was a mistake made by the scrivener in recording the names entered. The irregular and incomplete enroll- ment of the names is fully accounted for, and all doubt that the bill was passed by the requisite vote is removed." '* A written protest incorporated in the journals and reciting certain facts was held not to be effective to contradict or invalidate the journals.''^ The courts have no power to cor- rect or change the journals, and will not entertain a suit to compel the clerk or secretary of state to do so.'^ § 48 (44). The journals, by being required by the con- stitution or laws, are records. At common law the legis- lative journals were not strictly records ; while admissible In evidence for certain purposes, as official memorials or re- membrances, they were not admissible to show that an act of parliament had not been passed according to its own rules." But when required, as is extensively the case in this 74 Lincoln v. Haugan, 45 Minn. '?6 State v. Wilson, 123 Ala. 259, 451, 48 N. W. 196. 26 So. 482; Burkhart v. Eeed, 3 '5 Auditor-General V. Supervisors, Idaho, 503, 32 Pao. 1; Clough v. 89 Mich. 553, 51 N. W. 483. And Curtis, 2 Idaho, 523, 22 Pao. 28. see Cutcher v. Crawford, 105 Ga. " King v. Arundel, Hob. 110. 180, 81 S. E. 139. 6 82 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. country, by a paramount law, for the obvious purpose of showing how the mandatory provisions of that law have been followed in the methods and forms of legislation, they are thus made records in dignity, and are of great impor- tance.™ The legislative acts regularly authenticated are also records; the acts passed, duly authenticated, and such jour- nals are parallel records, but the latter are superior when explicit and conflicting with the other, for the acts authen- ticated speak decisively only when the journals are silent, and not even then as to particulars required to be entered therein. In Gardner v. The Collector,™ Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the whole court on the question of proving the date of the president's approval of a bill, laid down this general rule : that " on principle as well as authority, whenever a question arises in a court of law of the existence of a statute, or of the time when a statute took effect, or of the precise terms of a statute, the judges who are called upon to decide it have a right to resort to any source of information which in its nature is ca- pable of conveying to the judicial mind a clear and satisfac- tory answer to such question; alwaj's seeking first for that which in its nature is most appropriate, unless the positive law has enacted a different rule." § 49 (45). Court will not act on admissions of parties. — A statute will not be declared void for having been enacted in violation of provisions of the constitution relating to procedure on the admissions of parties in pleadings or oth- erwise, but only on facts being ascertained from proper evi- dence.^" A statute cannot be made or unmade by agreement of the parties.^' Where counsel stipulated as to what the journals showed the court refused to act upon it, but required 78 Opinion of Justices, 35 N. H. State v. Boise, 5 Idaho, 519, 51 Pac. 579; 53 id. 623; Wise v. Bigger, 79 110; New Hannover Co. ComVs v, Va. 269; State v. Smalls, 11 S. C. 262. Derosset, 139 N. C. 275, 40 S. E. 43. 79 6 Wall 499, 511, 18 L. Ed. 890. " Fullington v. Williams, 98 Ga. 80 Happel V. Brethauer, 70 111. 166; 807, 37 S. E. 18a Legg V. Mayor, etc., 43 Md. 203; ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 83 the whole journals or a certified copy to be produced.'^ In Pennsylvania a local law was declared invalid on the ad- mission of parties that notice of the application for the law was not given, as required by the constitution;^^ but in Geor- gia the court declined to act upon such admission in the same kind of a case.** In a proceeding for a mandamus against the state auditor of Kentucky to compel him to draw his warrant upon an appropriation for the world's fair at Chicago, he answered that the act making the appropriation was not duly passed, for the reason that on its final passage the vote was not taken by yeas and nays and entered on the journal as re- quired by the constitution. The petitioners demurred to the answer. The court acted upon the admission made by the demurrer, and refused the mandam.usF' § 50 (46). Presumption in favor of enrolled act. — When an act is found lodged in the office of the secretary of state, with the public acts passed at the same session, signed by the presiding officers, approved and signed by the governor, and it is published by authority as one of the public stat- utes of the state, or is otherwise authenticated according to law, and in proper custody, the presumption is that it was regularly passed, unless there is evidence of which the courts take judicial notice showing the contrary.^* The 82 state V. Boise, 5 Idaho, 519, 51 other courts. We must exercise Pao. 110. our power with fidelity to it; and 83 Chalfant v. Edwards, 173 Pa. when we are urged to hold that :St. 246, 33 Atl. 1048. the signatures to the act import 8< Fullington v. Williams, 98 Ga. what is confessed by the party ask- ■807,37 S. E. 183. In Rodman-Heath ing relief to be untrue, and to en- Cotton Mills V. Waxhaw, 130 N. C. force as law an act plainly in vio- 293, 41 S. E. 488, the court appears lation of the constitution, the to have acted on the admissions of court, in the exercise of its discre- parties. tion in the use of this writ, should 85 Norman v. Ky. Board of Man- withhold it." p. 548, agers, 93 Ky. 537, 20 S. W. 901, 18 ^Post, § 57; Harrison v. Gordy, L. R. A. 556. The court says: "A 57 Ala. 49; Perry County v. Railroad constitutional rule is not only for Co., 58 Ala. 546; Henderson v. the legislature, but this and all State, 94 Ala. 95, 10 So. 833; Ex 8i ENACTMENT OP LAWS. journals are records, and in all respects touching proceed- ings under the mandatory provisions of the constitution will be efifectual to impeach and avoid the acts recorded as laws and duly authenticated, if the journals affirmatively show that these provisions have been disregarded. In the absence of such an affirmative showing, and even in cases of doubt, it will be presumed that a quorum was present;^' parte Howard-Harrison Iron Co., 119 Ala. 484, 34 So. 516,-73 Am, St. Rep. 938; In re Roberts, 5 Colo. 525; Supervisors v. People, 25 111. 181; Larrison v. Railroad Co., 77 111. 11; People V. Loewenthal, 93 111. 191; Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. People, 143 111. 434, 33 N. E. 178, 19 L. R. A. 119; People v, Knapp, 198 111. 340, 64 N. E. 1127; State v. Francis, 26 Kan. 724; People v. Biiroh, 84 Mich. 408, 47 N. W. 765; Dulutli v. Krupp, 46 Minn. 435, 49 N. W. 235; State V. Wray, 109 Mo. 594, 19 S. W. 86; State v. Field, 119 Mo. 593, 34 S. W. 752; State v. McLelland, 18 Neb. 236; Opinions of Justices, 35 N. H. 579; Opinions of Justices, 53 N. H. 622; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 558; Debnam v. Chitty, 131 N. C. 657, 43 S. E. 3; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; McKinnou v. Cotner, 30 Ore. 588, 49 Pao. 956; Speer v. Plank R, Co., 33 Pa. St. 376; Gilli- land V, Baptist Church, 33 S. C. 164, 11 S. E. 684; State v. McCon- nell, 3 Lea, 333; Williams v. State, 6 Lea, 549; Nelson v. Haywood County, 91 Tenn. 596, 20 S. W. 1; Wise V. Bigger, 79 Va. 269; Price V. Moundsville, 43 W. Va. 523, S7 S. E. 218, 64 Am. St. Rep. 878; Bound v. Railroad Co., 45 Wis. 543; State V. Swan, 7 Wyo. 166, 51 Pao. 209, 75 Am. St. Rep, 889. In Ex parte Howard-Harrison Iron Ca, 119 Ala. 484, 34 So. 516, 73 Am. St. Rep. 928, the court says: "Of course the presumption is that the bill signed by the presiding officers of the two houses and approved by the governor is the bill which the two houses concurred in passing, and the contrary must be made to af- firmatively appear before a differ- ent conclusion can be justified or supported. So here, it must be made to affirmatively appear that amendments of the house bill in question were adopted by the sen- ate and were not concurred in by the house. And this must be shown by the journals of the two houses. No other evidence is admissible. The journals can neither be con- tradicted nor amplified by loose memoranda made by the clerical officers of the houses. To these the courts cannot look for any pur- pose. Nor will it be presumed from the silence of the journals on a matter upon which it is proper for them to speak that either house has disregarded a constitu- tional requirement in the passage of the act, except in those cases where the organic law expressly requires the journals to show the action taken, as when it requires the yeas and nays to be entered." p. 491. . 87Auditor-Generalv. Supervisors,. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 85 that the necessary readings occurred ;^^ that amendments made by one branch, though extensive, were germane ; '' that they were concurred in by the other branch, though the journals may be silent.^" If the journals are carelessly kept, the court will more readily indulge in presumptions in aid of the act.'^ § 51 (47). Enrolled act not impeached by silence of journals. — As all particulars of compliance with the con- stitution are not specially required to be .entered on the journals, such compliance will be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary; the silence of the journals will not be accepted as proof that a proceeding required and not found recorded was omitted, even though it be a proceeding required in the two houses, and such as would appear in the journals if it occurred and they contained a memorial of all that was done.'^ The presumption of regularity is exempli- 89 Mich. 052, 51 N. W. 483; Deb- nain v. Chitty, 131 N. C. 657, 43 S. E. 3. 88 McCulIoch V. State, 11 Ind. 424; Supervisors v. People, 25 111. 181; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; Peo- ple V. Dunn, 80 Cal. 211, 23 Pac. 140, 13 Am. St. Eep. 118; Massa- chusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Col. L. & T. Co., 20 Colo. 1, 36 Pac. 798; Illinois Central R E Co. v. People, 143 111. 434, 33 N. E. 173, 19 L. R. A. 119. 83 Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; Pack V. Barton, 47 Mich. 520. »» State V. Hastings, 24 Minn. 78; Walker v. Griffith, 60 Ala. 361; Blessing v. Galveston, 42 Tex. 641; Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; Vin- sant V. Knox, 27 Ark. 379; English V. Oliver, 28 id. 317; Usener v. State, 8 Tex. App. 177; Worthen v. Badgett, 33 Ark. 516; Supervisors V. People, 35 111. 181; Ex parte Howard-Harrison Iron Co., 119 Ala. 484, 24 So. 516, 72 Am. St. Eep. 928; Jackson v. State, 131 Ala. 21, 31 So. 380; State v. Andrews, 64 Kan. 474, 67 Pac. 8T0; McKinnon V. Cotner, 30 Ore. 588, 49 Pac. 956; State v. Brown, 33 S. C. 151, 11 S. E. 641. 91 In re Eoberts, 5 Colo. 535; In re Taylor, 60 Kan. 87, 55 Pac. 340. s^Ante, § 50, note 90; Ex parte Howard-Harrison Iron Co., 119 Ala. 484, 24 So. 516, 72 Am. St. Eep. 928; Jackson v. State, 131 Ala. 21, 31 So. 380; Keene v. Jefferson Co., 135 Ala. 465, 33 So. 435; People v. Dunn, 80 Cal. 311, 23 Pac. 140, 13 Am. St. Eep. 118; Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. V. Col. L. & T. Co., 20 Colo. 1, 36 Pac. 793; State v. Green, 36 Fla. 104, 18 So. 334; Butler v. State, 89 Ga. 821, 15 S. E. 768; State v. An- drews, 64 Kan. 474, 67 Pac. 870; Hollingworth v. Thompson, 45 La. Ann. 233, 12 So. 1, 40 Am. St. Rep. 320; People v. Burch, 84 Mich. 408, 86 ENACTMENT Of LAWS. fied also in cases where notice is required to be published before application to the legislature for certain private or local legislation. In the absence of any entry in the journals showing such previous notice or alluding to it, it will be presumed in favor of the law that such notice was given, and that the legislature exacted proof of it.^' So when the power to legislate on a certain subject depends upon the ex- istence of certain facts, such as a specified population, it will be presumed in favor of the act passed that the facts existed.'^ In Kansas it has been held that " an enrolled statute im- ports absolute verity and isxonclusive evidence of the pas- sage of the act and of its validity, unless the journals of the legislature show affirmatively, clearly, conclusively and beyond all doubt that the act was not passed regularly and legally." ^' And the supreme court of Oregon is equally em- phatic; and where the journals of both houses showed that ah act was amended by adding a certain section, but the en- rolled act did not contain such section, the court presumed that the amendment was reconsidered and defeated.'^ "If there is any room to doubt as to what the journals .of the 47 N. W. 765; State v. Field, 119 98 Ga. 807, 37 S. E. 183; Chamlee v. Mo. 593, 34 S. W. 753; State v. Long, Davis, 115 Ga. 366, 41 S. E. 691. 31 Mout. 36, 53 Pac. 645; Webster v. «* Ex parte Renfrew, 113 Mo. 591, Hastings, 59 Neb. 563, 81 N. W. 510; 30 S.- W. 683; Roby v. Shepard, 42 Currie v. Southern Pao. Co., 31 W. Va. 386, 36 S. E. 878. Ore. 566, 38 Pac. 884; State v. Rog- 9s state v. Andrews, 64 Kan. 474, ers, 22 Ore. 348, 30 Pac. 74; Ritchie 67 Pac. 870. And see Cliesney v, V. Richards, 14 Utah, 845, 47 Pac. McClintook, 61 Kan. 94, 58 Pao. 670; Price v.Moundsville, 43 W.Va. 993; In re Taylor, 60 Kan. 87, o.> 523, 37 S. E. 318, 64 Am. St. Rep. Pac. 340. 878; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. ssMcKinnon v. Cotner, 80 Ore. Smytli, 103 Fed. 376. 588, 49 Pac. 956. The court says: 93 Walker v. Griffith, 60 Ala. 361; "It nowhere appears in the jour- Harrison V. Gordy, 57 Id. 49; Mc- nal that it did not pass in the form Keniie v. Gorman, 68 id. 443; Brod- as actually signed by the presiding nax V. Groom, 64 N. O. 244; Speer officers, and now on file in the office V. Mayor, etc., 42 Alb. L. J. 333 (Ga.) ; of the secretary of state. It is true Keene v. Jefferson Co., 185 Ala. 465, the journals show that in its prog- 33 So. 435; FuUington v. Williams, ress through the legislature an ENACTMENT OB' LAWS. 87 legislature sliow, if they are merely silent or ambiguous, or if it is possible to explain them on the hypothesis that the enrolled statute is correct and valid, then it is the duty of the courts to hold that the enrolled statute is valid." ^' § 52. What suiticient to impeach enrolled act. — When it clearly appears by the journals that any required pro- ceeding was omitted ; as when one of the prescribed read- ings did not take place, or was by title when required by sections or at length;^' or when it appears that the bill, passed by one branch of the legislature, was in materially different terms from the bill passed by the other branch,^* or when one branch wholly failed to pass it;' or when the bill approved by the governor and authenticated as the law requires is materially different from the bill passed by the two houses,^ it will be held a nullity. An appropriation bill passed both houses in the legislature with an item of $15,000 amendment was adopted which is not included in the enrolled act, but the vote by which such amend- ment was adopted may have been reconsidered, and the amendment defeated. At least the courts are bound to presume such to have been the case." 97 State V. Francis, 36 Kan. 734, 731; Chesney v. McClintook, 61 Kan. 94, 99, 58 Pao. 993. 98 Ryan V. Lynch, 68 111. 160; Su- pervisors V. Heenan, 3 Minn. 330; Weill V. Kenfield, 54 Cal. Ill; Peo- ple V. Loe wen thai, 93 111. 191; State V. Hagood, 13 S. C. 46. See County of San Mateo v. Railroad Co., 8 Am. & E. R. R. Cas. 1, 13 Fed. Rep. 722; post, g 54. 99 State V. Larche, 105 La, 84, 29 So. 700. 1 Bound V. Railroad Co., 45 Wis. 543; Meraole v. Down, 64 id. 333; Wise V. Bigger, 79 Va. 369; People V. De Wolf, 63 111. 353; Opinions of Justices, 35 N. H. 579; 53 id. 622; Montgomery Beer Bottling Works V. Gaston, 126 Ala. 435, 28 So. 497, 85 Am. St. Rep. 43; Currie v. South- ern Pac. Co.. 31 Ore. 566, 28 Pao. 884; Brewer v. Huntingdon, 86 Tenn. 733, 9 S. W. 166; State v. Wendler, 94 Wis. 369, 68 N. W. 759. 2Moog v. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597; Moody V. State, 48 id. 115, 17 Am. Rep, 38; Jones v. Hutchinson, 43 Ala. 721; Sayre v. Pollard, 77 id. 608; Stein v. Leeper, 78 id. 517; Legg V. Mayor, etc., 43 Md. 303; State V. Liedtke, 9 Neb. 462; Berry V. Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co., 41 Md. 446, 20 Am. Rep. 69; State v. Piatt, 3 S. C. 150, 16 Am. Rep. 647; State V. Hagood, 13 S. C. 46; Rode v. Phelps, 80 Mich. 598, 45 N. W. 493; State V. Wendler, 94 Wis. 369, 68 N. W. 759; State v. Swan, 7 Wyo. 16f>, 51 Pac. 309, 75 Am. St. Rep. 889. Compare MoKinnon v. Cot- ner, 30 Ore. 588, 49 Pao. 956. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. to pay the expenses of certain impeachment proceedings. In the enrolled bill, which was signed by the presiding offi- cers and approved by the governor, the item was changed to $25,000. It was held valid to the amount of $15,000.' The title is an essential part of an act; and where an act is passed under different titles in the two houses, or where the title of the enrolled bill differs materially from the title of the act as passed, it does not become a law.* Mere verbal or immaterial differences do not vitiate.' An act entitled " An act to regulate the sale of liquors in less quantities than one quart " passed the house and went to the senate. In that body it was passed with an amendment striking out of the body of the act everything relating', to sales in less quantities than one quart. The house concurred in the amendment and then amended the title by striking out the words, " in less quantities than one quart." The bill was 3 State V. Moore, 37 Neb. 13, 55 N. W. 299. The court says: "It is now settled that this court will look into the records and journals of the two houses of the legislature to ascertain if they have complied with the constitutional provisions of the state witli reference to the enactment of a law. When this is done it becomes evident that the senate did not at any time, nor did the house of representatives upon the final consideration of the bill, agree to an appropriation of |35,000, so that the act cannot be construed as an appropriation of this sum for want of concurrence of all the law- making branches. It is equally clear that both houses did concur ill the appropriation of $15,000. This appropriation must also fail unless approved by the governor, or by the bill's becoming a lav? in one of the ways provided by the constitution without his approval. The governor, by signing the bill as enrolled, expressed his approval of an appropriation of $85,000. We think that this sum being one greater than that provided by the legislature, his approval thereof in- cluded an approval of the lesser sum." « Fillmore v. Van Horn, 139 Mich. 52; Weis v. Ashley, 59 Neb. 494, 81 N. W. 318, 80 Am. St. Rep. 704; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R Co. v. Smyth, 103 Fed. 376; Simpson v. Union Stock Yards, 110 Fed. 799; State v. Green, 36 Fla. 154, 18 So. 334; State V. Burlington, etc. R, R. Co., 60 Neb. 741, 84 N. W. 254. 5 Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Peo- ple, 143 111. 434, 33 N. E. 173, 19 L. R. A. 119; Price v. Moundsville, 43 W. Va. 523, 27 S. E. 218, 64 Am. St. Rep. 878; Stow v. Grand Rapids, 79 Mich. 595, 44 N. W. 1047; State v. Doherty, 3 Idaho, 384, 29 Pac. 855. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 89 then enrolled and approved without being returned to the senate for its concurrence in the amendment of the title. The act was held valid, the court saying: " After the senate amended said bill, that part of the title referring to the quantity of liquor sold was mere surplusage, as no part of said act contained any provisions referring to the quantity. The amendment of the title, as made by the house of repre- sentatives, was not one of substance and did not invalidate the act." « An act, as introduced, passed and sent to the governor, bore the title : " An act to amend sec. 4 of act No. 282 of the local acts of 1887, entitled," etc. When returned by the governor the date 18YT appeared in place of 1887. There was no act ISTo. 282 of 1887, and the title given was the title of act No. 282 of 1877. The act was held valid.' The journals showed that a bill was amended by adding sec- tions which were not within the original title of the bill. All through the proceedings for its passage it was referred to by the original title and was reported as enrolled under that title. The enrolled bill in fact had an amended title sufficient to cover the added sections, and this was first mentioned in the message of the governor announcing the approval of the bill. The journals did not show any amend- ment of the title. The court, however, presumed that such amendment was made and held the act valid.' The fact that a bill is referred to in different places in the journal under a somewhat different title is immaterial, if the iden- * State V. Doherty, 3 Idaho, 384, was in harmony with the rest of 29 Pac. 855. the title, and but the correction of 'Stow V. Grand Eapids, 79 Mich, a clerical error, — acorrection which 595, 44 N. W. 1047. The court says: would be permissible in a deed or "We think the figures '1887' in contract, and which the law would the title, as introduced and agreed make in default of any other ac- to by the legislature, were simply tion." p. 597. a clerical error, and were corrected s State v. Andrews, 64 Kan. 474, by the reading of the whole title; 67 Pac. 870; Cotting v. K. C. Stock and that the making of it ' 1877 ' Yards Co., 82 Fed. 839. yO ENACTMENT OF LAWS. tity of the bill is clear.' A bill was sometimes referred to as No. 399 and sometimes as No. 339, but always under the same title. The bill with the title in question, when introduced, was numbered 899, and bill No. 339 was previously passed. It was held that the title identified the bill, that all the entries in question related to the same bill, and that it was duly passed.'" A conference committee agreed upon certain amendments to bill No. 258 S., relating to game, which were reported to the respective houses. The senate duly concurred in the amendments. There was pending in the house, bill No. 258 A., relating to change of county seats. The house journal showed that these amendments, setting^ them forth at length, were offered to bill No. 258 A., and were adopted, and that bill No. 258 A., giving its proper title, as amended by the conference committee, was read and passed. The court held that it could not presume that the use of 258 A., with its title, was a mistake for 258 S.,. with a different title, and therefore held that the house journal did not show the passage of the bill." The fact that the entries in the journal are confused or inconsistent will 9 Attorney-General v. Parsell, 100 nor ambiguity in the legislative Mich. 170, 58 N. W. 839; Nelson v. journals." Haywood County, 91 Tenn. 596, 30 " State v. Wendler, 94 Wi& 369, S. W. 1. 68N. W. 759. The court says: "We- '" Miesen- v. Canfield, 64 Minn, are vehemently urged to hold that 513, 67 N. W. 633. We quote as thebill referred to as number 358 A. follows: "It is reasonably clear, if in the assembly journal was num- not absolutely certain, that all en- ber 358 S., and that the use of th& tries in the journal relating to a wrong letter was simply a palpable bill of this title refer to one and clerical error which the court could the same bill, and the fact that it overlook. It appeared that there was sometimes numbered house file was a bill introduced in the assem- 339 was merely a clerical mistake, bly and known as 35.8 A. It was a The file number is no legal or con- bill amending the law relating to stitutional part of the titleof a bill, elections held to consider the It is merely designed for the con- change of county seats. This bill venience of the legislative mem- is pertinently and correctly de- hors and clerks. It may therefore scribed in the assembly journal, be rejected as surplusage, and, if It is described by number, and its this is done, there is neither defect title is given at length. It is this- ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 91 not invalidate the act.'^ "Where the journals show that an act was vetoed and do not show that it was passed over the veto, it is not a law." § 53 (48). Matters which the constitution expressly re- quires to be entered in journal. — If the constitution, how- ever, requires a certain proceeding in the process of legisla- tion to be entered in the journals, the entry is a condition, on which the validity of the act will depend. The vital fact that on the final passage of a bill the required number of votes are given in its favor is extensively directed by constitutions to be entered on the journals, together with the names of those voting. Under the operation of these provisions, there is no presumption that the required vote was given if the journal is silent. It must affirmatively ap- pear by the journals that this constitutional requirement has been complied with." "Where the journal shows only bill which the assembly journal says in direct and unmistakable language was read a third time and passed. Can the court say, in face of this positive declaration, that it was another bill which passed? We think not. If it could, then there would be no reliance to be placed on the legislative record. The most that can be said is that it seems very probable that a mis- take was made, and that 258 S. was the bill which was acted on. But laws cannot rest on probabilities, even though they be extreme prob- abilities. If a court can say, ' It is true the legislative record shows that one bill was passed, still it ap- pears to the court that the record is mistaken, and that an entirely different bill was meant, and con- sequently it shall be enforced as law,' then there is an end of all certainty. The law rests no more upon records, but upon the guess of a court made long afterwards. This cannot be endured. The offi- cial record must govern when its language is clear and free from doubt or ambiguity; and that rec- ord shows that bill number 258 S. was never acted on in the assembly after it went to the conference committee." pp. 377, 378. 12 HoUingsworth v. Thompson, 45 La. Ann. 223, 12 Sa 1, 40 Am. St. Rep. 220. "Trading Stamp Co. v. Mem- phis, 101 Tenn. 181, 47 S. W. 136. "State V. Buckley, 54 Ala. 599; State V. Francis, 26 Kan. 724; In re Vanderberg, 28 id. 243; Weyand v. Stover, 35 id. 545, 11 Pac. 355; South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260, 24 L. Ed. 154; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 111. 297, 58 Am. Dec. 571; People v. Starne. 35 111. 121; Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Id. 160; Po^t v. Supervisors, 105. U, S. 667; Osburn v. Staley, 5 W„ ■92 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. the names of those voting in the aflSrmative, the act will be invalid, unless it is also stated that there were no negative Va. 85; Bouldin v. Lookhart, 1 Lea, 195; State v. Corbett, 61 Ark. 226, 32 S. W. 686; People v. Knopf, 198 111. 340, 64 N. E. 1127; Norman y. Kentucky Board of Managers, 93 Ky. 537, 20 S. W. 901, 18 L. E. A. 556; State v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 55 S. W. 636; Union Bank v. Com'rs, 119 N. C. 214, 25 S. E. 916, 34 L. R. A. 487; Eodman v. Washington, 122 N. C. 39, 30 S. E. 118; Charlotte V. Shepard, 122 N. C. 602, 29 S. E. 842; Wilkes Co. Com'rs v. Call, 123 N. C. 308, 31 S. E. 481; Smathers v. 'Com'rs, 125 N. C. 480, 34 S. E. 554; Glenn v. Wray, 126 N. C. 730, 36 S. E. 167; New Hannover Co. Com'rs V. Derossat, 129 N. C. 275, 40 S. E. 43; Hooker v. Greenville, 130 N. C. 472, 42 S. E. 141 ; Debnam v. Chitty, 131 N. C. 657, 43 S. E. 3; State v. Swan, 7 Wyo. 166, 51 Pao. 209, 75^ Am. St. Rep. 889; Stanley Co. -Com'rs V. Coles, 96 Fed. 284, 37 C. -C. A. 484; State v. Frank, 60 Neb. 827, 83 N. W. 74; S. C. on rehear- ing, 61 Neb. 679, 85 N. W. 956; Ames V. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 64 Fed. 165. Where it appeared upon the jour- nals of the house of representatives that the bill did not receive the requisite vote on its third reading in that body, but did upon its final passage by the house after its re- turn from the senate with amend- ments, it was held a substantial compliance. Bond Debt Cases, 13 rS. C. 200. In Osburn v. Staley, 5 W. Va. 85, it appeared that the full senate had •consisted of twenty-two mem- bers; that one afterwards resigned. On the final passage of the bill in question, after such resignation, there were eleven votes in its favor, and it was declared passed and by a majority of the members elected. Held, that there was doubt whether the vote was not sufficient, and the act wa,s sustained by resolving the doubt in favor of its validity. In State v. Francis, 26 Kan. 724, the act in question was passed in the house by a vote in its favor, includ- ing, to make the required ma- jority, the votes of four members (who were identified) beyond the maximum membership fixed by the constitution ; held void. Under the Michigan constitu- tion, requiring on the final passage of a bill a majority of all the mem- bers elected, it was held that the court would not enter into an in- quiry whether de facto members were properly elected. People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481. In Turley v. County of Logan, 17 III. 153, it was said by the court that " while the absence of facts in the journals may rebut the pre- sumption raised by the signatures of the proper officers, and the pub- lication of the act as a law, still we cannot doubt the power of the same legislature, at the same or a subsequent session, to correct its own journals by amendments which show the true facts as they actually occurred, when they are satisfied that by neglect or design the truth has been omitted or sup- pressed." BNAOTMENT OF LAWS. 93^ votes.'' Where the journal showed that the act in question- was passed by a vote of 64 yeas to 7 nays, but gave the names of only 62 voting in the affirmative, the act was held not impeached, though 63 votes were required for a constitutional majority.'* As to what is the "final passage of a bill " within the meaning of the constitution, there is a difference of opinion. Some courts hold that the final passage of a bill is when it is first passed in each house,- and that concurrence in subsequent amendments made by the other house, or in the report of a conference committee,, may be made without a yea and nay vote, and without en- tering the result in the journals." Other courts hold that it is the last vote in each house which gives efiicacy to the- bill.'' In Miller v. State,'' Thurman, C. J., used this emphatic- language: "That the power to make laws is vested in the assembly alone, and that no act has any force that was not passed by the number of votes required by the constitution, are nearly or quite self-evident propositions. These essen- 15 Smathers v. Com'rs, 135 N. C. journal, does not apply to amend- 480, 34 S. E. 554; New Hannover ments or the report of conference Co. Com'rs v. Derossat, 139 N. C. committees. If so, then no matter 375, 40 S. E. 43; Debnam v. Chitty, how material the change, a ma- 131 N. C. 657, 43 S. E. 3. jority vote of a quorum may pass- 's Homzighausen V. Knoche, 58 the bill. The words ' final passage,' Kan. 646, 50 Pac. 879. as used in our constitution, mean "State V. Corbett, 61 Ark. 386, 82 final passage. They do not mean S. W. 686; Brake v. Collison, 133 some passage before the final one, Fed. 723; Hull v. Miller, 4 Neb. 503. but the last one. They do not mean IS Norman v. Ky. Board of Man- the passage of a part of a bill, or agers, 93 Ky. 537, 30 S. W. 901, 18 what is first introduced, and which L. R. A. 556. The court says: "It may by reason of amendments be- is true it has been held that the come the least Important. If so, 'final passage' of a bill means when then the body may pass what is it first passes the body, and not practically a new bill in a manner ■when it returns to it, after amend- counter to both the letter and ment, for adoption; and it is said spirit of the constitution," pp.544,, that the constitutional provision as 545. to the number of votes, and the '^ 3 Ohio St. 475 entry of the yea and nay vote on the "94: ENACTMENT OF LAWS. tials relate to the authority by which, rather than to the mode in which, laws are to be made." § 54 (49). Ke(niired reading, printing and reference of bills. — The readings required of bills are intended to aiford ■opportunities for deliberate consideration of them in detail, and for amendment.'-" Hence, amendments are admissible during the progress of a bill through the process of enact- ment; they are not subject to the same rule as bills in re- gard to the number of readings. They must be germane to the subject of the bill, and are not required to be read three times.^' And this rule is held to apply though the amendment consists in the substitution of a new bill on the same subject.^^ Nor does concurrence by one house in amend- ments made by the other require the yeas and nays, and their entry on the journal, under the provision for these things on the final passage of bills.^' It is not necessary that everything which is to become law by the adoption of a bill be read. Thus a bill may be passed for the adoption of the common law, and it would not be necessary to set it forth in the bill. And where a bill was passed adopting a revised code, prepared by a com- mission, it was held unnecessary to read the code referred to and adopted.^* An act was held valid which provided for the punishment as at common law of misdemeanors for which no punishment was provided by statute.^' The requirement that bills be read on different days will 20 state V. Piatt, 3 S. C. 150, 16 be read the prescribed number of Am. Rep. 647. times. 21 Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St. 475; 22 Nelson v. Haywood County, 91 People V. Wallace, 70 111. 680; Tenn. 596, 30 S. W. 1; Cantini v. State V. Piatt, 8 S. C. 150, 16 Am. Tillman, 54 Fed. 969; Brake v. Col- Rep. 647; Illinois Central R. E. Co. lison, 133 Fed. 733. V. People, 143 III. 434, 33 N. E. 173, 23 Hull v. Miller, 4 Neb. 503; anie, 19 L. R. A. 119; Gilliland v. Baptist § 53, note 9a Church, 33 S. C. 164, 11 S. E. 684; 2< Central of Georgia R. R. Co. v. State V. Hooker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 Sa State, 104 Ga. 831, 31 S. E. 531, 43 767. In Glenn v. Wray, 136 N. C. L. R, A. 518. 730, 86 S. E. 167, it is held that if 25 pew v. Cunningham, 38 Ala. the amendment is material it must 471, 65 Am. Deo, 863; Dane v. Mc- ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 95 not prevent one house from reading a bill the first time on the same daj' it was read the third time and passed in the other house.^* Nor is it any objection that one of the read- ings was on the day of final adjournment." Where a bill is vetoed and reconsidered it may be passed at once, and is not required to go through the prescribed readings as if an original bill.^^ Of coui'se if the journals show that the act was not read as required, it wjU be void.® The constitution of Colorado provides that " no bill shall be considered or become a law unless referred to a com- mittee, returned therefrom, and printed for the use of the members."™ It has been held that this does not require a bill to be printed before it is read.'' The same constitution provides that all substantial amendments shall be printed for the use of the members before the final vote is taken on the bill. It is held that this provision is mandatory; that whether an amendment is substantial is a question for the courts, and if the provision is not complied with the act is void.'^ § 55 (50). "What shall be sufficient cause for suspending the rule requiring the readings on different days is. solely Arthur, 57 Ala. 454; People v. N. C. 308, 31 S. E. 481 ; Smathers v. Whipple, 47 Cal. 592; Bibb County Commissioners, 125 N. C. 480, 34 Loan Ass'n v. Eichavds, 21 Ga. 593. S. E. 554; HooUer v. Greenville, 130 2« Chicot Cft. V. Davies. 40 Ark. N. C. 472, 43 S. E. 141. Where a 200; State v. Crawford, 35 id. 237. city charter required every ordi- 27Gilliland v. Baptist Church, 33 nance to be read three several times S. C. 164, 11 S. E. 684. before it became a law, adopting 28 Lake v. Ocean City, 62 N. J. L. the language of the constitution, 160, 41 Atl. 427. In People v. Luby, and the practical construction of «9 Mich. 89, 57 N. W. 1092, it was the constitution by the legislature held that an objection that an act had been that one of the readings was not read in full on the first might be by title, it was held that and second readings would not be the charter was intended to have considered when made for the first the same construction. State v. time on appeal. Camden, 58 N. J. L. 515, 33 Atl. 846. 29 Ante, § 52, note 98; Stanley Co. s" Art. 5, sec. 20. Com'rs v. Snuggs, 121 N. C. 394, 28 si Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Col. S. E. 539, 39 L. E. A. 439; Charlotte L. & T. Co., 30 Colo. 1, 86 Pao. 793. V. Shepard, 122 N. C. 603, 29 S. B. '2 In re House Bill 250, 26 Colo 842: Wilkes Co. Com'rs v. Call, 123 234, 57 Pao. 49. 96 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. within the discretion of the legislative body voting it, where power to dispense with it is given, and such cause need not appear upon the journals.'' The house may, by one order or resolution, dispense with the rule for two or more bills.'* It is not for the courts to say how the power shall be exer- cised. The requirement that there be three readings and that they occur on three different days, being intended to pre- vent hasty and imprudent legislation, ought on principle to be, and by the weight of authority is, regarded as manda- tory.'' In Ohio it seems to be regarded as director3^'^ § 56 (51). Necessity of signature of presiding officers. — Where the constitution requires every bill passed to be signed by the presiding officers of the respective houses, it is mandatory, and cannot be dispensed with where the journals are not records, and the act when passed and duly authenticated is conclusive as a record.'' Where the fact of signing is required to be entered on the journals, the pro- vision is held to be mandator}' by some courts,'^ and direct- ory by others." Where the constitution provides for a speaker pro tem., he may sign bills.*' If the constitution does not require their signing, it is not deemed essential.*' And since it is no part of the essential process of legislation, and is designed solely to verify the passage of the bill or resolution, where the legislative journals and files are rec- ords of which the court takes judicial notice, or which may 33 Hull V. Miller, 4 Neb. 503. Governor, 23 Mo. 364; Cooley's 3« People V. County of Glenn, 100 Const. Lim. 153; Burrough, Pub. Gal. 419, 35 Pao. 302, 38 Am. St. Securities, 435. And see O'Hara v. Eep. 805. State, 131 Ala. 3S, 25 So. 632, wher» 35 Ante, § 49; Cooley, Const. L. 170. the question was whether the jour- 36 Miller v. State, 3 Ohio St, 481; nal could be construed as showing Pirn V. Nicholson, 6 id. 178. the signing of the bill in question. 3' State V. Howell, 36 Nev. 93, 64 39 in re Roberts, 5 Cola 535; Stata Pao. 466. See Wrought Iron Range v. Long, 31 Mont. 36, 53 Pac. 645. Ca V. Carver, 118 N. C. 338, 34 S. E. « Robertson v. State, 130 Ala. 164, 352. 80 So. 494 38 People V. Commissioners, 64 ■" Speer v. Plank Road Co., 33 Pa. N. Y. 376; Pacific R. R. Co. v. The St. 370. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 97 be brought to judicial notice, and from them it plainly ap- pears that the bill or resolution, not signed by one or both of the presiding officers, was regularly considered and passed, there is much reason to sustain it as valid notwithstanding the absence of those signatures. If that evidence will pre- vail to avoid a statute erroneously signed by them, it should suffice to sustain one which was duly passed, though lack- ing that particular verification, if the other record evidence sufficiently shows the essential proceedings.*^ ' The signature of the presiding officer is in such cases only a certificate to the governor that the bill or resolution has passed the requi- site number of readings, and been adopted by the constitu- tional majority of the house over which he presides. But ^^^kevii the vote must be determined by the journals, the ab- sence of the signatures of the presiding officers is not fatal, if the governor has signed the bill, for it will be presumed that the governor had sufficient evidence, the assurance ■which the journals afford to the court, of its passage at the time of his approval. § 57 (52). How the question of the due passage or en- actment of statutes is tried. — The court takes judicial no- tice of all general laws. This is a cardinal rule, and neces- sarily includes cognizance of whatever must be considered in determining what the law is; not because it is the prerog- ative of the courts arbitrarily to determine what are the public statutes, nor because they are required or supposed to have a knowledge of those laws without evidence of them, but because they have the means, and it is their duty, to make themselves acquainted with them.*' "Whatever ex- trinsic facts are proper to be considered; the courts may have recourse to aid them in their duty to ascertain the law. Judicial knowledge takes in its whole range and scope at once; it embraces simultaneously, in contemplation of « Hull V. Miller, 4 Neb. 503; Cot- ton, etc. R. R. Co. v. Odum, 53 Tex. trail V. State, 9 Neb. 128; Commis- 343. sioners v. Higginbotham, 17 Kan. *' Eld v. Gorham, 20 Conn, 8. 75; State v. Glenn, 18 Nev. 39; Hous- 7 9S ENACTMENT OF LAWS. law, all the facts to which it extends. It would be a sole- cism to hold that a statute regularly authenticated is prima facie valid, if there exists facts of which the court must take judicial notice showing it to be void. On principle and the weight of authority the courts take judicial notice of the legislative journals. If they invali- date a statute jt is not apparently valid, for in every view of it the court perceives what impugns it and prevents it hav- ing force. And if the court has other sources of informa- tion Avhich explored disclose facts fatal to an act, it is void from the beginning, void on its face; for what is manifest to the judicial mind is legally palpable to the whole public. ITone can plead ignorance of it. It is, however, held in some of the states that the courts do not take such judicial notice of legislative journals and extrinsic facts. In Grob v. Cushman,^* the court says: " It is true that they are public records, but it does not follow that they are to be regarded as within the knowledge of the courts like public laws. Like other records and public documents they should be brought before the court as evidence. But when offered they prove their own authenticity. Until so produced they cannot be regarded by the courts." It is held in that state not to be the province of the court, at the suggestion or re- quest of counsel, to explore the journals for the purpose of ascertaining the manner in which a law duly certified went through the legislature and into the hands of the governor.^' § 58 (53). These cases came under review in the supreme court of the United States in Town of South Ottawa v. Per- kins,*^ and that court was in doubt and divided on the question whether by the state decision the validity of a stat- ute was a conclusion of law or fact, when the statute, prop- erly authenticated, is avoided by the legislative journals showing it was not constitutionally enacted. The majority, 4445 IlL 134, 125; Illinois Central "Illinois Central R. E. Ca v. R. R. Co. V. Wren, 43 111. 77; Lar- Wren, 43 111. 77; Can trail v. Seav- rison v. Peoria, etc. R. R. Co., 77 id. ems, 168 111. 165, 48 N. E. 186. 18; People v. De Wolf, 63 111. 253. *« 94 U, S. 260, 24 L. Ed. 154. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 99 by Bradley, J., say: " In our judgment it was not necessary to have raised an issue on the subject, except by demurrer to the declaration. The court is bound to know the law without- taking the advice of a jury on the subject. When once it became a settled construction of the constitution of Illinois that no act can be deemed a valid law unless by the journals of the legislature it appears to have been regularly passed by both houses, it became the duty of the courts to take judicial notice of the journal entries in that regard. The courts of Illinois may decline to take that trouble, un- less the parties bring the matter to their attention, but on general principles the question as to the existence of a law is a judicial one, and must be so regarded by the courts of the United States." " In a recent case the supreme court of the United States says: "As a statute duly certified is presumed to have been duly passed until the contrary appears (a presumption aris- ing in favor of the law as printed by authority, and, in a higher degree, of the original on file in the proper repository), it would seem to follow that wherever a suit comes to issue, whether in the court below or in the higher tribunal, an objection resting on the failure of the legislature to comply with the provisions of the constitution should be so pre- sented that the adverse party may have opportunity to con- trovert the allegations and to prove by the record due con- formity with the constitutional requirements." *^ It is also said in the same case that " it has often been held by state courts that evidence of the contents of legislative journals, which has not been produced and made part of the case in the court below, will not be considered on appeal." " « Post V. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 43 111. 77; Bedard v. Hall, 44 111. 91; •667. Greb v. Cushman, 45 111. 119; Hin- <8 In re Duncan, 139 U. S. 449, soldt v. Petersburg, 63 111. 157; Au- 457, 458, 11 S. C. Rep. 573, 35 L. Ed. ditor v. Haycratt, 14 Bush, 284; •219; and see State v.Wray, 109 Mo. Bradley v. West, 60 Mo. 33. In 594, 19 S. W. 86. State v. Brown, 33 S. C. 151, 11 S. E. *9 Citing the following cases: 641, the supreme court refused to Illinois Central E. R. Co. v. Wren, consider the journals because they 100 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. But the general rule undoubtedly is that the courts of every grade will take judicial notice of the journals and of the enrolled act and indorsements thereon.'" Whether an appellate court will consider an objection to the manner of passing a statute, not made in the lower court, is another question. § 59 (54). The investigation upon an objection that an act was unconstitutionally passed may be expected to be made primarily by the parties ; they will desire to be heard in respect to the source and the evidentiary quality of in- formation obtained, and the effect of facts considered. Doubtless this interest of the parties, and a conservatism of the courts restraining them from a consideration of any im- portant ingredient of a case without notice to the parties, and the aid of their counsel, have induced the course of de- cision in Illinois and in some other states in which it is held that the courts will not take judicial notice of the legis- lative journals, though they are required by the constitu- tion to be kept, and will be considered only when brought before the court as evidence.** It has been intimated in some cases that the objection should be made by plea,'^ were not offered in evidence below. County v. Isenring, 109 Wis. 9, 85 In People v. Luby, 99 Mich. 89, 57 N. W. 131, 53 L. R. A. 635. In the N. W. 1093, the court says it will last case the court says: "It must not consider an objection to the be understood that when the exist- manner of passing an act, when it enoe or contents of a statute are is made for the first time on ap- called in question, no issue of fact peal. is presented for a trial upon the 50 Henderson v. State, 94 Ala. 95, evidence, but the court, whether 10 S. E. 332; Davis v. Whidden, 117 one of original or appellate juris- Cal. 618, 49 Pao. 766; State v. diction, must necessarily decide Hocker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 So. 767; the question the same as it decides Homzighausen v. Knoche, 58 Kan. any other question of law.'' 646, 50 Pac. 879; Barnard v. Gall, si Burt v. Winona, etc. E. E. Co., 43 La. Ann. 959, 10 So. 5; State v. 31 Minn. 473, 4 Am. & Eng. Corp. Smith, 44 Ohio St. 348, 7 N., E. 447; Cas. 426, 18 N. W. 285, 289; Ballou State V. Price, 8 Ohio C. C. 35; v. Black, 17 Neb. 389, 23 N. W. 3. State V. Rogers, 33 Ore. 848, 30 ^^ People v. Supervisors, 8 N. Y. Pac. 74; McDonald V. State, 80 Wis. 317; Falconer v. Campbell, 2 Mc- 407, 50 N. W, 185; In re Eyan, 80 Lean, 195, Fed. Cas. No. 4630. Wis. 414, 50 N. W. 187; Milwaukee ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 101 •which implies that the validity may be made to depend on the determination of an issue of fact. But this notion has been abandoned in the court in which it originated, and never obtained a footing in any other jurisdiction.^' The court is required to take notice ex officio of general laws; its peculiar function is to determine what the law is, and ex- pound it; therefore it would be at once absurd and incon- venient to submit such a question to a jury. It is more logical and more consistent with principle to treat the evi- dence, so called, produced upon such an objection as being presented for the information of the court in the same sense in which law-books are read; facts are only incidental to the research, as when a court must deal with them to some extent, to learn if authorities cited are authentic. In Gardner v. The Collector,''** Miller, J., said of the public statute in question: " It is one of which the court takes ju- dicial notice, without proof, and therefore the use of the words ' extrinsic evidence ' is inappropriate. Such statutes are not proved as issues of fact as private statutes are." § 60 (55). Approval by executive. — The legislative power is generally in terms vested by the organic law in the legis- lature or general assembly consisting of two branches; though in acts of congress organizing territorial govern- ments it has been usual to vest it in the governor and gen- eral assembly. He is thus made a constituent of the legis- lature, as the king in the English system is a constituent of parliament. The legislative practice, however, is the same in the territories as in the states, and the same as in parlia- ment, as to the part taken by the executive in the enactment of laws. The two houses formulate and adopt in the first instance all legislative measures, and the executive acts merely to approve or disapprove these measures. His func- tion is of the same nature as that of members of the two houses, except that it is negative, and that by pursuing the M People V. Devlin, 33 N. Y. 269, niissioners, 54 N. Y. 276; State ex 88 Am. Dea 377; People v. Com- rel. v. Foote, 11 Wis. 11. S4 6 Wall. 508, 18 L. EA 890. 102 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. course prescribed in the paramount law acts may acquire the force of laws without his concurrence.^' In New York it is held that after the final adjournment 55 In People v. Bowen, 31 N. Y. 520 et seq. (8. C, 30 Barb. 24), Denio, J., thus discusses the nature of the duty and power of the executive in the enactment of laws: "The ques- tion as to the nature of the govern- or's agency raises, I think, rather a dispute about terms than one concerning the substance of things. Whatever the authority touching the enactment of laws, with which the governor is clothed, shall be called, it is of the same general nat- ure witli that which is exercised by the members of the two houses. He is to consider as to the constitu- tionality, justice and public exped- iency of such legislative measures as shall liave been agreed upon by the two houses, by the ordinary majorities, and be presented to him; and he is to accord or with- hold his approbation according to the result of his deliberations. This is plainly the function of a legislator. The sovereign of Eng- land, who is charged with the same duty in respect to acts of parliament, is con.sidered to be a constituent part of the supreme legislative power. 1 BL Com. 261. It is true that his determination to disapprove a bill deprives it of any effect, while one disallowed by the governor may yet be estab- lished by an extraordinary con- currence of votes in the houses. Thus, though the action of the executive is less potential here than in England, the quality of the act, namely, deliberating and determining upon the propriety of laws proposed to be enacted, is precisely the sama Besides mak- ing his determination the gov- ernor is required, in case it is un- favorable to the law, to submit hi& objections to the legislature which is to examine them, and again pass upon them in the light of the discussion which they have thus undergone. To my mind it is clear that this involves a partici- pation on the part of the governor witli the two houses of the legisla- ture in the enactment of laws. It would not be correct language to say that he forms a branch of the legislature, for the constitution has limited that designation to the sen- ate and assembly; but it would be equally incorrect to affirm that the sanction which he is required to give to or withhold from bills be- fore they can become operative does not render him a participator in the function of making laws. The forty-seventh number of 'The Federalist,' written by Mr. Madison, treats of the separation of the great departments of the government, and it is there shown that the con- currence of the executive magis- trate with the proper legislature in the enactment of laws as ar- ranged in the constitution of the United States is not, in spirit, a vio- lation of the principle, so strongly insisted upon by Montesquieu and other writers upon constitutional government, that constitutional liberty cannot exist where the leg- ENACTMENT OE LAWS. 103 of the legislature the governor may act upon bills submitted to him.'^ Such seems to have been the practice sanctioned by judicial decision under similar constitutional provisions islative and executive powers are united in the same person. Mr. Madison considers the qualified veto accorded to the president as effecting a partial distribution of the legislative authority between him and the congress, but argues that it is not objectionable, be- cause neither authority can, in any case, exercise the whole power of the other. He shows, also, that in certain states, in the constitutions of which the principle of Montes- quieu is laid down in terms with great positiveness, there is an in- termingling of the legislative and executive departments in the act- ual arrangement of the details of government. Our own constitu- tion furnishes another example; for though it is declared that the whole legislative authority shall be vested in the senate and assembly, still no law can be enacted which has not been submitted to the judg- ment of the governor. His agency cannot, therefore, be considered as merely a power to refer back bills for further consideration by the legislature. His approval is re- garded as generally essential to the enactment of laws, though his dis- approval is not necessarily fatal to them, but may be overcome, where the legislature, upon a considera- tion of his objections, shall repass them by an extraordinary major- ity." 56 People V. Bowen, 21 N. Y. 520. Denio, J., continuing the opinion irom which we quoted in the last note, said that, in his opinion, " it is not -a just construction of the power intrusted to the governor to consider it as merely an authority to require a further consideration of bills which he shall disapprove. In one respect the effect of the governor's determination is differ- ent when the legislature is in ses- sion and when it is not. In the latter case, if he approves, the concurrence of the whole law- making power is secured, pre- cisely as though the legislature was in session. The bill has re- ceived the concurrence of all the functionaries which the constitu- tion requires shall unite in enact- ing a perfect law. He cannot state objections, for there is no public body in existence to whom they can be submitted. If he neg- lect to act, which he will of course do if the bill is disapproved of by him,it falls to the ground bythe ex- press provisions of the constitution, for the grounds of his disapproval cannot be passed upon by the legis- lature. But if the proposed law meets with his approval, there is no reason why the public will, ex- pressed by all the official bodies and persons with whom the con- stitution has intrusted the prov- ince of making laws, should fail of effect. "It has been argued that, as the governor cannot, in the recess of the legislature, compel the recon- sideration of bills to which he is unwilling to yield his consent, he 104 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. in Georgia," Illinois,^' Louisiana/" Maryland,^" Michigan," and Mississippi.*^ It is held that the president may approve a bill during a recess of congress.*' A bill was signed by the presiding officers and approved by the governor on the second page of the bill, at the end of section 2 instead of at the end of the bill. The governor, on discovering this, erased the signatures and sent the bill to be re-signed by the presiding officers, intending to sign after them. The bill was again signed by the presiding offi- cers, but, in the confusion attending the close of the session, the governor neglected to do so, and the bill was filed with the secretary of state without being again signed by the governor. In a message to the senate, where the bill origi- nated, the governor announced that he had approved of the bill. It was held that it was immaterial where on the bill the signatures were placed, that the bill became a law when approved, and that the subsequent acts did not annul it." might be induced to approve those which are, in some respects, objec- tionable, but which contain other provisions important to the public welfare. This argument is not without force, but I think it should be assumed that he would never interpose a veto to a bill which he did not conscientiously believe ought not to become a law, and that he would never approve one to which such objection, in his opinion, existed. Should a bill of the character suggested be left in his hands at the adjournment, the remedy for the public inconven- ie.ice, which might be occasioned by the failure to enact the sound parts, would be found in the power to again call the legislature to- gether, which is vested in him for this and the like occasions." " Solomon v, Commissionei's, 41 Ga. 157. 58 Const. 1848, art. 4, § 21; Seven Hickory v. Ellery, 103 U. S. 433, 26 L. Ed. 435. 69 State V. Fagan, 23 La. Ann. 545. •■"Lankford v. County Com'rs, 73 Md. 105, 20 Atl. 1017, 11 L. E. A. 491. "Detroit v. Chapin, 108 Mich. 136, 66 N. W. 587, 37 L. R. A. 391. "2 State V. Supervisors, 64 Miss. 365. Contra, Fowler v. Pierce, 2 Cal. 165. s' La Arba Silver Min. Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 433, 20 S. C. Rep. 168, 44 L. Ed. 223. c* National Land & Loan Co. v. Mead, 60 Vt. 257, 14 Atl. 689. The court says: "The bill passed both the senate and the house, was presented to the governor, was carefully examined by him, and was by him approved and signed intentionally and under- ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 105 In another case the governor approved a bill and left his office for lunch. During his absence his private secretary filed it with the secretary of state. The private secretary was accustomed so to file approved bills without any special direction so to do. On the governor's return he obtained the bill, erased his signature and returned it with his ob- jections to the senate, where it originated. The bill bore this indorsement: "Keturned to the senate by the governor ^nd signature refused. Failed of a passage over his veto." In a proceeding for a mandamus, to compel the secretary of state to restore the bill to its place among the public laws of the state, the court held that the question must be tried by the bill and veto message alone, that these could not be contradicted by parol, and that they showed that the act did not become a law.*' The constitution of Minnesota provides that "the gov- ernor may approve, sign and file in the office of the secre- tary of state, within three days after the adjournment of the legislature, any act passed during the last three days of the session, and the same shall become a law."*' The "last three days" is held to mean working days and to exclude Sunday.*' It is also held that the word " passed " refers to the enrollment of the act and not to the final vote upon it; standingly. The bill thereby be- brought to the attention of the came a law. That which took court by an aflSdavit of the gov- place afterwards did not annul ernor. this enactment. It was not even ^5 Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538, 18 :so intended if the power existed. Atl. 293. The court says that the The governor did not attempt to governor may recall his approval withdraw his approval. The place of a bill while it remains in his cus- •of signing was as effectual as tody, and that if it gets to the though it had been at the end of secretary of state without his au- ;the bill, the fact appearing that it thority it is not such a deposit as was intended as a signing and ap- makes it a law. proval of the entire bill. The con- *' Art. 4, sec. 11. stitution does not require that a "''Stinson v. Smith, 8 Minn. 366; bill shall be signed at the end, or John V. Farwell Co. v, Matheis, subscribed." p. 260. 48 Fed. 363. The facts in this case were 106 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. and where an act passed the house on April 19, was reported enrolled and presented to the governor on April 22, and the legislature adjourned on April 23, it was held to have been passed within the last three days of the session within the meaning of the constitution, and the approval by th& governor on April 24 made it a law.^ § 61 (56). The organic act of Nevada territory vested the legislative power in the governor and legislative assembly. It was therefore held that, being a part of the legislativ.e body, he could only concur in the passage of a law whilst the other branches had a legal existence.*' The signing of a bill by the governor is the mode appointed in the consti- tutions for him to signify his approval. When he has signed it it will become a law though he send a message to the legislature or the house in which it originated, setting forth objections to it."" So it has been held that after a bill has been regularly passed by the two houses, and has been pre- sented to the governor for approval, it cannot be recalled by their joint resolution." The schedule of the Kansas con- stitution provides that all oiEcers under the territorial gov- ernment shall continue in the exercise of the duties of their respective departments until superseded under the au- thority of the constitution. Under this provision it was held that the territorial governor properly approved an act after the act of admission had passed.'^ § 62 (57). How a bill will become a law without ap- proval. — Without the express approval of the executive a bill passed b}' the legislature can become a law only in two cases. First, when he fails to return it with his objections within the time prescribed by the constitution ; second, when 68 Burns v. Sewell, 48 Minn. 425, 69 School Trustees v. Commis- si N. W. 224. It was also held that sioners, 1 Nev. 335; Birdsall v. Car- the provision quoted was not a rick, 3 Nev. 154. grant of power to approve a bill ™ State v. Whisner, 35 Kan. 271,, after the adjournment of the leg- 10 Pac. 8.53. islature, but a limitation of the " Wolfe v. MoCauU, 76 Va.876. jiower. '^ State v. Hitchcock, 1 Kan. 186. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 107" it is passed over his objections by the required vote." Manjr constitutions provide that an act shall become a law with- out the governor's signature if he retain it for a certain number of days after it is presented to him for approval/* unless the adjournment of the legislature shall prevent him from returning it within that time, and in that case that it shall not become a law. The adjournment intended by this provision is the final adjournment, not adjournments from, time to time.^° Where Sundays are excepted in the specifi- cation of the period; and under the provision sometimes added, that " the governor may approve, sign and file in the- office of the secretary of state within three days after the adjournment of the legislature, any act passed during the last three days of the session, and the same shall become- a law," Sundays will be excepted by construction, as in- tended by the constitution, in order to give the governor three full working days after the adjournment. Such time being expressly granted in the limitation of time during the session, it is deemed not unreasonable to hold that there is- implied the same exception of Sundays in the period given- after the adjournment, for there is the same and stronger reason for it in the greater number of important bills usu- ally passed during the last days of a session.'* Whether Sunday is to be included or excluded in computing the time allowed the executive for the return of bills would seem to depend upon the general principles for making such com- putations, which are discussed elsewhere." Where the time allowed was five days, it was held that Sunday should be excluded, and the general rule was laid down that when the- time limited exceeds one week, Sunday is to be included, but when it is a week or less, Sunday is to be excluded.™ 75 Birdsall v. Carrick, 3 Nev. 154. ''estiuson v. Smith, 8 Minn. 366; '^ McNeil V. Commonwealth, 13 John V. Farwell Co. v. Matheis, 48" Bush, 727. Fed. 363. 75 Miller v. Hurford, 11 Neb. 377, ''t Post, ch. V. 9 N. W. 477; State V. Michel, 52 La. '8 State v. Michel, 53 La. Ann. Ann. 936, 37 So. 565, 78 Am. St. Rep. 936, 27 So. 565, 78 Am. St. Rep. 364„ 364. 108 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. T3ut where the provision was that if the return of a bill was prevented by adjournment, the bill should become a law unless the governor filed his objections thereto with the secretary of state within ten days after the adjournment, it was held that Sunday was excluded.'' § 63 (58). This provision is made in Iowa for bills passed during the last three days of a session: that they " shall be deposited by him [the governor] in the office of the secre- tary of state within thirty days after the adjournment, with his approval, if approved by him, and with his objections, if he disapproves thereof." In a case in which the bill was presented to the governor during the last three days of the ■session, and he omitted to sign it, but within the thirty days filed it without objections with the secretary of state, it was held that it did not become a law — it could only become a law by his subsequent approval of if § 64 (59). Presentation to executive — Teto. — A con- stitutional provision requiring a bill to be presented to the governor on the day of its passage and requiring the fact of presentation to be noted in the journal was held to be directory.^* Where a bill is tendered to the "governor by the proper officer there is a presentation within the meaning of the constitution, though the governor declines to receive it and does not receive it until the next day.^^ A private in- corporation act was presented to the governor for his ap- proval. He indicated to the member who introduced it some objections to the bill, whereupon this member ob- tained leave from the house to withdraw the bill from the governor's hands, which was done. The bill then remained in the control of the promoters of the company for more than a ye^r, when it was presented to the secretary of state with a request that he include it among the enrolled bills, on the ground that it had become a law by failure of the 79 People V. Eose, 167 111. 147, 47 8i state v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 55 N. E. 547. S. W. 636 ; State t. Mead, 71 Mo. 266. 8" Darling v. Boesoh, 67 Iowa,'702, ^2 state v. Michel, 53 La. Ann. 25 N. W. 887. 936, 27 So. 565, 78 Am. St. Rep. 364 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 109- governor to return it within ten days. On mandamus ta compel the secretary of state to comply with the request, it was held that the bill had never been presented within the meaning of the constitution.'' When a bill has been presented to the executive for his approval his responsibility commences, and the time speci- fied in the constitution for his action is important and man- datory, for precise consequences of his action or non-action are defined. It must be presented to him during the session of the legislature, and he can only return it with objections when the body is in session to which the return must be made. If the session is ended or interrupted by adjourn- ment; if the members have dispersed, and the oflicers are not in attendance, he cannot return it to the house in which 83 MoKinzie v. Moore, 93 Ky. 216, 17 S. W. 483, 14 L. E. A. 351. The court says: " The object in present- ing a bill to the executive is to en- able him to consider its various features that he may understand- ingly approve or reject it. Hejnust have time to consider its provisions, and with the courtesy extended members of the legislature by the executive of the state, that has grown into a custom, in permitting them to withdraw bills before ma- ture consideration by him that ap- pear to be objectionable, it would be a singular rule to adopt, and oue productive of much evil, to permit a member, however honest his motives, to withdraw a bill from the consideration of the ex- ecutive, that the member himself lias introduced, and after the lapse of months, with the legislature ad- journed, to declare the bill a law because it was once in the govern- or's hands. It is no such presenta- tion as is contemplated by the con- stitution for the member, or the custodian of the bill, to deliver it to the governor, then immediately withdraw it and claim that it be- comes a law, because the governor failed to return it within the ten days." p. 231. An indorsement on a bill by the- secretary of the senate that it was- presented to the governor March 31 was held to be overcome by an indorsement on the same bill by the secretary of state that it was^ presented on April 4. Lankford v. County Com'rs, 73 Md. 105, 20 Atl. 1017, 11 L. R A. 491. In the Texas constitution the governor must act on every bill presented to him one day previous to the adjournment of the legisla- ture before the adjournment; other- wise it will become a law without his approval; and under it it is held that the governor must have the bill at least twenty- four hours before- the adjournment. Hyde v. White, 24 Tex. 137; Const. 1845, art. 5, § 17; Const. 1868, art. 4, § 25; Const. 1866, art. 5, § 17. 110 ENACTMENT OP LAWS. it OFiginated. He is not authorized to return a bill to the speaker of the house, to the clerk, or to any other officer, but only to the house in which it originated, and that can only be as a body.^ The return of a bill by laying it on •the speaker's table and the announcement of a message from the governor, before the adjournment of the house, is a sufficient return of it, though the house was at the time taking a vote by aj'es and noes on a motion to adjourn, which was carried.*' Though the constitution requires a larger majority to pass certain bills than is required to pass a bill over the governor's veto, such bills must nevertheless be presented to the governor, and can become laws only in the usual way, and if he vetoes such a bill it must be passed 84 People V. Hatch, 33 111. 9, 135. 85 Opinion of Justices, 45 N. H. 608. As to what shall be regarded as a return, and what should be consid- ered as a day in this connection, the justices in this opinion say : "Nor are we by any means prepared to say that the legislative day was ended necessarily by the adjourn- ment of the house, even though it might have been at the usual hour in the afternoon ; or that the return of the bill at any convenient time during the day to the speaker, al- though after the house adjourned for tKe day, would not have been sufiBcient. The provision of the constitution in relation to this sub- ject should receive a reasonable construction; and it can hardly be supposed that the time limited for the return of the bill has expired because that branch of the legisla- ture in which the bill originated has adjourned for the day, if the .five days limited by the constitu- tion have not expired. The word " day," in its common acceptation. means a civil day of twenty-four hours, beginning andendingat mid- night." Shaw V. Dodge, 5 N. H. 465; Colby V. Knapp, 13 id. 175. This opinion answers the question whether the bill was properly i;re- sented to the governor. It was left in the executive ofSce in the gov- ernor's absence, and it came to his notice on the foUowing day. It is supposed that custom and habit have designated where the execu- tive business is done; and leaving the bill there on the governor's table, even in his absence, is a pre- sentation. The justices say as to personal presentation elsewhere: " It would be absurd to hold that the officers of the senate and house of representatives are obliged, in order to perform their duty, to follow the governor wherever he may chance to go, whether in the state or out of it, upon his private business as well as public, and present it to him in person wherever he may happen to be." ENACTMENT OF LAWS. Ill over his veto, or fail.^^ The constitution of Kentucky pro- vides that an act shall not "take effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the session, "except in cases of emergency, when by the concurrence of a majority of the members elected to each house of the general assembly, by a yea and nay vote entered in their journals, an act may be- come a law when apj>rovecL iy the governor P It is held that an act with an emergency clause passed over the governor's veto takes effect immediately.'' In the absence of express provision to the contrary, a bill must be approved or re- jected as a whole, and cannot be approved in part and vetoed in part, and such action is held to be a nullity.^ An exception is sometimes made in case of appropriation bills, and under power to approve part and disapprove part of such a bill, a single item may be approved as to part and disapproved as to the remainder.^ The computation of the time for different purposes, both for executive action on bills presented for approval and in determining when acts take effect, is a subject of consider- able interest. The discussion of it will be deferred until the latter topic is reached.'" § 65. Extra sessions. — Extra or special sessions of the legislature are usually provided for in the constitution, and in such cases the legislature is also usually limited to the transaction of such business as is mentioned in the call. Where this limitation exists, legislation relating to other subjects will be void.'' In order to determine this question the courts will take judicial notice of the governor's procla- 86 state V. Crounse, 36 Neb. 835, v, Cheetham, 17 Wash. 488, 49 Paa S5 N. W. 246. 1073. " Sinking Fund Com'rs v. George, '" Post, ch. V. 104 Ky. 260, 47 S. W. 779, 84 Am, St. oi Davidson v. Moorman, 2 Heisk. Rep. 454. 575; Jones v. Theall, 3 Nev. 233. 88 State V. Holder, 76 Miss. 158, 23 See Speed v. Crawford, 3 Met. (Ky.) So. 643. 207; People v. Curry, 130 Cal. 82, 62 89 Commonwealth v. Barnett, 199 Pac. 516; Wells v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., Pa. St. 161, 48 Atl. 976; State v. Hoi- 110 Mo. 286, 19 S. W. 530, 15 L. R. der, 76 Miss. 1 58, 33 So. 643. See State A. 847. 11^ KNACTMENT OF LAWS. mation.''^ The legislature may act freely within the call; "* may legislate upon all or any of the subjects specified, or upon anj' part of a subject; ^* and every presumption will be made in favor of the regularity of its action.^^ "Where the call was to amend the law relating to elections, known as the Australian ballot law, in specified particulars, it was held that the amendment of the law generally was in- cluded, and that the legislature was not limited to the par- ticulars specified."^ So, where the call was " to reduce the penalties and interest on delinquent taxes to one-half the present rates," it was held that the legislature was author- ized to act generally on the subject of such reduction, and that it was not confined to the precise amount stated in the call.^' "Whether an extraordinary occasion exists which justifies the calling of an extra session is solely a question for the executive.''^ § 66. Limitation of time for introduction of bills or duration of session. — If the constitution prohibits the in- troduction of bills after a certain period in a session, the regulation cannot be evaded by substituting new measures by amendment of pending bills.'' But whatever is within the proper scope of amendment is admissible after that pe- riod, and this embraces whatever is germane to the pur- pose which the bill had in view.^ Therefore, it was held 92 Wells V. Mo. Pac. Ey. Co., 110 ^ Pack v. Barton, 47 Mich. 520, 11 Mo. 386, 19 S. W. 530, 15 L. R A. N. W. 367; Powell v. JacksoD, 51 847. Mich. 129, 16 N. W. 369; Sackrider v. 93 In re Governor's Proclamation, Board of Sup'rs, 79 Mich. 59, 44 N. 19 Colo. 333, 35 Pao. 530. W.IBS; Attorney-General V.Detroit, 94 Brown v. State, 32 Tex. Grim. etc. Plank Eoad Co., 97 Mich. 589, 56 Eep. 119, 22 S. W. 596. N. W. 943. See Sayre v. Pollard, 77 95 Chicago, B. & Q. E. E. Co. v. Ala. 608. Wolfe. 61 Neb. 503, 86 N. W. 441. iHale v. McGettigan, 114 Cal. 96 People V. Johnson, 23 Colo. 150, 112, 45 Pac. 1049; Caldwell v. Ward, 46 Pac. 681. 83 Mich. 13, 46 N. W. 1034; Toll v. 97 Baker v. Kaiser, 126 Fed. 317, Jerome, 101 Mich. 468, 59 N. W. 816: C. C. A. — . Davock v. Moore, 105 Mich. 120, 63 98Farrenyv. Cole, 60 Kan. 356, N. W. 424, 28 L. E. A. 783; Ee- 56 Pac. 15, 44 L. E. A. 464. naokowsky v. Board of Water ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 113 that a bill to organize a township might be changed by amendment to organize the same territory into a county.'' So where several bills were introduced within the period to amend a particular act, a substitute bill on the same sub- ject in the form of an original act was held proper.' A bill applicable to a county may be changed by amendment to apply to the entire state.* In the case cited the court says: " The right to enlarge or limit the territory within which such acts shall be operative, under bills which, as intro- duced, include a part or all of the state, has never been questioned. It can as well be done after the fifty-day limit as before." In Michigan it is held that a bill to amend a single section of an act may be changed after the period to a bill to amend any other section or sections of the same act.^ The question whether an amendment or substitute, introduced after the period limited has expired, is germane to the original bill or bills, must be determined from the journal, and for this purpose the contents of the original bill will be presumed to correspond to its title.* The constitution of Tennessee provides that " after a bill Com'rs, 123 Mich. 613, 81 N. W. will include whatever is within 581. the purpose of the bill. By the 2 Pack V. Barton, 47 Mich. 520, 11 same rules a substitute that is ger- N. W. 367. mane to the subject of the bill 3 Hale v. McQettigan, 114 Cal. 113, may be adopted, without violating 45 Pao. 1049. The court says: this provision of the constitution, "There can be no presumption that since such substitute is in effect the legislature has disregarded any only an enlarged amendment to constitutional requirements in the the bill for which it is offered." passage of a statute, and if the p. 116. journals are silent upon the observ- < Caldwell v. Ward, 83 Mich. 13, ance of any constitutional require- 46 N. W. 1024, ment, it cannot be assumed that ^ Common Council v. Schmidt, such requirement was omitted by 128 Mich. 379, 87 N. W. 383, 93 Am. the legislature. If a bill has been St. Rep. 468. introduced in either house within « Caldwell v. Ward, 83 Mich. 13, the first fifty days of the session, 46 N. W. 1034; Attoi-ney-General whatever is proper in the way of v. Detroit, etc. Plank Road Co., 97 amendment is as admissible after Mich. 589, 56 N. W. 943. the fifty days as before, and this 8 114 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. has been rejected no bill containing the same substanco shall be passed into a law during the same session." ^ It is held the "session" means one sitting of the assembly, and not the life of the body, and, therefore, that a bill rejected at a regular session may be passed at a special session of the same legislature, if embraced in the call.^ Where a session was limited to fifty days, it was held to mean working days, or fifty days exclusive of Sundays.' In another case, where the session was limited to forty days, it was held to embrace at least forty full days from the hour of convening, and that a session begun at noon of No- vember 6 did not expire before noon of December 16.'" § 67 (60). Forms of legislation.— A bill is a form or draft of a law presented to a legislature, but not yet enacted, or before it is enacted ; a proposed or projected law." This is the meaning of a bill in practice, and has been judicially commended.'^ It is an act after it has gone through the process of enactment and become a law. A legislative act or statute is a bill passed and approved under the introduc- tory words, formula or style, "Be it enacted." The term hill is sometimes loosely applied to mean the same as an act, as well as to other forms of proposed or completed legisla- tion." These terms, lUl and act, are used as synonymous in some of our constitutions.'^ § 68 (61). Ordinances have sometimes been distinguished from statutes in practice; not that to ordain is of less force than the expression to enact, but, as Lord Coke says, because an ordinance has not the assent of the king, lords and com- mons, being made by only one or two of those powers. It is, however, stated in Bacon's Abridgment that this distinc- tion has been disputed. It is there laid down that " with 7 Art. 2, sec. 19. " Webster's Diet. 8 Williams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn. 12 May v. Rice, 91 Ind. 549. 487, 15 S. W. 364. is Gushing, L. & P. of Leg. Ass., s Ex parte Cowert, 92 Ala. 94, 9 § 2055. So. 225. » People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. 10 White V. Hinton, 3 Wyo. 753, 185. 30 Pac. 953, 17 L. R A. 66. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 115 regard to parliamentary forms this much seems agreed : that where the proceeding consisted only ofa petition from par- liament, and an answer from the king, these were entered on the parliament roll ; and if the matter was of a public nature, the whole was then usuallj'^ styled an ordinance; if, however, the petition and answer were not only of a public but a novel nature, they were then formed into an act by Ihe king, with the aid of his council and judgeSjand entered m the statute roll." ^' It is also laid down by the same au- Ihority that an ordinance on the parliamentary roll, with the king's assent upon it, has, nevertheless, equal force with a statute.^' The term ordinance is more usually applied to the acts of a corporation, and as synonymous with by-law." It has, however, been often used in more solemn acts of the states and of the general government.'^ Resolutions, or joint resolutions, are a form of legislation which has been in frequent use in this country, chiefly for administrative purposes of a local or temporary character, and sometimes for private purposes only. It is recognized in many of our constitutions, in which, and in the rules and orders of our legislative bodies, it is put upon the same footing and made subject to the same regulations as bills properly so called.'' By legislative practice and usage, joint resolutions have the force of law, whether applied to administrative, local or temporary matters, or intended for important measures.^" But where the constitution provides that no law shall be passed except by bill, a joint resolution is not a law.'" § 69 (62). Constitutional provisions as to enacting style held directory. — Many constitutions provide that laws shall be enacted by bill, and direct that the style shall be, ^' Be it enacted," etc. In a few states such provisions have 15 Bao. Abr., Statute A. w Mullan v. State, 114 Cal. 578, 46 16 Id. Pac. 670, 34 K R. A. 262; Collier & 1' Bish., Written Laws, § 18. C. Lithographing Co. v. Henderson, 18 Cush., L. & Pr. Leg. Ass., g 2046. 18 Colo. 259, 32 Pac. 417; Hender- 19 Gushing, L. & Pr. Leg. Ass., son v. Collier & C. Lith. Co., 2 Colo. § 2403; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 293. App. 251, 30 Pac. 40. 20 Id. ; MoCarver v. Herzberg, 120 Ala. 538, 25 So. 8. 116 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. been held to be directory. Thus, in Swann v. Buck,^ it was so held that a joint resolution passed by all the forms of legislation was valid — that the word " resolved " is as po- tent to declare the legislative will as the word " enacted." The court say: "The argument against requiring a literal compliance with any form of words in the enacting clause, as a condition of giving effect to a statute, would be very strong on the score of convenience ; for the plainest expres- sions of the legislative will, and the most urgent in their character, would be constantly liable to be defeated by the slightest omission or departure from the established phrase- ology. No possible good could be achieved, by such strict- ness, and the greatest evil might result from it. There are no exclusive words in the constitution negativing the use of any other language, and we think the intention will be best effectuated by holding the clause to be directory only." § 70 (63). The several constitutions of Mississippi make a plain distinction between bills and resolutions, as does the constitution of Indiana. There seem to be many of tbe con- trasts pointed out in the opinion in May v. Kice,^' which will presently be referred to particularly.^^ The constitu- tions of Maryland have made no provision for. any form of legislation but by "original .bill." They have provided that " The style of all laws . . . shall be, ' Be it enacted by the general assembly of Maryland;' and all laws shall be passed by original bill." ^ The case of McPherson v. Leon- ard '^ does not altogether follow Swann v. Buck ^' in the reasoning upon which the court arrived at the conclusion that the foregoing provisions are directory. The Mississippi case concedes that, to be valid, an act should refer to the 22 40 Miss. 268. 2* See post, § 71. 23 91Ind. 546. Const. 1817, art. 3, 25 Const. 1851, art. 3, §§ 17, 18, 19, §§ 4, 23, 24; art. 4, §§ 15, 16; art. 6, 20; Const. 1864, art. 3, §§ 26, 27, 28j g§ 3, 8, 10, 11, 14. Const. 1832, art. 3, Const. 1867, art. 3, §§ 37, 38, 29, 32. gg 4, 23, 24; art. 6, §§ 15, 16; art. 7, 26 29 Md. 377. §§ 3, 6, 7, 9, 10. Const. 1868, art. 4, 27 40 Miss. 89a §§ 33, 24, 35, 36, 33; art. 12, §§ 2, 4, 8,11. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 117 enacting authority. That was the point of the objection to the act in the Maryland case. The court held the above provisions directory, and, therefore, as the court said, "may be disregarded without rendering the act void." It was so held upon the rule applicable in the construction of statutes that provisions which relate to form, and not to the essence and substance of the thing to be done, are directory, unless the statute is restrictive to the mode and form prescribed.^' The constitution of Missouri prescribes also a precise style, and declares it shall be the style of the laws of that state.^' The act in question in the City of Girardeau v. Eiley '" had no enacting clause or style. That provision of the consti- tution was held directory and the act valid, and upon the same argument put forth in McPherson v. Leonard.'' The court remarked on the similarity of the language as to pro- cess requiring writs to run in the name of the state, and that that provision had been held to be directory.'^ § 71 (64). Constitutional provisions as to enacting style held mandatory. — The requirement that laws shall be passed under a precise enacting style, commencing with the words, " Be it enacted," and referring to the enacting authority, has been held mandatory in Indiana, Nevada, Alabama, Ehode Island and West Virginia. In other states the courts have held other provisions of the constitutions of like nature to be mandatory.'' In Indiana the constitution plainly distinguishes between bills and resolutions, as does the constitution of Mississippi. In May v. Eice,'* the question was whether money could be appropriated by a joint reso- lution. It was held that such a resolution was ineffectual 28 Citing Sedgw. on St. & Con. L. SD 53 Mo. 424. 368 et seq., and cases there cited; 3i29Md. 377. Smith on S. & C. Con., g 679: Striker '2 Davis v. Wood, 7 Mo. 165; Jump Y. Kelly, 7 Hill, 24; Pacific R. R. v. v. Batten, 35 id. 196, 86 Am. Deo. The Governor, 33 Mo. 368, 66 Am. 146; Doan v. Boley, 38 Mo. 449. Dec. 673. See post, §§ 625, 638. 's gee anie, §§ 30-36; post, § 112. =9 Const. 1820, art. 3, § 36; Const. '^91 Ind. 546. 1865, art. 4. § 26; Const. 1875, art. 4, §24 118 ENACTMENT OF LAAVS. for that purpose. The constitution prohibits the drawing of money from the state treasury, except in pursuance of appropriations made by law. It also requires that " the style of ewery Zato shall be : 'Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Indiana,' and no law shall be en- acted except by bill." '' The resolution was held not, ea nomifie, enacted as a " bill." The opinion answers three in- quiries: 1st. "Isit essential to constitute a law, in the sense in which that term is used in the constitution, that the en- actment shall have been presented and passed as a bill? 2d. Is it essential in the enactment of a law that the words prescribed for the enacting clause shall be used, or may the words 'Be it resolved' be substituted for 'Be it enacted?' Out of these inquiries," say the court, " springs the more general one: 3d. Is this resolution a law, in any sense, as' that term is used in these sections of the constitution . . in relation to the appropriation of money?" The first two were answered in the aiRrraative, and the last in the negative. The opinion points out important differences in the pro- cedure for the passage of bills from that which may be fol- lowed in the adoption of resolutions, showing that the former only are intended for the enactment of laws. These differ- ences may be observed in other constitutions, and therefore a considerable extract from the opinion has been quoted in the note below.'* The words of the enacting style need not precede a preamble, but should precede the entire law." 35 Const. 1851, art. 4, sec. 1; art. some description; as, a bill of at- 10, sec. 3, tainder.' Bills and acts are some- s'' Zol lards, J. : "Is a resolution a times used as synonymous terms, bill? Perhaps as accurate a defini- Gushing, sec. 2055. The definition tion of a bill as can be found is that of a bill as given by Webster is that given in Webster's Dictionary: 'A usually accepted and acted upon; form or draft of law, presented to but as we shall see, our constitution a legi.slature, but not yet enacted; extends it. The idea conveyed by a proposed or projected law.' 'In the word hill is different from that some cases statutes are called bills, conveyed by the word resolution. but usually they are qualified by The distinction between a bill and 3' Barton v. McWhlnney, 85 Ind. 481. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 119 § 72 (65). The same question arose in JSTevada as in Mc- Pherson v. Leonard.'' The provision of the constitution in IS'evada is that " the enacting clause of every law shall be as follows: 'The people of the state of Nevada, represented resolution is clearly kept up in the constitution of this state as an ex- amination of its provisions will show. We call attention to some of the sections of article 4. Bills may originate in either house, ex- cept revenue bills. Sec. 17. The vote on the passage of a bill or joint resolution shall be taken by yeas and nays. The bill must be read by sections on three different days, etc. Sec. 18. A joint resolu- tion of different sections doubtless may be passed upon one reading. Everj' act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly con- nected therewith, which subject shall be embraced in the title. Sec. 1 9. There is no such provision in re- lation to joint resolutions. No act shall ever be revised or amended by mere reference to its title. Sec. 21. This section has no reference to joint resolutions. No "act "shall take effect until the same shall have been published and circulat- ed in the several counties of the state by authority, except in cases of emergency, etc. Sec. 38. This can have no reference to joint res- olutions. They take effect as soon as passed. Bills and joint resolu- tions must be passed by a vote of a majority of the members of the leg- islature, and when so passed shall be signed by the presiding ofiBcers of the respective houses. These requisites they have in common. but the distinction is clearly kept up. Sec. 25. In section 14 of arti- cle 5, a bill is recognized as still a bill, after its passage and until it has reached the governor. Every bill which has passed, etc., shall be presented to the governor. The governor is required either to sign the bill, or return it to the house in which it may have originated, with his objections, etc. If he sign the bill, it becomes a law. If he veto it, and it is not repassed by the requisite vote, it does not become a law. Nothing of the kind is re- quired in relation to a joint resolu- tion under our constitution as we understand and interpret that in- strument. Such a resolution, if passed by the requisite vote, and signed by the presiding officers, is in full force. Nothing would be added to its validity and force by the signature of the governor, nor has he any power to defeat it by a veto. It does not go to hi m for any purpose of approval or disapproval. It appears from the constitutional debates that a proposition to in- clude joint resolutions with bills in the above section, so that they should be sent to the governor, was voted down. 2 Deb. Const. Conv., p. 1331. This action of the conven- tion is the more significant when we recollect thatthe convention was in a w'ork of reform, adapting the new constitution to the increased wants 88 29 Md. 386; ante, § 3. 120 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. in senate and assembly, do enact.' " In the case in which the question was discusse.d,'' it appeared that an act was passed in the enacting clause of which there was omitted and dangers of a rapidly increasing and progressive population, and that the constitution of 1816, which was being superseded, provided for joint resolutions as well as bills to be sent to the governor for his ap- proval or disapproval, and to be treated by him and the legislature as bills if vetoed by him. It is very apparent from this examination of the constitution that the terms bill and joint resolution, as used there- in, do not mean the same thing. They are widely different. Their functions are altogether different. Authority to act by joint resolution is given, affirmatively, by the con- stitution in but few instances. "By such resolution, the two houses may adjourn for more than three days. Art. 4, sec. 10. Cer- tain ofKcers may be removed by such resolution. Art. 6, sea 7. Possibly under section 17 of article 5, the powers granted to grant pardons, etc., may be exercised by such resolution. Besides the au- thority thus granted, a joint reso- lution doubtless may be the means of expressing the legislative will in reference to the discharge of an administrative duty, if such ex- pression falls short of the enact- ment of a law. The general and most common use of resolutions is in the adoption of rules and orders relative to the proceedings of the legislative body. Gushing, supra, sec. 779; May's Par. Prac, pp. 440, 447, 450. Our conclusion upon this branch of the case is that a joint resolution under our constitution is not a bill, and that laws for the appropriation of money for public purposes or the payment of private claims . . . cannot be enacted by joint resolution. This view is sustained by the cases of Barry v. Viall, 13 R 1 1, 18; Reynolds v. Blue, 47 Ala. 711; Brown v. Fleisch- ner, 4 Ore. 132; Boy en v. Crane, 1 W. Va. 176." In deference to the opinion in Swann v. Buck, 40 Misa 268, the court in May v. Rice appear to consider the expression "every law," in the provision of the In- diana constitution relative to the enacting style, as more compre- hensive and exclusive than the ex- pression "the laws of this state," in the corresponding provision of the Mississippi constitution. The latter are the words of the Mis- sissippi constitution, and the court, in Swann v. Buck, said, " there are no exclusive words in the constitu- tion negativing the use of any other language;" meaning, doubt- less, that the constitution did not forbid the use of any other words, or the passage of a law without those prescribed; for "the laws of this state" include all, as much as the expression "every law." If a command broad enough affirma- tively to include all the laws im- plies a negative, then one is im- plied from the language of the constitutions of both states. 39 State V. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 121 the words " senate and." The ajct was held unconstitutional and void. In the opinion, the court responds to the decla- ration in the Maryland case that the enacting style is not of the essence and substance of the enactment. Hawley, 0. J., said that statement is clearly erroneous and the opinion fallacious. " How can it be said that these words are not of the essence and substance of a law when the constitution declares that the enacting clause of every law shall contain them." He quoted, with apparent approval, from the dis- senting opinion of Stewart, J., in the Maryland case, that it is incumbent on the law-making department to pursue the constitutional mode. "If a positive requirement of this character . . . can be disregarded, so may others of a different character; and where will the limit be affixed or practical discrimination made as to what parts of the or- ganic law of the state are to be held advisory, directory or mandatory? Disregard of the requirements of the consti- tution, although, perchance, in matters of mere form and style, in any part, in law, may establish dangerous examples, and should in all proper ways be discountenanced. The safer polic}', I think, is to follow its plain mandates in mat- ters that maj' appear not to be material, in order that the more substantial parts may be duly respected. If those who are delegated with the trust of making the laws, from the purest motives improvidently omit the observances of the constitution under any circumstances, such oversight may be referred to in the future by others, with far different views, as precedents, and for the purpose of abuse. A higher responsibility is imposed upon those selected by the people for the discharge of legislative duty, and a greater obligation is demanded of them to exemplify, by their prac- tice, a careful compliance with the constitution. By a vigilant observance of its commands, the more reasonable is the probability that the best order will be secured. It is unnecessary to illustrate, by any argument, the soundness of this general consideration, which I am sure all will admit to be unquestionable, that a strict conformity is an axiom 122 ENACTMENT OF LA.WS. in the science of government. I certainly entertain sucb profound conviction of its truth that I do not feel author- ized to give my approval to this act as a valid law ; but, on the contrary, am constrained to say that the omission of the style required by the constitution is fatal to its valid- ity."*" A law without an enacting clause was held invalid in Michigan and in Minnesota, and the insertion of an en- acting clause after the passage of an act by the houses and before approval by the governor was held ineffectual." In Louisiana it is intimated that the words: " Be it enacted by the general assembly," would be sufBcient, though the con- stitution prescribes the words: "Be it enacted by the gen- eral assembly of the state of Louisiana." *^ § 73 (66). The modern constitutions go more and more into detail in regulating the exercise of the several powers- which they grant. The object is manifestly to correct ex- isting or apprehended mischief; not to legislate merely for order and convenient S3'stem. These regulations are in the fundamental law; they express the sovereign will of the people, and ought to be treated as limitations on the exer- cise of those powers. The modes prescribed for the exer- cise of the granted powers cannot be severed from the sub- stantive things authorized to be done; the manner directed is the means — the appointed action — through which alone the power is effective for the substantive objects intended to be accomplished. The legislature must be constituted,^ sit at the time and place, and proceed in the methods dic- tated by its creator; otherwise it is not clothed with nor exercising the sovereign legislative power. The great weight of authority supports this view.*' ^oCushing's L. & Pr. Leg. Ass. '•^State v. Harris, 47 La. Ann. 386, J. 819, § 2103; Seat of Government 17 So. 129. Case, 1 Wash. T. 115. *' See ante, §§ 31, 44; post, % 113: ■" People v.Dettenthaler, 118 Mich. Cooley, Con. L. 94. This learned ry95, 77 N. W. 450, 44 L. R. A. 164; author says the courts tread upon Sjoberg v. Security S. & L. Co., 73 very dangerous ground when they Minn. 208, 75 N. W. 1116, 33 Am. St. venture to apply the rules which Rep. 616. distinguish directory and manda- ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 123-. § 74. Enrolled act conclasive as to words of statute. — "When there is a discrepancy between the printed statute and the enrolled act, all the authorities agree that the lat- ter controls." But where the discrepancy was in the tory statutes to the provisions of a constitution. " Constitutions do not usually undertake to prescribe mere rules of proceeding, except when such rules are looked upon as essential to the thing to be done; and they then must be regarded in the light of limitations upon the power to be exercised. It is the prov- ince of an instrument of this solemn and permanent character to estab- lish those fundamental maxims, and fix those unvarying rules, by which all departments of the gov- ernment must at all times shape their conduct; and if it descends to prescribing mere rules of order in unessential matters, it is low- ering the proper dignity of such an instrument and usurpingthe proper province of ordinary legislation. We are not, therefore, to expect to find in a constitution provisions which the people, in adopting it, have not regarded as of high im- portance, and worthy to be em- braced in an instrument which, for a time at least, is to control alike the government and the governed, and to form a standard by which is to be measured the power which can be exercised as well by the delegate as by the ■ sovereign people them- selves. If directions are given re- specting the times or modes of pro- ceeding in which a power should be exercised, there is at least a strong presumption that the people de- signed it should be exercised in that time and mode only." State v. John- son, 26 Ark. 281; Wolcott v. Wig- ton, 7 Ind. 44; per Bronson in Peo- ple V. Purdy, 2 Hill, 36; Greencastle Township v. Black, 5 Ind. 566;_ Opin- ion of Judges, 6 Sheply, 458. See People V. Lawtence, 36 Barb. 177. "The essential nature and object of constitutional law being restric- tive upon the powers of the several departments of the government, it is difficult to comprehend how its provisions can be regarded as merely directory." Nicholson, C. J., in Cannon v. Mathes, 8 Heisk. 504, 517. Mr. Cooley adds that "We impute to the people a want of due appre- ciation of the purpose and proper province of such an instrument, when we infer that such directions- are given to any other end. Espe- cially when, as has been already said, it is but fair to presume that the people in their constitution have expressed themselves in care- ful and measured terms, corre- sponding with the immense impor- tance of the powers delegated, and with a view to leave as little as possible to implication." People v. Supervisors of Chenango.S N. Y.328. "Hurlburt v. Merriam, 8 Mich. 144; Reed v. Clark, 3 McLean, 480. Fed. Cas. No. 11,648; People v. Commissioners, 54 N. Y. 376, 13 Am. Rep. 581; Greer v. State, 54 Miss. 378; DeBow v. People, 1 Denio, 9; Rex V. Jefferies, 1 Strange, 446;. Wilson V. Duncan, 114 Ala. 659, 21 So. 1017; McLaughlin v. Menotti. 105 Cal. 573, 38 Pac. 973: Everett v- 124: ENACTMENT OF LAWS. amount of a penalty, the enrolled act providing a greater, the court refused to enforce it after an acquiescence of ■twenty years/^ §75. Adoption of code or revision by reference. — It has always been common to adopt in one statute by refer- ence certain provisions of another statute. There has never been any serious question as to the validity of such legisla- tion, or as to its effectiveness to accomplish the intent of the legislature.*' It is also not uncommon to adopt a code •or general revision of statutes in the same manner. An instance of such an adopting act is as follows: "That the code of laws prepared under its authority by (giving the names) and revised, fully examined and identified by the certificate of its joint committee, and recommended and re- ported for adoption, and with the acts passed by the gen- ltA assembly of 1895 added thereto by the codifiers, be, and the same is, hereby adopted and made of force as the State, 33 Fla. 661, 15 So. 548; Lamp- kin V. State, 87 Ga. 516, 13 S. E. 523; Ruckert v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co., 168 Mo. 360, 63 S. W. 814; Nugent v. Jackson, 72 Miss. 1040, 18 So. 493; Bruce v. State, 48 Neb. 570, 67 N.W. 454; Lowenstein v. Young, 8 Okl. 216, 57 Pac. 164; Weaver v. David- son County, 104 Tenn. 315, 59 S. W. 1105; Ex parte Tipton, 28 Tex. Ct. App. 438, 13 S. W. 610; Johnson v. Barham, 99 Va. 305, 38 S. E. 136. <5It was held in Town of Pacific V. Seifert, 79 Mo. 210, that the orig- inal roll, as deposited witli the sec- retary of state, is the best evidence -of a legislative enactment. Where, however, there is a discrepancy be- tween the charter of the town as published in the printed laws of the state and the statute roll on file in the office of the secretary of state in this, that in the former it was provided that the trustees of the town might impose fines for breach of any of the ordinances not to ex- ceed twenty dollars in amount, and in the latter the word twenty was ninety, and for aught that appeared on the record this discrepancy was first brought to the attention of the defendant upon the trial, about twenty years after the enactment of the charter, in an action by the town to recover of him the penalty of $90 for refusing to take out a merchant's license as required by an ordinance, it was held that, un- der these exceptional circum- stances, the printed copy of the charter should control in determin- ing the defendant's liability. See Att'y-General v. Joy, 55 Mich. 94; Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595, 15 L. Ed. 518. «Seei)os^§§372, 405. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 125- Code of Georgia."" It is held that in form and substance such an act is valid and effective to enact and make of force the code or revision referred to, that such code or re- vision need not be read as prescribed in the constitution for bills, that a title appropriate to the adopting act is suffi- cient though it maj' not express the subject of the code or revision, and that it is not obnoxious to the provision of the constitution against reviving or amending an act by refer- ence to its title only.*' § 76. Statutes and legislative rules relating to the enactment of laws. — It is competent for legislative bodies- to adopt rules of procedure, and such power is frequently conferred in express terms by the constitution. In speak- ing of this power the supreme court of the United States says: "The constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But within these limita- tions all matters of method are open to the determination of the house, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would be better, more accurate or even more just. It is no objection to the validity of a rule that a different one has been prescribed and in force for a length of time. The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal."*' <7 Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. the same, and for making indices State, 104 Ga. 831, 31 S. B. 531, 43 thereto, and for other purposes." L. K. A. 518. The title of the adopt- « Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 12 ing act was as follows: " An act to So. 681; Central of Georgia Ry. Co. approve, adopt and make of force v. State, 104 Ga. 831, 31 S. E. 531^ the code of laws prepared under 42 L. R. A. 518; Hunt v. Wright, 70 the direction and by authority of Miss. 298, 11 So. 608. the general assembly, to provide *" United States v. Ballin, 144 U. for the printing and publication of S. 1, 13 S. C. Rep. 507, 36 L. Ed. 331, 126 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. It is held that an act cannot be declared invalid for fail- ure of the legislature, or of either house, to observe its own rules, and that the courts will not inquire whether such rules have been observed in the passage of an act.^" So it is held that one legislature cannot bind or restrict its suc- cessors by passing statutes as to the manner of legislation, and that an act will not be declared invalid for failure to -observe such statutory requirements/' The following rule of the house of representatives was held not to vio- late the principles laid down in the' text: " On the demand of any mem- ber, or at the suggestion of the speaker, the names of members suflSoient to make a quorum in the hall of the house who do not vote shall be noted by the clerk and re- corded in the journal, and reported to the speaker with tlie names of the members voting, and be counted and announced in deter- mining the presence of a quorum to do business." 5»Switzer v. Territory, 5 Okl. 297, 47 Pao. 1094; State v. Brown, 33 P. C. 151, 11 S. E. 641; McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407, 50 N. W. 185; In re Ryan, 80 Wis. 414, 50 N. W. 187; St. Louis & S. F. Ry, Co. v. Gill, 54 Ark. 101, 15 S. W. 18. In McDon- ald V. State the court says: "The courts will take judicial notice of the statute laws of the state, and to this end they will take like no- tice of the contents of the journals of the two houses of the legislature far enough to determine whether an act published as a lave was ac- tually passed by the respective houses in accordance with consti- tutional requirements. Further than this the courts will not go. When it appears that an act was so passed, no inquiry will be permitted to ascertain whether the two houses have or have not complied strictly with their own rules in their procedure upon the bill in- termediate its introduction and final passage. The presumption is conclusive that they have done so. We think no court has ever de- clared an act of the legislature void for non-compliance with the rules of procedure made by itself, or the respective branches thereof, and which it or they may change or suspend at will. If there are any such adjudications we decline to follow them.'' 51 Cook V. State, 36 Ind. App. 278, 59 N. E. 489; State v. Wirt County Court, 37 W. Va. 808, 17 S. E. 379; Marrigault v. Ward, 123 Fed. 707. In the last case the court says: " In the case at bar there was no constitutional requirement which has been violated. The provisions of an act of a preceding legisla- ture have not been followed in the matter of notice required by the act. Does this make this act in- valid? The legislative power in South Carolina is vested in the general assembly. The constitu- tion fixes the power of the general assembly. Each general assembly possesses all these powers, and is ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 127 § 77. Federal courts follow state courts. — In determin- ing whether a state statute has been duly passed and what is the proper evidence thereof, the federal courts will follow the rules laid down by the state supreme court.^^ In the absence of state decisions the federal rules will be followed.^' § 78. Notice of private and local bills. — The constitu- tion of New Jersey provides that "no private, special or local bill shall be passed unless public notice of the inten- tion to apply therefor, and of the general object thereof, shall have been previously given." ^* It also provides that the legislature shall prescribe the mode of giving notice, the evidence thereof, and how such evidence shall be preserved. Similar provisions are found in the constitutions of other :states. Sometimes the mode of giving notice is prescribed by the constitution and sometimes it is left to the legislature. It is held that an amendment of a private or local law must be notified in the same manner as an original act.'^ Some oourts hold that the legislature is the exclusive judge of whether the required notice was given. ^'' Other courts hold subject to no limitation not found bill which has not fulfilled these in the constitution. One legisla- conditions, this action on its part ture, therefore, cannot curtail or is either a declaration of its inde- «nlarge the power of any succeed- pendence of these restrictions or it ing legislature, unless, indeed, is a repeal of the previous act pro within its constitutional powers a tanto." pp. 716-717. In Chalfant legislature has entered into a con- v. Edwards, 173 Pa. St. 246, 33 Atl. tract with a third party. Such a 1048, an act prescribing how no- contract is protected under the tice should be given of an applica- constitution of the United States, tion for a local law was held bind- When, therefore, one general as- ing on future legialatures until re- :sembly passes an act like this in pealed. question, declaring that no bill 52 in rg Duncan, 139 xj. S. 449, 11 shall be introduced or entertained S. C. Eep. 573, 35 L. Ed. 319; Stan- in either house of the general as- ley Co. Com'rs v. Coler, 96 Fed. 284, senibly, unless certain prerequisite 37 C. C. A. 484. conditions are fulfilled — condi- *' Ames v. Union Pac. E. R. Co., tions not existing in the constitu- 64 Fed. 165. tion, — it assumes a power which it ^* Art. 4, sec. 7, par. 9. does not possess. If, notwithstand- ^^^shbrook v. Schaub, 160 Mo. ing, any succeeding general assem- 107, 60 S. W. 1085. ibly shall receive and entertain a ^6 Stockton v. Powell, 29 Fla. 1, 128 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. that it is a judicial question and, if the prescribed notice is not given, the act is void.*'' J^otice will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.*' A special act to in- corporate a borough, embracing different territory than is specified in the notice, is invalid.*' § 79. Where the power to legislate on a subject is con- ditioned upon the existence of certain facts. — The con- stitution of Missouri forbids the establishment of criminal courts except in counties having a population exceeding fifty thousand. "Where the legislature established such a court for a certain county, reciting in the act that it had a population of over fifty thousand, it was held that the find- ing of the legislature was conclusive.'" A similar ruling has 10 So. 688, 15 L. R. A. 43; Speer v. Mayor, 85 Ga.-49, 11 S. E. 802, 9 L. R. A. 403; Reed v. McCrary, 94 Ga. 487, 31 S. K 233; Catcher v. Craw- ford, 105 Ga. 180, 31 S. E. 139. In Chamlee v. Davis, 115 Ga. 266, 41 S. E. 691, it is said tliat the giving of notice will be presumed unless the contrary appears from the jour- nals. To same effect, Keeue v. Jef- ferson County, 135 Ala. 465, 33 So. 435. 57 State V. Trenton, ,57 N. J. L. 318, 31 Atl. 223; Attorney-General V. Tuckerton, 67 N. J. L. 120, 50 Atl. 603; Chalfant v. Edwards, 173 Pa. St. 246, 33 Atl. 1048. In the first case the court says: " We are of the opinion that the constitu- tional prescription, not only that the legislature shall fix the time and mode of giving the notice, but that it shall also prescribe what shall be evidence of the notice and how such evidence shall be pre- served, leads to the conclusion that such evidence was to be preserved for a purpose other than mere leg- islative convenience. We thinlc the intent to be deduced from the constitutional language is that re- sort can be had to this evident^e whenever it becomes necessary to determine in a court whether this condition precedent to a constitu- tional special statute has ari exist- ence." p. 330. 58 City V. McMiohael, 12 Pa. Dist. Ct. 403. 59 Attorney-General v. Tucker- ton, 67 N. J. L. 120, 50 Atl. 602. so Ex parte Renfrow, 113 Mo. 591, 20S.W. 683. Thecourtsays: "And it now may be considered settled law in this state, that when it be- comes necessary for the legislative department of the state to inquire into and determine a question of fact upon which depends its power under constitutional restrictions to enact a law, and they do so inquir& and determine that fact, it will not be again inquired into by the ju- dicial department of the state in a. collateral proceeding." p. 598. ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 129 been made in "West Virginia under a provision which for- bids local or special laws incorporating a municipality containing a less population than two thousand.^' So where the constitution required a two-thirds vote of the electors of a county before an act could be passed removing the county seat.^^ It is held that no recital of the facts in the statute is necessary. And where the constitution forbids the formation of a new county with less than two thousand population, it was held that the passage of an act creating a new county was equivalent to a finding that the necessary population existed.*^ The question has been elaborately considered in California under a constitutional provision forbidding any gift of public money or property to any in- dividual. The supreme court holds that the validity of an act appropriating public money or propert}' to an individual must be determined by what appears on the face of the stat- ute. The court says: "While the courts have undoubted power to declare a statute invalid, when it appears to them in the course of judicial action to be in conflict with the constitution,, yet they can only do so when the question arises as a pure question of law, unmixed with matters of fact the existence of which must be determined upon a trial, and as the result of, it may be, conflicting evidence. When the right to en- act a law depends upon the existence of facts, it is the duty of the legislature before passing the bill, and of the gov- ernor before approving it, to become satisfied in some ap- propriate way that the facts exist; and no authority is conferred upon the courts to hear evidence, and determine, as a question of fact, whether these co-ordinate departments of the state government have properly discharged such duty. The authority and duty to ascertain the facts which ought to control legislative action are, from the necessity of the case, devolved by the constitution upon those to whom it eiRoby v. Shepard, 42 W. Va. «' Farquharson v. Teargin, 24 286, 26 S. E. 278. Wash. 549, 64 Pao. 717. 62Cutcher v. Crawford, 105 Ga. 180, 13 a E. 139. 9 130 ENACTMENT OF LAWS. has given the power to legislate, and their decision that the facts exist is conclusive upon the courts, in the absence of an explicit provision in the constitution giving the judiciary the right to review such action. " We therefore hold that, in passing upon the constitutionality of a statute, the court must confine itself to a consideration of those matters which appear upon the face of the law, and those facts of which it can take judicial notice. If the law, when thus consid- ered, does not appear to be unconstitutional, the court will not go behind it ; and, by a resort to evidence, undertake to ascertain whether the legislature, in its enactment, observed the restrictions which the constitution imposed upon it as a duty to do, and to the performance of which its members were bound by their oath of office." " § 80. Miscellaneous cases as to procedure in the enact- ment of laws. — Where an act was invalid by reason of in- formality in its passage, it was held that a later act of the same session, referring to it as a law and requiring the sec- retary of state to have five thousand copies thereof printed and distributed among the officers of the state whose duty it was to carry it into execution, amounted to a ratification and attestation of the act so as to constitute it a valid law.^° A senate bill was amended in the house, resulting in a dis- agreement and a conference committee, which recom- mended that the house recede from its amendments. The house did so, the question being put as follows: " Shall the house recede from the amendments and adopt the report of the conference committee ? " This motion being carried, it was held sufficient without repassing the bill.*^ The con- stitution of Missouri provides that " no bill shall be so 6< Stevenson v. Colgan, 91 Cal. gan, 97 Cal. 251, 81 Paa 1133; Con- 649, 27 Pao. 1089, 25 Ann. St. Rep. lin v. Supervisors, 99 Cal. 17, 33 230, 14 L. R. A. 459. Also Rankin Pac. 753, 37 Am. St Rep. 17, 21 L. V. Colgan, 92 Cal. 605, 28 Pac. 673; R. A. 474 Bourn v. Hart, 93 Cal. 331, 28 Pac. «5 Wrought Iron Range Co. v. Car- 951, 27 Am. St. Rep. 203, 15 L. R. A. ver, 118 N. C. 828, 24 S. E. 353, 431; Green v. Fresno County, 95 •'"Robertson v. People, 20 Cola Cal. 829, 30 Pac. 544; Patty v. Col- 279, 38 Pac. 32& ENACTMENT OF LAWS. 131 ■nmended in its passage through either house as to change its original purpose."" This was held to refer to the gen- eral purpose of the bill and not to the details by which the purpose is manifested and effectuated.^' In the absence of constitutional provisions to the contrary, a majority consti- tutes a quorum and a majority of a quorum may pass a bill.** When the constitution requires a two-thirds vote to pass •certain acts, one passed by a less vote is held to be void.™ In New York the certificate of the presiding officers that an act was passed by the requisite vote is held to be conclu- sive, but if the certificate is silent on the question it may be aided by the journals." Where an act had been in oper- ation for ten years and had been acted upon by the courts in a number of cases, the court refused to go back of the enrolled act to see whether it was properly passed.'^ Where ■the constitution required that certain acts should be ap- proved by a two-thirds vote of the electors of the state be- fore going into effect, it was held that the court would take judicial notice of the result of the election.™ " Art. 4, sec. 25. " State v. Stearns, 73 Minn. 200, 88 State V. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 55 75 N. W. 210. The court says: " The S. W. 6'i6. validity of this law depends upon fi^ United States v. Ballin, 144 U. whether it received a majority of S. 1, 12 S. C. Rep. 507, 36 L. Ed. 321. all the votes cast at the election, '" Allen V. Board of State Audit- not on the subsequent act or omis- ors, 132 Mich. 334, 81 N. W. 113, 80 sion of the state canvassing board, Am. St. Rep. 573, 47 L. R. A. 117; 'or of any other oflBcers. For the Palmer v. Zumbrota, 73 Minn. 366, purpose of determining this fact 75 N. W. 880. the court will take judicial notice ■'iRumsey v. New York, etc. R. of the election records, returns and K. Co.. 130 N. Y. 88, 28 N. E. 763; canvass thereof by the state board Matter of New York & Long Isl- in the ofiSoe of the secretary of land Bridge Co., 148 N. Y. 540, 43 N. state, and, if necessary, of theelec- E. 1088. tion returns and canvass in the T^ Mitchell V. Campbell, 19 Ore. oflBces of the several county audit- ii)8, 24 Pac. 455 ors of the state." CHAPTER III. "VALIDITY OF STATUTES IN GENERAL AND DELEGATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE POWER. §81. The constitution a limitation — Legislative au- thority plenary. — It is universally held that state consti- tutions are not a grant but a limitation of the legislative power; that the legislature has plenary power of legislation and may pass any law not forbidden by the constitution of the state or of the United States.^ " Every subject not with- drawn from its authority may be acted upon by that body." ^ In creating a legislative department and conferring upon it legislative power, the people must be understood to have iSheppard v. Dowling, 127 Ala. 1, 28 So. 791, 85 Am. St. Rep. 68; Mitchell V. Winkek, 117 Gal. 520, 49 Pac. 579; People v. Richmond, 16 Colo. 274, 26 Pac. 929; In re Kinder- garten Schools, 18 Colo. 234, 32 Pac. 422, 19 L. R. A. 469; State v. Bulke- ley, 61 Conn. 287, 23 Atl. 186, 14 L. R. A. 657; People v. Thompson, 155 111. 451, 40 N. E. 307; People v. Kirk, 162 111. 138, 45 N. E. 830, 58 Am. St. Rep. 277; People v. Onahan, 170 111. 449, 48 N. E. 1003; Townsend v. State, 147 Ind. 624, 47 N. E. 19, 62 Am. St. Rep. 477, 37 L. R. A. 294; Purnell v. Mann, 105 KyT87, 48 S. W. 407 ; Hughes v. Murdock, 45 La. Ann. 935, 13 So. 182; Ex parte Rob- erts, 166 Mo. 207, 65 S. W. 726; State V. French, 17 Mont. 54, 41 Pao. 1078, 30 L. R. A. 415; Magneau v. Fre- mont, 30 Neb. 843, 47 N. W. 280, 27 Am. St. Rep. 436, 9 L. R. A. 786; Koch V. New York, 5 App. Div. 376, 39 N. Y. S. 164; People v. Young, 18 App. Div. 163, 45 N. Y. S. 773; South- ern Gum Co. V. Laylin, 66 Ohio St. 578, 64 N. E. 564; State v. Compson, 34 Ore. 25, 54 Pac. 349; Stratton Claimants v. Morris Claimants, 89 Tenn. 497, 15 S. W. 446; McCully v. State, 102 Tenn. 509, 53 S. W. 134, 46 L. R. A. 567; Dayton Coal & Iron Co. V. Barton, 103 Tenn. 604, 53 S.W. 970; Phillips v. Lewis, 3 Tenn. Cas. 230; State v. Brownson, 94 Tex. 436, 61 S. W. 114; Kimball v. Grantsville City, 19 Utah, 368, 57 Pao. 1; State V. Cherry, 22 Utah, 1, 60 Pac. 1103; Prison Ass'n v. Asbby, 93 Va. 667, 25 S. E. 893; Brown v. Epps, 91 Va. 726, 21 S. E. 119, 27 L. R. A. 1076; Northwestern National Bank v. Su- perior, 103 Wis. 43, 79 N. W. 54; State V. Henderson, 4 Wyo. 535, 35 Pac. 517. 3 Wilson V. Sanitary Trustees, ISa 111. 443, 458, 27 N. E. 20a VALIDITY OF STATUTES IN GENEKAL. 133 conferred the full and complete power as it rests in, and may be exercised by, the sovereign power of any country, subject only to such restrictions as they may have seen fit to impose, and to the limitations which are contained in the constitution of the United States.' Speaking of the legisla- tive power the supreme court of Utah says: "It is wholly within the discretion of the legislature to determine . whether, concerning any subject, such conditions or such facts and circumstances exist as to warrant it to act. It is the sole judge as to whether an exigency or such cause ■exists as requires the enactment of a law, and, in the ab- sence of any constitutional restriction, if it makes a law there is no authority in the government which can declare it void. Independently of any repugnance between a legis- lative act and any constitutional limitation or restriction, a court has no power to arrest its execution, however unwise or unjust in the opinion of the court it may be, or what- ever motives may have led to its enactment."* Congress is a body with enumerated powers, and can only pass such laws as are within the grant of the federal constitution.' §82. Presumption iu favor of validity. — Every pre- sumption is in favor of the validity of an act of the legisla- ture, and all doubts are resolved in support of the act.* " In 3 In re House Roll No. 284, 31 Neb. Lands, 18 Colo. 359, 33 Pao. 986; 605, 48 N. W. 375. United States v. Seymour, 10 App. 1 Kimball v. Grantsville City, 19 Cas. (D. C.) 294; Holton v. State, 38 Utah, S68, 383, 57 Pac. 1. Fla. 303, 9 So. 716; County Com'rs v. 5 Brown v. Epps, 91 Va. 726, 21 S. Jacksonville, 36 Pla. 196, 18 So. 339; E. 119, 27 L. R. A. 676; Wei.ster v. State v. Hooker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 So. Hade, 52 Pa. St. 474, 477; People v. 767; State v. Burns, 38 Fla. 367, 21 Flagg, 46 N. Y. 401. So. 390; People v. Nelson, 133 111. estate v. Rogers. 107 Ala. 444, 19 565, 37 N. E. 217; Harmon v. Chi- So. 909; Ala. Great Southern Ry. oago, 140 111. 374, 396, 39 N. E. 733; Co. V. Reed, 124 Ala. 253, 27 So. 19, People v. Gaulter, 149 III. 39, 36 N. 83 Am. St. Rep. 166; In re Madera E. 576; Parker v. State, 133 Ind. 178, Irr. Dist., 92 Cal. 296, 28 Pao. 273, 33 N. E. 836, 18 L. R. A. 567; State 675, 37 Am. St. Rep. 106, 14 L. R. A. v. Roby, 143 Ind. 168, 41 N. E. 145, 755; Hale v. McGettigan, 114 Cal. 51 Am. St. Rep. 174, 33 L. R A. 213; 112, 120, 45 Pac. 1049; In re State State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439, 44 134 VALIDITY OF STATUTES IN GENEEAL. determining the constitutionality of an act of ttie legisla- ture, courts always presume in the first place that the act is constitutional. They also presume that the legislature acted with integrity, and with an honest purpose to keep within the restrictions and limitations . laid down by the constitution. The legislature is a co-ordinate department of the government, invested with high and responsible du- ties, and it must be presumed that it has considered and discussed the constitutionality of all measures passed by it." ' The unconstitutionality must be clear or the act will be sus tained.' Acquiescence in the validity of a statute for many years will have weight, if there is room for doubt.' Con- stitutional questions will not be considered if there are other N. E. 469; Maule Coal Co. v. Par- thenheiraer, 155 Ind. 100, 55 N. E. 751 ; Smith V. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co., 158 Ind. 425, 63 N. E. 849; In re Pinckney, 47 Kan. 89, 27 Pae. 179; Purnell v. Mann, 105 Ky. 87, 48 S. W. 407; State v. Capdevielle, 104 La. 561, 29 So. 215: State v. Tibbets, 52 Neb. 228, 71 N. W. 990, 66 Am. St. Eep. 493; State v. Stewart, 53 Neb. 243, 71 N. W. 998; State v. Cornell, 59 Neb. 417, 81 N. W. 431; State v. Standard Oil Co., 61 Neb, 28, 84 N. W. 413, 87 Am. St. Eep. 449; State V. Westerfield, 34 Nev. 29, 49 Pao. 554; State v. Moore, 104 N. C. 714, 10 S. E. 143, 17 Am. St. Rep. 696; Sweet V. Syracuse, 129 N. Y. 316, 29 N. E. 289; Fort v. Cummins, 90 Hun, 481, 36 N. Y. S. 36; Silberman V. Hay, 59 Ohio St. 582, 53 N. E. 258; Deane v. Willamette Bridge Co., 22 Ore. 167, 29 Pac. 440, 15 L. R. A. 614; In re Sugar Notch Bor., 193 Pa. St. 349, 43 Atl. 985; State v. Dist. of Narragansett, 16 R. I. 424, 16 Atl. 901 ; State v. Morgan, 2 S. D. 32, 48 N. W. 314; Cole Mfg. Ca V. Falls, 90 Tenn. 466, 16 S. W. 1045; Condon v. Maloney, 108 Tenn. 83, 65 S. W. 871; State v. Sopher, 25 Utali, 318, 71 Pac. 483; Trehy v. Marye, 100 Va. 40, 40 S. E. 126; Young V. Commonwealth, 101 Va. 853; Charleston & Southside Bridge Ca V. Kanawha Co. Ct., 41 W. Va. 658, 24 S. E. 1003; South Morgantown V. Morgantown, 49 W. Va. 729, 40 S. E. 15; State v. Board of Control, 85 Minn. 165, 88 N. W. 533; Butt- field V. Shanahan, 192 U. S. 470. ' Beach v. Van Detton, 139 CaL 462, 73 Paa 187. 8 Sabin v. Curtis, 3 Idaho, 663, 33 Pac. 1130; Kansas City v. Scarritt,. 127 Mo. 642, 29 S. W. 845, 30 S. W. Ill ; Sutton V. Phillips, 1 16 N. C. 502, 21 S. E. 968; Cook v. Port of Port- land, 20 Ore. 580, 27 Pac. 263, 13 L. R. A. 533; Reeves v. Anderson, 13 Wash. 17, 43 Pao. 625; Reid v. Colorado, 187 U. S. 137, 33 S. C, Rep. 93. ' Cameron v. Chicago,eta Ry. Co.,. 63 Minn. 384, 65 N. W. 653. VALIDITY OF STATUTES IN GENEEAL. 135 sufBcient grounds upon which to rest the decision of the court." Nor will the validity of a statute be passed upon in advance of its taking effect." § 83. Statutes construed, if possible, so as to be valid. Another universal principle applied in considering consti- tutional questions is, that an act will be so construed, if possible, as to avoid conflict with the constitution,^^ although 1" Chicago & Southeastern Ey. Co. V. Glover, 159 Ind. 166, 62 N. E. 11; State V. Wright, 159 Ind. 394, 65 N. E. 190; Hart v. State, 159 Ind. 183, 64 N. E. 661; Elliott v. Oliver, 23 Ore. 44, 29 Pao. 1; McDonnell v. De Soto L. & B. Ass'n, 175 Mo. 250, 75 S. W. 438; State v. King, 38 Mont. 368. 11 State V. Superior Court, 25 "Wash. 371, 65 Pac. 183. '2 Boiling V. Le Grand, 87 Ala. 482, 6 So. 333; Chambers v. Solner, 1 Alaska, 271; In re Wynn-John- son, 1 Alaska, 630; Wells, Fargo & Co. Express v. Crawford Co., 63 Ark. 576, 40 S. W. 710, 37 L. R. A. 371; Dobson v. State, 69 Ark. 376, 63 S. W. 796; Western Granite & Marble Co. v. Knickerbocker, 103 Cal. Ill, 37 Pac. 192; San Francisco V. Broderick, 125 Cal. 188, 57 Pac. 887; Park v. Candler, 113 Ga. 647, 39 S. E. 89; People v. Nelson, 133 111. 565, 27 N. E. 217; State v. Ger- hardt, 145 Ind. 439, 44 N. E. 469; State V. Capdevielle, 104 La. 561,39 So. 315; Drennen v. Banks, 80 Md. 310, 30 AtL 655; Garrison v. Hill, 81 Md. 551, 557, 33 Atl. 191; Attor- ney-General V. Williams, 178 Mass. 330, 59 N. E. 813; Osborn v. Charle- voix Circuit Judge, 114 Mich. 655, 660, 73 N. W. 983; McCormick v. West Duluth, 47 Minn. 273, 50 N. W. 128; State v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23, 54 S. W. 524; Powell v. Sherwood, 162 Mo. 605, 63 S. W. 485; Amer- ican B. & L. Ass'n V. Rain bolt, 48 Neb. 434, 67 N. W. 493; State v. Atlantic City, 56 N. J. L. 232, 38 Atl. 437; State v. Town of Union, 62 N. J. L. 143, 40 Atl. 633; People V. Terry, 108 N. Y. 1, 14 N. E. 815; Matter of New York &Long Island Bridge Co., 148 N. Y. 540, 43 N. E. 1088; Bohmer v. Haflfen, 161 N. Y. 390, 55 N. E. 1047; Sugdeu v. Par- tridge, 174 N. Y. 87, 60 N. E. 655; Koelesch v. New York, 34 App. Div. 98, 54 N. Y. S. 110; Northrop V. Hoyt, 31 Ore. 524, 49 Pac. 754; Henry v. Henry, 31 S. C. 3, 9 S. E. 726; Segars v. Parrott, 54 S. C. 1, 31 S. E. 677, 865; Dugger v. Ins. Co., 95 Tenn. 245, 32 S. W. 5, 28 L. R. A. 796; State v. Sohlitz Brew- ing Co., 104 Tenn. 715, 59 S. W. 1033, 78 Am. St. Rep. 941; Johnson V. Harrisoorn, 90 Tex. 331, 38 S. W. 761; Madden v. Hardy, 92 Tex. 613, 50 S. W. 926; Searcy v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. App. 460, 50 S. W. 699, 51 S. W. 1119, 53 S. W. 344; Martin V. South Salem Land Co., 94 Va. 38, 26 S. E. 591; State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, 14 S, E. 9, 14 L. R. A. 600; Brown v. Point Pleasant, 36 W. Va. 290, 15 S. E. 209; John- son V. Milwaukee, 88 Wis. 383, 60 N. W. 270; State v. Stevens, 112 Wis. 170, 88 N. W. 48; Patapsco 136 VALIDITY OF STATUTES IN GENEKAL. such a construction may not be the most obvious or natural one." " The courts may resort to an implication to sustain a statute, but not to destroy it." " But the courts cannot go beyond the province of legitimate construction, in order to save a statute; and where the meaning is plain, words can- not be read into it or out of it for that purpose." § 84. Fraud or conspiracy in passing act. — An act will not be declared invalid because its passage was procured by fraud and imposition practiced on the legislature,'* or because it was the result of a conspiracy between members of the legislature and outside parties," or of improper mo- tives actuating the legislature.'' The courts will not inquire into charges of this nature, and will conclusively presume that the legislature acted honestly and understandingly. In one case it is said that " the motives which induced leg- islative action are not a subject of judicial inquiry; and a legislative act cannot be declared unconstitutional because, in the opinion of a court, it was or might have been the re- sult of improper considerations. A court is neither a di- rector of the discretion of a legislator, nor the keeper of his' conscience." '^ § 85. Considerations of the justice, wisdom and policy of statutes — Spirit of the constitution. — Statutes cannot be declared invalid on the ground that they are unwise, un- Guano Co. v. North Carolina, 171 IS S. W. 531; Walters v. Richard- U. S. 345, 18 S. C. Rep. 862, 43 L. son, 93 Ky. 374, 20 S. W. 279. Ed. 191; Knights Templars & Ma- "Eiohholtz v. Martin, 53 Kan. sons Life Indera. Co. v. Jarman, 187 486, 36 Pac. 1064; Williams v. Nash- D. S. 197, 33 S. C. Rep. 108; Bates v. ville, 89 Tenn. 487, 15 S. W. 364. Bratton, 90 Tex. 279, 73 S. W. 157. is People v. Carlock, 198 III. 150, "State V. Smith, 35 Neb. 13, 52 65 N. E. 109; Parker v. Powell, 133 N. W. 700; State v. Atlantic City, Ind. 419, 31 N. E. 1114; State v. 56 N. J. L. 233, 28 Atl. 427. Bershoflf, 158 Ind. 349, 63 N. E. 717; 1* Atlantic Water Works Co. v. Commonwealth v. Molr, 199 Pa. St. Consumers Water Co., 44 N. J. Eq. 534, 543, 49 Atl. 351, 85 Am. St. 427, 15 Atl. 581. Rep. 801. 15 Rogers- Ruger Co. v. Murray, w People v. Glenn County, 100 115 Wis. 267, 91 N. W. 657. CaL 419, 35 Pac. 302, 38 Am. St. "Smith V. Crutcher, 92 Ky. 586, Rep. 305. "Nor can the courts annul VALIDITY OF STATUTES IN GENERAL. 137 jiist, unreasonable or immoral, or because opposed to pub- lic policy, or the spirit of the constitution. Unless a statute violates some express provision of the constitution, it must be held to be valid. These principles are supported by numerous authorities, some of which are referred to in the margin.^" "An act cannot be annulled because, in the opinion of the court, it violates the best public policy, or does violence to some natural equity, or interferes with the inherent rights ■of freemen, nor upon the idea that it is opposed to some 50 Ohio St. 378, 34 N. B. 536; Com- monwealth V. Moir, 199 Pa. St. 534, 49 Atl. 351, 85 Am. St. Rep. 801; Crafts V. Ray, 23 R. I. 179, 46 Atl. 1043, 49 L. R. A. 604; State v. Becker, 3 S. D. 29, 51 N. W. 1018; Stratton Claimants v. Morris Claim- ants, 89 Tenn. 497, 15 S, W. 446: Hurley v. State, 98 Tenn. 665, 41 S. W. 352; McCully v. State, 102 Tenn. 509, 53 S. W. 134, 46 L. R. A. 567; Leeper v. State, 108 Tenn. 500, 53 S. W. 962, 48 L. R. A. 167; Dayton Coal & Iron Co. v. Barton, 103 Tenn. 604, 53 S. W. 970; State v. Lindsay, 103 Tenn. 625, 53 S. W. 950; Lytle V. Haff, 75 Tex. 128, 13 S. W. 610; Harris County v. Stewart, 91 Tex. 183, 41 S. W. 650; Kimball v. Grants- ville City, 19 Utah, 868, 57 Pao. 1 ; Prison Ass'n v. Ash by, 93 Va. 667, 25 S. E. 893; State v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440, 51 N. W. 734, 15 L, R. A. 561; Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682, 11 S. C. Rep. 223, 34 L. Ed. 833; Vie- meister v. White, 88 App. Div. 44; Ex parte Wilbarger, 41 Tex. Crim. Rep. 514, 55 S. W. 968; State v, Sharpless, 31 Wash. 191, 71 Pac. 737; Julien V. Model B. & L. Ass'n, 116 Wis. 79, 93 N. W. 561; Dewey v. United States, 178 U. S. 510, 20 S. C. Rep. 981, 44 L. Ed. 1170. a statute because the legislature passing it was imposed upon and misled by a few of its members in conjunction with interested third parties. . . . The courts have nothing to do with the policy of legislation nor the motives with which it is made.'' Williams v. Nashville, 89 Tenn. 487, 15 S. W. S64 20 Territory v. Connell, 2 Ariz,, 339, 16 Pao. 309 ; Carsou.v. St. Francis Levee Dist., 59 Ark. 513, 37 S. W. 30; Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136, 45 Pac. 1068; Praigg v. West- ■ern Paving & Supply Co., 143 Ind. 358, 43 N. E. 750; State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 489, 44 N. E. 469; Purnell 61 such streets must be closed and Pac. 735. abandoned, or the sewera and 53 King V. Philadelphia Co., 154 drains destroyed, or the gas and Pa. St. 160, 26 At). 308, 85 Am. St. water works closed, or the munici- ' Eep. 817, 2 L. E. A. 141. The court pal buildings torn down. Such says: " If no question of the consti- municipal works having been done tutional power of a city to do mu- under color of lawful authority, nicipal work, such as the opening when no question as to the validity or grading and paving of streets, of the authority was raised, must VALIDITY OF STATUTES IN GENERAL. 179 further maintenance of the pipes, and for damages. The court held that what had been done under the act before it was declared void should be deemed valid, and dismissed the bill. be regarded as lawfully done. The opening of a street ordinarily is fol- lowed by the erection of buildings on both sides, by the laying of gas and water pipes, and the construc- tion of sewers. If, after all this has taken place, it is discovered, and judicially decided, that the law under which the municipal author- ities have acted in the premises is unconstitutional, surely it cannot be that all the improvements, works and buildings, carried on and constructed under apparent legal authority, must be abandoned or destroyed." CHAPTER lY. CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT NO ACT EMBRACE MORE THAN ONE SUBJECT AND THAT IT BE EXPRESSED IN THE TITLE. § 109 (76). Substantial agreement of constitutional provisions — Exceptions.— In the constitutions of a large majority of the states are provisions relating to the title and singleness of the subject-matter of legislative acts. It is not uniformly expressed in the same words, but it is in substance the same — that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title.^ 1 Alabama — 1865: Art. 4, sea 2. Each law shall embrane but one subject, which shall be de- scribed in the titla 1808: Each law shall contain but one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in the title. Art. 4, sec. 2. 1875, adds: Except general ap- propriation bills, general reve- nue bill, and bills adopting a code, digest or revision of stat- utes. California— 1849: Art 4, sec. 25, Every law enacted by the legis- lature shall express but one object, and that shall be ex- pressed in the title. 1879: Art 4, sec. 24. Every act shall embrace but one subject, which subject shall be ex- pressed in its title. But if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be ex- pressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be expressed in its title. No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title; but in such case the act revised or section amended shall be re- enacted and published at length as revised or amended. Colorado: Art. 5, sec. 21. No bill, except general appropriation bills, shall be passed contain- ing more than one subject, which shall be clearly ex- pressed in its title; but if any subject shall be embraced in any act which shall not be ex- pressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed. Florida — 1868: Art 4, sec. 14. Each law enacted in the legis- lature shall embrace hut one subject, and matter properly TITLE OF ACTS. 181 In the constitutions of New York, Wisconsin, and in the Illinois constitution of 1848, the provision is confined to pri- vate and local laws. It will be noticed that in several the injunction is against embracing more than one "object" in a bill. In many instances the subject or object is required connected therewith, which subject shall be briefly ex- pressed in the title. TITLE OF ACTS. 197 this provision is mandatory, yet it is to be given a liberal and not a strict construction. It is not intended nor should it be so construed as to embarrass legislation by making laws unnecessarily restrictive in their scope and operation, or by multiplying their number, or by preventing the legis- lature from embracing in one act all matters properly con- nected with one general subject. The term 'subject,' as used in the constitution, is to be given a broad and ex- tended meaning, so as to allow the legislature full scope to include in one act all matters having a logical or natural connection. . . . Any construction of this provision of the constitution that would interfere with the very com- mendable policy of incorporating the entire body of statu- tory law upon one general subject in a single act, instead of dividing it into a number of separate acts, would not only be contrary to its spirit, but also seriously embarrass- ing to honest legislation. AU'that is required is that the act should not include legislation so incongruous that it could not, by any fair intendment, be considered germane to one general subject. The subject may be as comprehen- sive as the legislature chooses to make it, provided it con- stitutes, in the constitutional sense, a single subject, and not several. The connection or relationship of several matters, such as will render them germane to one subject and to each other, can be of various kinds, as, for example, of means to ends, of dififerent subdivisions of the same subject, or that all are designed for the same purpose, or that both are designated by the same term. Neither is it necessary that the connection or relationship should be logical; it is enough that the matters are connected with and related to a single subject in popular signification. The generality of the title to an act is no objection, provided only it is suffi- cient to give notice of the general subject of the proposed legislation and of the interests likely to be affected. The title was never intended to be an index of the law."*' *5 Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 383. And see City Council v. Bird- 675, 50 N. W. 933, 28 Am. St. Rep. song, 126 Ala. 633, 38 So. 533. 198 TITLE OF ACTS. The following general titles were sustained in recent cases, the acts in each case being as comprehensive as the title would indicate : " An act to revise, amend and codify the statutes in relation to crimes and their punishment; " *^ " An act relative to crimes and punishments and proceed- ings in criminal cases;"" "An act to provide a system of revenue." *^ If a restrictive title is chosen the act must be kept within it.« § 118 (85). The provisions of an act must be germane to one subject. — Whatever may be the scope of an act, it can embrace but one subject, and all its provisions must re- late to that subject; they must be parts of it, incident to it or in some reasonable sense auxiliary to the object in view. That subject must be expressed in the title of the act. The constitutional requirement is addressed to the subject, not to the details of the act. The subject must be single; the provisions, to accomplish the object involved in that subject, may be multifarious.'" It is a matter of some difBculty, in many instances, to determine precisely what is the subject of an act by reason of the contrariety of its provisions and the complexity of its machinery and aims. All acts are not methodically framed ; they do not always declare directly the subject or ultimate end in the enacting part, and then define its constituents and adjuvants, so that the coherence and subordination of the parts, and their relation to a sub- ject in which they converge, can be at once perceived. In the body of an act the subject in which the operation of all the details unite, or are intended to unite, is not unfrequentlj'- left to inference. If it can be made out by construction, is 46 Cook V. Marshall County, 119 "Rosenbloom v. State, 64 Neb. Iowa, 384, 93 N. W. 373. 343, 89 N. W. 1053. 47 State V. Tieman, 35 Wash. 294. « Mitchell v. Colo. Milling & El. The legislature may make the title Co., 13 Colo. App. 277, 55 Pac. 736; as comprehensive as it sees fit. In re Breene, 14 Colo. 401, 24 Pac. 3. Marston V. Humes, 8 Wash. 367, 28 so Block v. State, 66 Ala. 493; Pac. 520. Ingles v. Strauss, 91 Va. 209, 21 S. E. 490 TITLE OF ACTS. 199 single, and embraces all the provisions of the act, it is enough so far as the purview is concerned.'^ The statement of the subject in the title vfhen correctly and comprehensively ex- pressed will furnish a key to the intended unity of the en- acting part. ■ The whole act can be valid only when the subject so stated includes all the provisions in the body of the act.'^ None of the provisions of a statute will be held unconstitutional when they all relate, directly or indirectly, to the same subject, have a natural connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in the title.''' As very fre- quently expressed by the courts, any provisions that are germane to the subject expressed in the title may properly be included in the act.''* " The constitutional provision is to 61 state V. Tucker, 46 Ind. 355; State V. Young, 47 Ind. 150; Robi- son V. Miner, 68 Mich. 549, 87 N. W. 31. 52 Montgomery M. B. & L. Ass'n V. Robinson, 69 Ala. 413; Ex parte Pollard, 40 Ala. 99; Grover v. Trus- tees, etc., 45 N. J. L. 399; Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469; Ryerson V. tJtley, 16 Mich. 269; State v. Bradt, 103 Tenn. 584, 58 S. W. 943. 53 Rowland Coal & Iron W. v. Brown, 13 Bush, 685; Phillips v. Bridge Co., 2 Met. (Ky.) 223; Louis- ville, eto. Co. V. Ballard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 168; Chiles v. Drake, 3 Met. (Ky.) 150, 74 Am. Dec. 406; Johnson v. Higgins, 3 Met. (Ky.) 566. 51 Barnhill v. Teague, 96 Ala. 207, 11 So. 444; Hawkins v. Roberts, 133 Ala. 130, 37 So. 327; Edwards v. Denver & R. G. R. R. Co., 13 Colo 59, 31 Pac. 1011; Catron v. County Com'rs, 18 Colo. 553, 33 Pac. 513; Jones V. Aspen Hardware Co., 31 Colo. 363, 40 Pac. 457, 52 Am. St. Rep. 220, 29 L. R, A. 143; County Com'rs V. Jacksonville, 36 Fla. 196, 18 So. 339; Atlanta v. Gate City St. Ry. Co., 80 Ga. 376, 4 S. E. 269; Newman v. State, 101 Ga. 534, 28 S. E. 1005; Hundall v. Hain, 173 lU. 76, 49 N. E. 985; Rushville Gas Co. V. Rushville, 131 Ind. 206, 23 N. E. 72, 16 Am. St. Rep. 388; State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439, 44 N. E. 469; Gaines v. Williams, 146 111. 450, 34 N. E. 934; Pittsburgh, Cinn., Chi- cago & St. L. Ry. Co. V. Montgom- ery, 152 Ind. 1, 49 N. E. 583, 71 Am. St. Rep. 301; Rogers v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 503, 11 S. W. 513; Raubold v. Commonwealth, 31 Ky. L. R. 1135, 54 S. W. 17; County Com'rs v. Hellen, 73 Md. 603, 20 Atl. .130; Fort St. Union Depot Co. v. Morton, 83 Mich. 365, 47 N. "W. 338; Slighv. Grand Rapids, 84 Mich. 497, 47 N. W. 1093; Ripley v. Evans, 87 Mich. 217, 49 N. W. 504; McPherson v. Blacker, 93 Mich. 377, 53 N. W. 469, 31 Am. St. Rep. 587, 16 L. R. A. 475; People v. Huntley, 113 Mich. 569, 71 N. W. 178; McMorran v. Ladies of the Maccabees, 117 Mich. 808, 75 N. "W. 943; Crawford v. Ross, 126 Mich. 634, 86 N. W. 183; State v. Board of Com'rs, 67 Minn. 353, 69 200 TITLE OF ACTS. have a practical and liberal construction, for it is manifest that a law may embrace but one subject, and yet include many provisions and details which would be inconvenient and unnecessary to refer to in the title. It is sufficient if the title fairly and reasonably expresses the subject, or is sufficiently broad and comprehensive to include the several provisions relating to, or connected with, the subject. And whatever provisions of the law are germane to the title of the act are proper to be incorporated into the body there- of." ^ § 119 (86). Requirement as to form or manner of ex- pressing subject in title. — The direction is, generally, that the subject be " expressed in the title." It is varied in some instances. In Nevada it is to be briefly expressed ; in several it Is to be clearly expressed. These qualifying words do not add any new element; they merely assist in the interpreta- tion. A brief statement of the subject will suffice under the provision as it is generally worded ; ^ and the decisions in Nevada afford no ground for inferring that a prolix title, N. W. 1083; state V. County Com'rs, 33 S. W. 481, 84 L. R. A. 656; Eail- 83 Minn. 65, 85 N. W. 830; State v. road Co. v. Crider, 91 Tenn. 489, 19 Mead, 71 Mo. 266; State v. Burgdoer- S. W. 618; Eyan v. Terminal Co., far, 107 Mo. 1, 17 S. W. 646; State 102 Tenn. Ill, 50 S. W. 744, 45 L. E. V. Bronson, 115 Mo. 271, 21 S. W. A. 803; State v. Brown, 103 Tenn. 1125; State v. Slover, 134 Mo. 10, 31 449, 53 S. W. 727; Peterson v. State, S. W. 1054, 34 S. W. 1102; De Both 104 Tenn. 127, 56 S. W. 834; Clark V. Eich Hill Coal & Min. Co., 141 v. Findley, 93 Tex. 171, 54 S. W. Mo. 497, 42 S. W. 1081; State v. 1343; Ingles v. Strauss, 91 Va. 207, Beck, 25 Nev. 68, 56 Pac. 1008; 21 S. E. 490; Trehy v. Marye, 100 Northern Counties Trust v. Sears, Va. 40, 40 S. E. 126; Detroit v. De- 30 Ore. 388, 41 Pac 931, 35 L. E. A. troit Citizens' St. Ey. Co., 184 U. S. 188; Nottage v. Portland, 35 Ore. 368, 32 S. C. Eep. 410, 46 L. Ed. 593; 539, 58 Pac. 883, 76 Am. St. Eep. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Oswego, 59 513; Commonwealth v. Depuy, 148 Fed. 58, 7 C. C. A. 669, 19 U. S. App, Pa. St. 201, 33 Atl. 896; Hays v. 321; Tabor v. Commercial Nat. Cumberland County, 186 Pa. St. Bank, 62 Fed. Eep. 383, 10 C. C. A. 109, 40 Atl. 382; Goebeler v. Wil- 439, 27 U. S. App. 111. helm, 17 Pa. Supr. 433; Frazier v. ssputnam v. St. Paul, 75 Minn, Eailway Co., 88 Tenn. 138, 13 S. W. 514, 78 N. W. 90. 537; State V. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546, =6 Shi vers v. Ne w ton, 45 N. J. L. 469. TITLE OF ACTS. 201 otherwise unobjectionable, would vitiate an act." The re- quirement that it be cZea^-Zy expressed imports no more than that it be expressed; though it may add some emphasis.^' If the title does not clearly express the subject, but is am- biguous and suggestive of doubt, still it is believed the doubt, if possible, would be resolved in favor of the validity of the act.*' The title of an act was formerly no part of it, and was not much resorted to in the exposition of the act; but inder this constitutional clause it is an indispensable part of every act.'" § 120 (87). The subject in an act can be no broader than the statement of it in the title. — It is required not only that an act shall contain but one subject, but that that sub- ject be expressed in the title. The title, thus made a part of each act, must agree with it by expressing its subject; the title will fix bounds to the purview, for it cannot exceed the title-subject, nor be contrary to it.*^ An act will not be so construed as to extend its operation beyond the purpose expressed in the title.*^ It is not enough that the act em- s' state V. Ah Sam, 15 Nev. 27. Ind. 374; Matter of Tappen, 36 How. 68 Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 193; Pr. 390; State v. Garrett, 29 La. Commonwealthv.Martin,107Pa.St. Ann. 637; Coutieri v. Mayor, etc., 185; W. Phila. R R. Co. v. Union E. 44 N. J. L. 58; Mississippi, etc. Boom R. Co., 9 Phila. 495; Carr v. Thomas, Co. v. Prince, 10 Am. & Eng. Cor. 18 Fla. 736; Evans V. Memphis, etc. Cas. 391, 34 Minn. 71; Ex parte R. R, Co., 56 Ala. 246, 28 Am. Rep. Moore, 62 Ala. 471; Matter of Blod- 771; Board of Com'rs v. Baker, 80 gett, 89 N. Y. 392; Crabb v. State, Ind. 374; Township of Union v. Ra- 88 Ga. 584, 15 S. E. 455; Land Title der, 39 N. J. L. 509. Warranty & Safe Dep. Co. v. Tan- 69 Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. ner, 99 Ga. 470, 27 S. E. 737; Harris S. 147, 3 S. C. Rep. 391, 27 L. Ed. 431; v. State, 110 Ga. 887, 36 S. E. 232; State V. Board, etc., 26 Ind. 522; Peo- Dixon v. Poe, 159 Ind. 492, 65 N. E. pie V. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553. 518; State v. Pierson, 41 La. Ann. M McGrath v. State, 46 Md. 633; 90, 10 So. 400; Jones v. Morristown, State V. Town of Union, 33 N. J. L. 66 N. J. L. 488, 49 Atl. 440; Lacey 350; Indiana Central Ry. Co. v. v. Palmer, 93 Va. 159, 24 S. E. 930. Potts, 7 Ind. 681; Yeager v. Weaver, 57 Am. St. Rep. 795. 64 Pa. St. 427; Stein v. Leeper, 78 "2 Bates v. Nelson, 49 Mich. 459, Ala. 517. 13 N. W. 817; Elliott v. State, 91 «i Board of Com'rs v. Baker, 80 Ga. 694, 17 S. E, 1004; Allen v. Ber- 202 TITLE OF ACTS. braces but a single subject or object, and that all its parts are germane; the title must express that subject, and com- prehensively enough to include all the provisions in the body of the act.^' The unity and compass of the subject must, therefore, always be considered with reference to both title and purview. The unity must be sought, too, in the ulti- mate end which the act proposes to accomplish, rather than in the details leading to that end.^ The particular effect of the purview exceeding the title, or of the latter misrep- resenting the purview, will be discussed in another section.'* The title cannot be enlarged by construction when too nar- row to cover all the provisions in the enacting part, nor can the purview be contracted by construction to fit the title; ^° but the title, if not delusively general, may be sufiicient though more extensive than the purview." § 121 (88). Requisites of title generally — It need not index the details of the act. — The title must state the subject of the act for the purpose of information to mem- bers of the legislature and public while the bill is going through the forms of enactment.'^ It is not required that nards Tp., 57 N. J. L. 303, 81 Atl. per, 14 Ind. 295; Supervisors v. Peo- 319. pie, 25 111. 181; Succession of Lan- es Mewherter v. Price, 11 Ind. 301; zetti,9La. Ann.8i9;posf,§§131,139. Byerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 369; Dor- «= See post, § 143 et seq. sey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 192; Ross v. ^ Howland Coal & Iron Works v. Davis, 97 Ind. 79; Knoxville V.Lewis, Brown, 13 Bush, 681; In re Paul, 13 Lea, 180; Stiefel v. Md. Inst, for 94 N. Y. 497; Matter of Saokett, etc. Blind, 61 Md. 144; Town of Fishkill Sts., 74 N. Y. 95; State v. Clinton, V. FishUill, etc. P. R. Co., 23 Barb. 87 La. Ann. 40; post, % 1J7. 634; Grover V. Trustees, etc., 45 N. "Yeager v. "Weaver, 64 Pa. St. J. L. 399; Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. 427; In re De Vaucene, 31 How. Pr. J. L. 469; Cooley's Const. L. 179; 337; Luther v. Saylor, 8 Mo. App. Greaton v. Griffin, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. 434; Johnson v. People, 83 111. 431; g.) -jlO. Coutieri v. New Brunswick, 44 N. J. «* State v. Town of Union, 33 N. L. 58; Garvin v. State, 13 Lea, 163;. J. L. 350; State v. Couuty Judge, 2 post, § 133 et seq. Iowa, 380; City of St. Louis v. Tie- 68 Grover v. Trustees, etc., 45 N. fel, 43 iMo. 578; Morford v. Unger, J. L. 399; McGrath v. State, 46 Md. 8 Iowa, 83; "Whiting v. Mt. Pleas- 633; People v. Lawrence, 36 Barb. ant, 11 Iowa, 483; Clinton v. Dra- 185; Dorsey's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. TITLE OF ACTS. 203- the title should be exact and precise.^'' It issufl5cieiit if the language used in the title, on a fair construction, indicates the purpose of the legislature to legislate according to the constitutional provision; so that making every reasonable intendment in favor of the act, it may be said that the sub- ject or object of the law is expressed in the title.™ As said by the supreme court of Illinois, the constitution does not require that "the subject of the bill shall be specifically and exactly expressed in the title; hence we conclude that any expression in the title which calls attention to the subject of the bill, although in general terms, is all that is re- quired."" It may be general," but must be specific enough to answer reasonably the purpose for which the subject ia required to be expressed in the title.'' 192; Indiana Cent. Ry. Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681; Shields v. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 83; People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 183; State v. County Judge, 2 Iowa, 282; Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 8 N. Y. 252; Mississippi, etc. Boom Co. V. Prince, 10 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 392, 34 Minn. 71; Harris v. People, 59 N. Y. 603; Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 184, 74 Am. Deo. 523; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 369; Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 N. Y. 116; National Bank v. Southern, etc. Co., 55 Ga. 36; Town of Fislikill V. Fishkill, etc. P. R. Co,, 23 Barb. 634; Hargrave v. Weber, 66 Mich. 59; Wolf v. Taylor, 98 Ala. 354, 13 So. 688; Mobile Trans. Co. v. Richoux, 23 La. Ann. 745; Johnson V. People, 83 111. 431. 10 Grover v. Trustees, etc., 45 N. J.. L. 399; State Line, etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 439; Atkinson v. Dufify, 16 Minn. 49. '1 Johnson v. People, 83 111. 436; Ritchie V. People, 155 111. 98, 120,. 40 N. E. 454, 462, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, 39 L. R. A,79. hastate v. Rogers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909; Catron v. County Com'rs, 18 Colo. 553, 33 Pac. 513; Donners- berger v. Prendergast, 138 111. 229, 21 N. E. 1; Rex Lumber Co. v. Reed, 107 Iowa, 111, 77 N. W. 572; MoKe^ ,n V. Sumner Bldg. & Supply Co., 51 La. Ann. 1961, 26 So. 430; State v. Mobile, 128 Ala. 835, 30 So. 645, 86 Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 106 La. 553, 31 Am. St. Rep. 143; Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal. 633, 29 Pac. 251 ; State v. Tibbet, 53 Neb. 238, 71 N. .W. 990, 66 Am. St. Rep. 492. (isi Grover v. Trustees, etc., 45 N. So. 181;Crookston v.County Com'i-s,- 79 Minn. 283, 82 N. W. 586, 79 Am. St. Rep. 453; State v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co., 23 Mont. 498, 59- Pac. 854; Newark v. Orange, 55 N. J. L. 399; Daubman v. Smith, 47 J. L. 514, 26 Atl. 799; Powell N. J. L. 200; In re Mayer, 50 N. Y. 506; People v. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 558 ;\ Louisiana State Lottery Co. v. Supervisors, 88 Va. 707, 14 S. E. 543. ■is Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. J. L. 469; State v. Garrett, 29 La. Ann.. •204 TITLE OF ACTS. "When the subject is stated in tlie title the constitution is so far complied with that no criticism of the mode of state- ment will affect the validity of the act.'* The statute is valid in such a case; the degree of particularity in express- ing the subject in the title is left to the discretion of the legislature." No particular form has been prescribed in the constitution for expressing the subject or purpose of a statute in its title.'* It need not index the details of the act, nor give a synopsis of the means by which the object of the statute is to be effectuated by the provisions in the body of the act." 637; Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. ■S. U7, a S. C. Eepi 391, 27 L. Ed. 431; Matter of Saokett, eta Sts., 74 N. Y. 95; Shields v. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 83; Green v. Mayor, etc., R M. Charlt. 368; Major, etc. v. State, 4 Ga. 26; City of Eureka v. Davis, 21 Kan, 580; Grower v. Trustees, ■etc., 45 N. J. L. 399 ; People v. McCal- lum, 1 Neb. 183; Montgomery, etc. Ass'n V. Robinson, 69 Ala. 413; American Printing House v. Du- puy, 37 La. Ann. 188; State v. Wil- son, 12 Lea, 246; State v. MoCou- nell, 3 Lea, 332; State v. Whit worth, 8 Lea, 594; Commonwealth v. Green, 58 Pa. St. 226; Luehrman v. Taxing Dist, 2 Lea, 425; Clinton Water Com'rs v. D wight, 101 N. Y. 9, 3 N. E. 782; In re Knaust, 101 N. Y. 188, 4 N. E. 338; Greaton v. Grif- fin, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 310; Daubman V. Smith, 47 N. J. L. 200; State v. Elvins, 32 N. J. L. 362; Parkinson V. State, 14 Md. 184; Falconer v. Robinson, 46 Ala. 340. '< State V. W^inter, 118 Ala. 1, 34 Ho. 89. The court says: "It is not within the province of courts to sit in judgment upon the title, and -determine whether it could not have been drawn in some other form, more clearly or definitely in- dicating the subject to which the body of the act relates. The legis- lature is not subject to judicial control in respect to the form or mode in which the subject of a law shall be expressed in the title. If the subject be expressed, the mandate and all the purposes of the constitution are satisfied."' pp. 35, 36. 75 In re Mayer, 50 N. Y. 504; Sun Mut. Ins. Co. V. Mayor, etc., 8 N. Y. 241; State v. Town of Union, 33 N. J. L. 350; State v. Newark, 34 N. J. L. 236; Montgomery, etc. Ass'n V. Robinson, 69 Ala. 413; Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269; People V, Mahaney, 13 Mich. 494; Morford v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 82; Whiting v. Mt. Pleasant, 11 Iowa, 482; Indiana Cent. R R Co. v. Potts, 7 Ind. 681; State v. Bowers, 14 Ind. 195; State v. County Judge, 8 Iowa, 380; Brewster v. Syracuse, 19 N. Y. 116. '« Grover v. Trustees, etc., 45 N. J. L. 399; People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 183. ""People V. McCallum, supra; TITLE OF ACTS. 205- The supreme court of Indiana says: "To express the sub- ject of a statute in the title, in compliance with the require- ment of the constitution, no particular form or terms are exacted, nor is it essential that such subject be expressed with precision. The title will sufficiently conform to the command of the constitution if it be so framed and worded as fairly to apprise the legislators, and the public in gen- eral, of the subject-matter of the legislation, so as reason- ably to lead to an inquiry into the bod3' of the bill. The constitutional requirement may be interpreted to mean that the act and its title must correspond, not literally but sub- stantially, and such correspondence is to be determined in view of the subject-matter to which the legislation re- lates." ^' Stuart V. Kinsella, 14 Minn. 525; St Paul V. Colter, 18 Minn. 50, 90 Am. Dec. 278; State v. Daniel, 28 La. Ann. 38; MoCaslin v. State, 44 Ind. 151; Collins v. Henderson, 11 Bush, 74; Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 8 N. Y. 241; Conner v. Mayor, etc., 5 N. Y. 285; People v. Lawrence, 41 N. Y. 137; Daubman V. Smith, 47 N. J. L. 200; Luehr- man v. Taxing Dist., 2 Lea, 425; Township of Union v. Rader, 39 N. J. L. 507; Brown v. State, 73 Ga. 38; Reed v. State, 12 Ind. 641; State V. Lasater, 9 Baxt. 584; State V. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; Hammond v. Lesseps, 31 La. Ann. 337; Peaohee V. State, 63 Ind. 399; Howell v. State, 71 Ga. 224; Luther v. Saylor, 8 Mo. App. 424; Martin v. Broach, 6 Ga. 21, 50 Am. Dec. 306; People V. Brislin, 80 111. 423; Bright v. Mc- CuUoch, 27 Ind. 223; State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 325, 21 Am. Rep. 765; State v. County Com'rs, 13 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 203, 17 Nev. 96; Goldsmith v. Rome R. R. Co., 63 Ga. 473; State v. Silver, 9 Nev. 227; Gabbert v. Jefferson R R. Co., 11 Ind. 365, 71 Am. Dec. 358; State V. Winter, 118 Ala. 1, 24 So.. 89; McGruder v. State, 83 Ga. 616, 10 S. E. 441; Hronek v. People, 134 111. 139, 24 N. E. 861, 8 L. R. A. 837; Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 64 N. E. 862; Wilson v. Herink, 64 Kan. 607, 68 Pao. 72; State v.Madson, 43 Minn. 438, 45 N. W. 856; Philadel- phia V. Ridge Ave. Ry. Co., 142 Pa. St. 484, 21 Atl. 982, 24 Am. St. Rep. 512; State v. Morgan, 2 S. D. 33, 48 N. W. 314; Memphis v. Am. Ex- press Co., 103 Tenn. 336, 52 S. W.. 172; Commonwealth v. Biown, 91 Va. 763, 21 S. E. 357; Lanoy v. King Co., 15 Wash. 9, 45 Pac. 645, 34 L. R. A. 817; State v. Whittlesey, 17 Wash. 447, 50 Pac. 119. 'SMaule Coal Co. v. Parthen- heimer, 155 Ind. 100, 106, 55 N. E. 751, And see Wrought Iron Bridge Co. V. Attica, 119 N. Y. 20^ 23 N. E. 542. ■206 TITLE OF ACTS. § 122 (89). Eifect of "etc.," "and so forth," ''and for other purposes" in title. — It has been decided in Tennessee that " etc." added to a title has force in extending the enu- meration which precedes it." The question arose as to the validity of provisions in an act having this title: " An act to ]3unish as felons all parties who may engage in keeping or conducting halls or houses for conduct of games of keno, faro, three-card monte and mustang, etc." Turney, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said : " The ' etc' used at the end and as part of the title may not be rejected ; it has a meaning. "Webster defines it, 'et cetera,' 'and others,' 'and so forth.' This definition applied here makes it import ' and the rest of the games,' or 'othgr games.' It gives the members of the legislature notice that the subject of the title is drawn or elaborated in the body of the act; that the reformatory force of the act is not to be confined to houses, or to persons keep- ing houses for playing the four games recited, but is extended to other games. It has a significant and pointed conclusion which could not escape the attention of any member of the legislature who has regard to his obligations and duties. It said to him in terms, other games are leveled at besides the four mentioned in the title, and you are invited to look at them. It admonished him, the act is not made to cover a leg- islation Incongruous in itself. By fair intendment, the bill had a necessary and proper connection with the act. . . . It cannot be objected that the title upon the subject is broader than the act under it. The title notified the legisla- ture of a thoroughly comprehensive thrust at all parties en- gaged in conducting gambling houses; the act confines the thrust to parties conducting houses in the playing of nine games. The record shows there are a great many other games which are played everywhere, besides these mentioned in ,the act, of which, however, we presume the draftsman of the act was uninformed, but which might have been embraced under the title to his act. . . . It is now insisted the ab- breviation 'etc' has no meaning at all, or, at most, means 73 Garvin v. State, 13 Lea, 163. TITLE OF ACTS. 207 ' and for other purposes.' . . . The abbreviation may no- longer be called such. It is thoroughly incorporated into our language, is defined by our lexicographers, and is a per- fect English word in almost common use. " It cannot mean ' and for other purposes,' for the reason that such definitions would include any and all purposes,how- ever foreign to the object of the legislation, one of the incon- veniences and inconsistencies intended to be remedied by the present constitution."^" In Virginia the words "and so forth " were held not to extend the scope of the title. The act in question was entitled: "An act to prevent pool selling, and so forth, upon the results of any trials of speed of any animals or beasts taking place without the limits of the com- monwealth." The act made unlawful almost every conceiv- able form of making bets or wagers upon such trials of speed. It was held that as to all except pool-selling the act was in- valid, because not embraced in the title.^' The phrase, " and for other purposes," expresses no specific purpose, and imports indefinitely something different from that which precedes it in the title. It is therefore univers- all}' rejected as having no force or effect, wherever this con- stitutional restriction operates.^^ 80 To the same effect: Common- 58 Pa. St. 233; Spier v. Bater, 130 wealth V. Clark, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. 141. Cal. 870, 53 Pao. 659, 41 L. R. A. 196; In this case the title was, "An act County Com'rs v. Aspen Min. & C. to protect fruit, gardens, growing Co., 3 Colo. App. 323, 32 Pac. 717. crops, grass, et cetera, and pUnish The early constitution of Georgia trespass." The court said: "The forbade the passage of a law con- words 'ei cetera' in the title under taining matter different from that consideration refer to tilings gener- expressed in the title. Under this ioally the same as those partiou- pi'ovision it was held that the words Jarly siiecified, and therefore em- "and for other purposes," " would bi-ace trees, plants, flowers and the autliorize legislation upon any sub- like." jeot with which the legislature 81 Lacey v. Palmer, 93 Va. 159, 24 could constitutionally deal." Mar- S. E. 930, 57 Am. St. Rep. 795. tin v. Broach, 6 Ga. 31, 50 Am. Dec. 82 City of St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 806, and castes cited ante, g 110. Mo. 578; State v. Garrett, 29 La. "Since 1861 these words will not Ann. 637; Commonwealth v. Green, authorize legislation upon any sub- 208 TITLE OF ACTS. § 123 (90). Title misleading by reason of generality.— A title so general as practically to conceal the subject of the statute, or a false or delusive title, will be treated as not constitutionally framed, and the act held void.^' An act "to legalize and authorize the assessment of street im- provements and assessments " was held void for undue gen- erality in not mentioning the place where it was intended to operate. It was a local act, and yet it did not name the city to which it applied.'* So an act " to regulate a road in the town of Palatine, Montgomery county," was held to conceal its true subject and to be false and' delusive.^ The following acts, as entitled, received the same construction : An act to fix the salaries of the officers of a particular city, and confined to that city in its provisions, but entitled " An act to fix and regulate the salaries of city officers in cities of this state ;"^^ an act legalizing by its provisions a lot-' tery scheme for a private partnership, under the title of " An act to establish the Mobile Charitable Association for the benefit of the common school fund of Mobile county, without distinction of color; " *'' a supplement to a railroad charter providing for extension of its track into a new ter- ritory under a clause in the title " to lay additional tracks." ^' jeot save one which is germane to York city was general in its title: the subject embraced in the title." " An act to preserve the public Macon v. Hughes, 110 Ga. 795, 36 S. peace and order on the first day of E. 347; Blair v. State, 90 Ga. 326, 17 the week, commonly called Sun- S. E. 96, 35Am. St. Rep. 206; Butner day." It was held sufficient to V. Boifeuillet, 100 Ga. 743, 28 S. E. cover provisions prohibiting dra- 464; Hartv. State, 118 Ga. 939, 39 S. matio performances on that day, E. 331. Practically, therefore, such since the cessation of such enter- words do not extend the scope of tainments was one of the particu- the title under the later constitu- lars going to make up the public tions. See also Sasser v. State, 99 peace and good order. Ga. 54, 25 S. E. 619; Burns v. State, 85 People v. Com'rs of Highways,. 104 Ga. 544, 30 S. K 815. 53 Barb. 70. 83 People V. Allen, 43 N. Y. 404 86 Coutieri v. New Brunswick, 44 84 Durkee v. City of Janesville, 36 N. J. L. 58. Wis. 697. In Neuendorflf v. Duryea, 8T Moses v. Mayor, etc., 52 Ala. 198. 69 N. Y. 557, 25 Am. Rep. 235, an ssxjnion Passenger Ry. Co.'s Ap- act by its provisions local to New peal, 81* Pa. St. 91; West Phila. R. TITLE OF ACTS. 209 An act entitled "An act to protect the planting and cul- tivating of oysters in tbe tidewaters of this state," which excluded certain waters from its operation, was held void, because the title indicated an intent to legislate as to all tidewaters, and hence was misleading.^' So "An act relat- ing to the cost of improving sidewalks in the cities of this state," which, in the body of the act, was made to apply only to cities of the third class, was held void for a similar reason. In giving their decision in this case the court of errors and appeals of K"ew Jersey say : " The title states that the object is to legislate for the cities of the state as a class. The act excludes from its operation all of these cities except those of the third class, l^o one, on reading the title, could reasonably understand that the body of the act was to have so limited an effect." ^ Upon like grounds the following acts were held invalid : " An act to authorize the city of Milwaukee to change the grade of streets," which applied only to a limited district of forty -nine blocks ; '^ " An act making it a misdemeanor to issue trading stamps and other devices," which, while purporting to apply to all classes, exempted certain classes from its operation.^^ These decisions have Tjeen referred to in detail because no general rule on the subject can safely be formulated. This will be manifest when the cases cited in this section are compared with those cited in the following section. § 124. The title may be broader and more compre- hensive than the act. — An act of Missouri entitled "An act to establish and maintain a uniform course of text books to be used in all the public schools within this state, and to reduce the price thereof," excluded from its opera- E. Ca V. Union E. R. Co., 9 Phila. " An derton v. Milwaukee, 82 Wia 495. 379, 52 N. W. 95, 15 L. R. A. 830. 89 State V. Steelman, 66 N. J. L. '^ state v. "Walker, 105 La. 492, 29 518, 49 Atl. 978. So. 973. See also Allardt v. People, 9» Beverly v. Wain, 57 N. J. L. 197 111. 501, 64 N. E. 533. 143, 144, 30 Atl. 545. 14 210 TITLE OF ACTS. tiou cities and districts having over one hundred IQousand population. The act was held valid and the court m homo says : " The constitution does not say that the title shall be as narrow as the act. What it says on this point is, that the single subject shall be clearly expressed in the title. The fact, therefore, that the title is broader than the act can be no objection, unless the title is comprehensive enough to admit of disconnected and incongruous subjects." ^' In this case the act in question expressly purported by its title to apply to all the public schools within the state and yet ex- cepted a very important class. Like rulings were made, upon the following titles and acts : An act purporting by its title to relate to the fees of county officers generally, but limited in the purview to counties of over fifty thou- sand inhabitants;^* an act entitled: "An act extending the time in which distraint and sale may be made for taxes," and limited in its operation to certain counties and to the taxes for certain years ; '^ "An act to encourage and provide for a general vaccination in the state of California," which applied only to school children;^' an act to protect the health of domestic animals, which related to dairy cows and neat cattle only;^' "An act to prevent the fraudulent transfer of personal property," which applied only to mort- gagors of personal property. "The mere fact," says the court, " that the legislature chose a title much more compre- ss State V. Bronson, 115 Mo. 271, general class in the state, viz., 21 .8. W. 1135. scholars of the public schools and 9* State V. Frazier, 36 Ore. 178, those who desire to become such. 39 Pac. 5. But we think, under the rules of 95 MoEldowney v. Wyatt, 44 W. construction above stated, that the Va.711, SOS. B. 239,45L.R. A.609. term 'general,' in the title, ap- 96 Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal 326, 34 plies to that general class specified Pac. 383. The court says: "It is in the act; and that neither the true that the term ' vaccination,' legislature nor the public could be in the title, is qualified by the ad- misled by the manner in which jective 'general,' which makes it the subject of the act is expressed broad enough to include all the in the title.'" p. 239. people of the state; while the body s' Commonwealth v. Cooper, 13 of the act relates to only a certain Pa. Dist. Ct. 199, TITLE OF ACTS. 211 hensive than the matter covered by the body of the act can- not be objectionable." '^ The supreme court of Alabama says: " The object of this provision of the constitution was to prevent surprise and fraud in passing laws under mis- leading titles. It should not, therefore, be construed so as to defeat, by too technical an application, legislation not clearly within the evil aimed at. If the title of an act is single and directs the mind to the subject of the law in a way calculated to direct the attention truly to the matter which is proposed to be legislated upon, the object of the provision is satisfied. In such case the generality of a title, not defining the particulars of the proposed legislation, would be more apt to excite general attention than other- wise, since the general words would give warning that everything within their limits might be afFected and thus draw the attention of the whole body of legislators, while narrower words would only interest those concerned with the matters specially named." ^ Many cases hold that the title may be broader than the act, that an act need not cover all the ground that might be covered under its title, and need not legislate respecting all the classes, persons, objects or things embraced or com- prehended by the title.^ "An act to prohibit book-making 98 state V. Heldenbrand, 63 Neb. Johnson v. Asbury Park, 60 N. J. 136, 143, 87 N. W. 35, 89 Am. St. L. 427, 39 AtL 693; In re De Vau- Eep. 743. cene, 31 How. Pr. 337; Teager v. 99 Mobile Transportation Co. v. Weaver, 64 Pa. St. 437; State v. Mobile, 138 Ala. 335, 347, 30 So. 645, Becker, 3 S. D. 39, 51 N. W. 1018; 86 Am. St. Rep. 143. Garvin v. State, 13 Lea, 163; State iMoUie Gibson Consol. Min. & v. Sohlitz Brewing Co., 104 Tenn. Mil. Co. v. Sharp, 33 Colo. 359, 47 715, 59 S. W. 1033, 78 Am. St. Rep. Pac. 266; Johnson V. People, 83 111. 941; Hewlett v. Cheetham, 17 431; Ash v. Thorp, 65 Kan. 60, 68 Wash. 636, 50 Pao. 533. "We are Pac. 1067; Davis v. State. 7 Md. aware of no adjudicated case, and 158; Baltimore v. Keeley Inst., 81 it is believed that none can be Md. 106, 31 Atl. 437, 27 L. R. A. 646; found, that holds an act of the leg- Luther V. Saylor, 8 Mo. App. 424; islature obnoxious to this section State V. Anaconda Copper Min. Co., of the constitution simply on the 23 Mont. 498, 59 Pac. 854; Coutieri ground that the provisions of the w. New Brunswick, 44 N. J. L. 58; act do not embrace or cover the 212 TITLE OF ACTS. and pool-selling" prohibited book-making and pool-selling on certain events to take place outside of the state and on political nominations and elections wherever held. The act was he d valid and, on the point in question, the court says: "But the act before the court is prohibitory in its entire scope and purpose. It does not prohibit all book-making and pool-selling on the events named, but as far as it at- tempts to deal with the subject it prohibits them. The act is not, it is true, as broad as its title, but it is germane to and included in it. Logically, some prohibition is included in all prohibition. Logically, the title does contain the sub- ject of the act. The title does not give notice how the prohibition is to be effected, or to what extent, whether partially or wholly, whether by making the act prohibited a felony, or a misdemeanor; but it does give the informa- tion that the act is for the; prohibition of book-making and pool-selling."^ Also that "the title of an act may contain a generic term, and the body of the enactment be specific,, and the act be upheld, provided the enactment is germane to and included in the subject of the title." § 125. Misleading titles. — The case of Anderson v. Hill' involves an act with a misleading title. The title of the act is " to provide for the straightening or otherwise deep- ening the channel of the Dowagiac river in Yan Buren county." There were three sections in the act. They au- thorized either or both of the two named townships in Yan Buren county to vote money to be raised by tax, and the expenditure of it " for such river improvements." It was held unconstitutional in part on the ground that " the ob- full scope of appropriate legislation save the act from being unoonsti- admissible under its title." Pow tutional." Boyer v. Grand Rapids ers V. MoKenzie, 90 Tenn. 167, 178, Fire Ins. Co., 124 Mioh. 455, 83 N. 16 S. W. 559. And the supreme W. 124, 83 Am. St. Rep. 338. court of Michigan says that "we 2 state v. Burgdoerfer, 107 Mc do not understand the body of the 1, 27, 28, 17 S. W. 646. act must contain all the provisions ' 54 Mioh. 477. it might contain under the title to TITLE OF ACTS. 213 jeot " was not sufficiently stated in the title. The court say: "The state having the right to engage in and carry on works of internal improvement by the expenditure of grants to the state of lands, the obvious inference from the language of the title would be that the state proposed to pro- vide for the straightening or deepening of the channel of the Dowagiao river by doing what they constitutionally could do, namely, by appropriating land for that purpose. This is the method she has provided for making her internal improvements since 1850. In view of the constitutional restriction, and the long course of practice pursued by the state in making internal improvements, would any one be justified in assuming that the language in the title of this act was intended to embrace the object of permitting the legal voters of the township of Decatur to vote a tax upon the taxable property of the township to aid the state in carrying on the work of straightening and deepening the channel of the Dowagiac river? Tet such was the real as well as the principal object of the act. Without this legis- lation the state possessed full power, acting under its state board of control of swamp lands, to make the improve- ment named in the title of the act. The state has never acted and has no occasion to act under the provisions of act No. 323 [the act in question]. The circuit court, however, finds as a fact that the Dowagiac state ditch mentioned in the contract [for work on the ditch entered into with the state] was the same improvement as that contemplated by the special act JSTo. 323. If this be true, then clearly the object of the act was not expressed in the title and could not be otherwise than in some manner indicating that the object of the law was to authorize or enable the townships of Decatur and Hamilton to aid the state in straightening or deepening the channel of the Dowagiao river in the county of Yan Buren. As well might an act to authorize the construction of a railroad from one point to another in- clude provisions for municipalities along its route to vote 214: TITLE or ACTS. aid in its construction, without violating the constitution."* When the title is misleading and deceptive the act is void.' § 126 (91). The title should accompany a hill in its passage through the legislature. — It is during the pas- sage of a bill that its title is intended by the constitution to impart information to the public and to members of the legislature of the general subject of legislation. To effect- uate that intent the title should accompany the bill in all its stages through the process of enactment. As stated by Simonton, P. J.: "If a bill can be passed with a title which does not denote its subject, and after its passage the title can be amended so as for the first time to express its pur- pose, the constitutional provision is of little value." * Only < See Brooks v. Hydorn, 76 Mioh. 273, 42 N. W. 1122; State v. Com'rs, 41 Kan. 630, 21 Pac. 601. 5 State V. Sholl, 58 Kan. 507, 49 Pao. 668; Brooks v. Hydorn, 76 Mich. 273, 43 N. W. 1123; New- York & Greenwood Lake Ry. Co. v. Montclair, 47 N. J. Eq. 591, 21 AtL 493; Sneath v. Mayer, 64 N. J. L. 94, 44 Atl. 983 ; In re Carbondale, etc. Road Co., 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 460; Little Equemunk, etc. Turnpike Co., 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 633; Blader v. Water Com'rs, 133 Mioh. 366, 81 N. W. 271. 6 Commonwealth v. Martin, 107 Pa. St. 185. In Attorney-General V. Rice, 64 Mich. 385, 31 N. W. 203, it appeared that to an act to organ- ize the township of Ironwood, in the county of Ontonagon, it was objected that it had been substi- tuted after the time for introduc- ing nt'w bills had expired for a skeleton bill entitled "An act to or- ganize the township of Au Train; " that therefore the title of the bill as introduced did not express the object of the act as passed. The court say: " We cannot extend the provisions of the constitution be- yond its express terms in this re- spect. If the object of the act as passed is fully expressed in its title, the form or status of such title at its introduction, or during any of the stages of legislation before it becomes a law, is immaterial. To hold otherwise would, in many oases, prevent any alteration or amendment of a bill after its intro- duction, as, in legislative practice, it frequently becomes necessary to amend the title as introduced in order to conform to changes in the bill. The title to a bill is usually adopted after it has passed the house, and it is not an essential part of a bill, although it is of a law. Larrison v. Peoria, etc. R R. Co., 77 IlL 17." The facts stated in the contention were not accepted by the court, and it was held that the journals not showing the facts, parol evidence was not admissible. People V. MoElroy, 73 Mich. 446, 40 N. W. 750; Brooks v. Hydorn, 76 Mich. 378, 43 N. W. 1123. TITLE OF ACTS. 215 such portions of a bill as were included in the subject as ex- pressed in the title when it passed the two houses' and when approved by the governor * will acquire the force of law. A mere clerical mistake or a mere clerical change, not altering the sense of the title, will be disregarded.' The above remains as in the first edition. But we believe that there is nothing in the constitutional provision as to title to prevent the legislature from amending or changing both the bill and its title in any manner they see fit, between its introduction and its passage. It is the act, or Iww, or bill passed, that must embrace but one subject, which subject must be expressed in the title." " Whether the title of the bill as passed is germane to the title of the bill as introduced is not the question. If the subject dealt with by the bill as passed is expressed in or germane to the subject expressed in the title adopted with the hill as part thereof, it complies with the constitutional requirement whether it be like or unlike the title by which the bill was introduced.^'' '^ Of course the two houses mus't concur in substantially the same title, and the bill approved must have substantially the same title as that passed.^^ § 127 (92). Title and act liberally construed to sustain legislation.^' — In cases not clearly within the mischief in- tended to be remedied by requiring the subject or object of an act to be single and expressed in the title, legislation will not be adjudged void on any nice or hypercritical interpreta- tion." Sound policy and legislative convenience dictate a 7 Binz V. Weber, 81 111. 388. " State v. Hooker, 36 Fla. 358, 18 8 Stein V. Leeper, 78 Ala. 517. So. 767. spiummer v. People, 74 111. 361; i2Weis v. Ashley, 59 Neb. 494, 81 People V. Supervisors, 16 Mich. 354. N. W. 318, 80 Am. St. Eep. 704; 1" Attorney- Gen era! v. Rice, 64 Webster v. Hastings, 59 Neb. 563, Mich. 885, 31 N. W. 203; State v. 81 N. W. 510; State v. Green, 30 Doherty, 3 Idaho, 384, 39 Pac. 855; Fla. 154, 18 So. 334; and see ante, Price V. Moundsville, 43 W. Va. 528, § 60. 37 S. E. 218, 64 Am. St. Rep. 878; "See ante, % 121. Cutting V. Kansas City Stock Yards i* Gillitt v. McCarthy, 34 Minn. Co., 83 Fed. 839; Common Council 318, 35 N. W. 687; St. Louis v. V. Schmid, 138 Mich. 879, 87 N. W. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468; Supervisors 383, 93 Am. St. Rep. 468. v. Heenan, 3 Minn. 330; People v. 216 TITLE OF ACTS. liberal construction of the title and subject-matter of stat- utes to maintain their validity ; infraction of this constitu- tional clause must be plain and obvious to be recognized as fatal. The supreme court of Minnesota says: "Every rea- sonable presumption should be in favor of the title, which should be more liberally construed than the body of the law, giving to the general words in such title paramount weight. It is not essential that the best or even an accurate title be employed, if it be suggestive in any sense of the legislative purpose. The remedy to be secured and mischief avoided is the best test of a sufficient title, which is to prevent it from being made a cloak or artifice to distract attention from the substance of the act itself. The title, if objected to, should be aided if possible by resort to the body of the act, to show that it was not intended hj such title to mislead the legis- lature or the people, nor distract their attention from its distinctive measures." '' Similar expressions of opinion will be found in many cases." If the words in a title, taken in any sense or meaning which they will bear, are sufficient to cover the provisions of the act, the act will be sustained, though the meaning so given the words may not be the Parks, 58 Cal. 635; Rath bone v. not wholly inappropriate or foreign Hopper, 57 Kan. 240, 45 Pac. 610, 34 to the subject of the statute, we L. R A. 674; Stewart v. Thomas, would but quibble upon a point of 64 Kan. 511, 68 Pac. 70; State v. mere phraseology to defeat the Asbury Park, 58 N. J. L. 604, 33 legislative will because, in the va- Atl. 850. riance of opinion, the best words 15 State V. Board of Control, 85 were not adopted to indicate and Minn. 165, 88 N. W. 533. In this case point attention to its purpose." the titleof the act indicated that its p. 180. purpose was "to provide for the i^Ex parte Pferrmann, 134 Cal. management and control of the 148, 66 Pac. 205; Maule Coal Co. v. charitable, reformatory and penal Parthenheimer, 155 Ind. 100, 55 N. institutions of the state." The E. 751; Afifholder v. State, 51 Neb. court held that this was sufHcient 91, 70 N. W. 544; State v. Becker, to cover provisions as to normal 3 S. D. 29, 51 N. W. 1018; Julien v. schools, saying that "if we nullify Model B. L. & L Ass'n, 116 Wis. 79, a law because a definition used in 92 N. W. 561. its title is possibly faulty, though TITLE OF ACTS. 21Y most obvious or common." The same rules of construction apply to titles or to other parts of a statute, but it is to be remembered that these rules of construction are servants and not masters, and should not be applied to defeat the legislative intenf "An act lo abolish survivorship in joint tenancy" was held broad enough to include estates in en- tirety." 1' The word " trade," in the title of an anti-trust act, may include insurance.^" "An act to provide cheaper text-books and for district ownership of the same" was held to include all school supplies.^^ § 128. Same — Illustrations. — An act in relation to grading Eighth avenue in a city was held a subject broad enough for provisions to make the grade of intersecting streets conform to the altered grade of that avenue.^ An act, among other things, for "laying out" certain portions of a city, and to provide means therefor, may contain provisions for opening streets. In so ruling the court say : " The words ' laying out ' must be interpreted in a broad and liberal sense, . . . and mkj be regarded as cover- ing the opening, for without such opening the laying out 1' Id. ; Meul V. People, 198 111. 258, children attending school. . . . €4 N. E. 1106; In re Pinokney, 47 We do not think the term 'text- Kan. 89, 27 Pac. 179; Stewart v. books ' should be given a technical Thomas, 64 Kan. 511, 68 Pac. 70; meaning, but that it is compre- State V. Northampton Tp., 52 N. J. hensive enough to and does in- L. 496, 19 Atl. 975. elude globes, maps, charts, pens. 18 Winters v. Duluth, 82 Minn, ink, paper, etc., and all other ap- 127, 84 N. W. 788. paratus and appliances which are " Stewart v, Thomas, 64 Kan. proper to be used in the schools in 511, 68 Pac. 70; overruling Howard instructing the youth; and we con- V. Schneider, 10 Kan. App. 137, 63 elude, therefore, that the act under Pac. 435. consideration is not broader than 2" In re Pinckney, 47 Kan. 89, 27 its title, and that the term ' school Pac. 179. supplies,' found in the tenth sec- 21 Aff holder v. State, 51 Neb. 91, tion of the act, is not foreign to 70 N. W, 544. The court says: the term 'text-books' found in the " The general object of the act title of the act, but is germane to, tinder consideration was to require and comprehended and included school districts, at public expense, within, the term 'text-books.' "p. 93. to furnish text-books for the use of 22 in re Blodgett, 87 Hun, 13. 218 TITLE OF ACTS. would be of no avail." "' An act " to indemnify the owners- of sheep in case of damage committed by dogs," properly contained a provision imposing a license fee upon the own- ers and keepers of dogs ; ^* and an act " to regulate the fore- closure of real estate," a provision that the right of redemp- tion might be waived, -^ as well as provisions to otherwise regulate rights of redemption from sales under executions, judgments, orders or decrees of courts, and under mort- gages by advertisement;* an act "for the registration of all adult persons in each county," a provision that whenever it should be necessary to ascertain the number of adult per- sons with a view to any action by county commissioners or other county oflBcers, the list on file should be taken as con- clusive on that subject.^' An act " to repeal all existing laws, rules and provisions of law restricting or control- ling the right of a party to agree with an attorney, solicitor or counselor for his compensation, and to more accurately fix and determine the costs to be allowed to the prevailing parties in suits at law in the circuit court," contained pro- visions for the taxation of costs in suits at law, including attorneys' fees, and also permitting parties to suits to make such private arrangements with their attorneys for carrying on suits as they might agree' upon. The court held that the object of the act was to settle and declare the law of compensation for skill and services in suits at law in the circuit court, and was not multifarious.^^ Acts entitled to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquor will justify provis- 23 In re Dept. Pub. Parks, 86 N. Y. clearly beyond the scope of the 437. title. 24 Cole V. Hall, 103 111, 30. " 2i> GiUitt v. McCarthy, 34 Minn. 25 Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 49. 318, 25 N. W. 637. In Tuttle V. Strout, 7 id. 465, 82 Am. 27 Eureka v. Davis, 21 Kan. 580. Dec. 108, under an act "for a home- 28];nkster v. Carver, 16 Mich. 484. stead exemption," exemptions of In Howland Coal & Iron Works personal property having no spe- v. Brown, 13 Bush, 681, it was held oial connection with land occupied that an act professing by its title as a homestead were sustained, to provide for establishing a crim' Such provisions would appear inal court is not so restricted by TITLE OF ACTS. 219" ions against giving it away to consumers.® An act " to- regulate the sale of opium and suppress opium dens " was held sufBoient to cover provisions forbidding a sale or gift of opium to any one but a druggist or practicing physician,, except on the prescription of a practicing physician.'" Ex- penses may be provided for under a title relating to "debts." '' An act with a general title for relief of a named railroad company was held properly to have authorized the exten- sion of its tracks through certain streets and avenues of a city, and to consolidate with any other company and thus^ to form a new one; that an act for relief of a railroad com- pany must be one to remove some restriction upon its pow- ers, or to give it greater powers.'^ Though a title be broad it will be restrained by construction to lawful purposes.'' An^ act " to authorize the town of P. to raise money to construct a dock " was held broad enough for provisions to maintain it afterwards and to collect wharfage.'* The court said : " One purpose of the constitutional provision referred to was to- prevent secret or fraudulent legislation, or people from being misled by the title. . . . And that reasonable notice of the object of the bill should be given by the title; " and in- referring to the foregoing title, in connection with the sub- ject-matter, used this la:nguage : " It is true that strictly the- maintenance of this work, or the power to keep and main- tain the same in good repair at the expense of the town, is- not identically the same as ' constructing the dock,' spoken' of in the title. No one, however, could imagine that the dock was to be abandoned by the town the moment its- this title that the body of the act ^o Ex parte Yung Jon, 28 Fed., may not confer also some other Eep. 308. than criminal jurisdiction. The ^i state v. State Auditor, 33 La- opinion construes the word crim- Ann. 89. inal as merely part of the name of 32 jn rg Prospect Park, etc. R. R.. the court, and being so used does Co., 67 N. Y. 371. not preclude conferring in part ^3 AUor. v. Board, etc., 43 Mich. 7G, civil jurisdiction. 4 N. W. 492. 29 Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 184, 34 Town of Pelham v. Woolsey, !(>■ 74 Am. Dec, 523; Williams v. State, Fed. 418. 48 Ind. 30ti. "220 TITLE OF ACTS. "oriarinal construction was completed. Subsequent repair is neii't.sary in the nature of the case; and authority to con- struct the dock would therefore, in a general sense, seem to imply and include the power to keep it constructed by means of necessary repairs." The provision for charging ■dockage was connected with the construction as a means of raising the money to pay the cost. A gas company was held to be a manufacturing company within the title of an acf In " an act to define the county line of Estill county," it was held that " to define " might be taken in the sense of " to fix," " to establish," and that a provision detaching territory, not in dispute, from Estill county and adding it to another was within the title.^^ " Damages " may mean and include "injuries."*' An act indicated by its title that it was to make provision for the unlawful levy and collec- tion of public revenue. The act in fact provided a remedy for such unlawful levy and collection. It was held to be expressed by the title, the word " for " being taken in the sense of " in relation to," " with respect to." '^ Many other illustrations will be found in the later sections of this <3hapter. § 129 (93). The subject or object stated generally in the title includes incidents and subsidiary details. — It appears already from what has been said in the preceding sections and the cases which have been cited, that the con- stitutional provision in question permits an announcement ■of the subject in general terras in the title of an act; that to facilitate legislation which is intended to be germane to that subject, a very liberal construction is adopted, both of the constitutional requirement and of legislation affected by it, to sustain all laws not within the mischief intended to be remedied. It only remains to illustrate some general prin- ciples which the course of decision has established for de- 3' Gas & Water Co. v. Downing- 3' Colorado Milling & El. Co. v. town, 193 Pa St. 255, U Atl. 282. Mitchell, 26 Colo. 284, 58 Pao. 28. 36 Walters v. Eichardson, 93 Ky. ^s Western Ranches v. Custer 374, 20 S. W. 279. County, 28 Mont. 27& TITLE OF ACTS. 221 tertnining the singleness of legislative subjects; whether the provisions under them are congruous and pertinent; and the consequences of a total or partial departure from the constitutional injunction. "Where the title of a legislative act expresses a general subject or purpose vfhich is single, all matters which are naturally and reasonably connected with it, and all meas- ures which will or may facilitate the accomplishment of the purpose so stated, are properly included in the act, and are germane to its title.'' The degree of relationship of each 33 Montgomery M. B. & L. Ass'n V. Robinson^ 69 Ala. 413; Alabama Great So. R. R. Co. v. Reed, 134 Ala. 253, 37 So. 19, 83 Am. St. Rep. 166; Golden Canal Co. v. Bright, 8 Colo. 144; People v. Goddard, 8 Colo. 433; People V. Wright, 30 Colo. 439, 71 Pac. 865; Allen v. Teson, 50 Ga. 374; Black V. Cohen, 52 Ga. 621; Gold- smith V. Georgia R. E. Co., 62 Ga. 485; Halleman v. Halleman, 65 Ga. 476; Seay v. Bank of Rome, 66 Ga. 609; Smith v. Bohler, 73 Ga. 546; Brown v. State, 73 Ga. 38; People V. Brislin, 80 111. 423; Abington v. Cabeen, 106 111. SOO; MoChesney v. Chicago, 159 111. 223, 42 N. E. 894; Central Plank Road Co. v. Hanna- man, 23 Ind. 484; McCaslin v. State, 44 Ind 151; Shipley v. Terre Haute, 74 Ind. 297; Ross v. Davis, 97 Ind. 79; Wishmier v. State, 97 Ind. 160; Crawfordsville, etc. T. Co. v. Fletcher, 104 Ind. 97, 3 N. E. 343; State V. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439, 44 N. E. 469; Maule Coal Co. v. Par- thenheimer, 155 Ind. 100, 55 N. E. 751; State v. Squiers, 26 Iowa, 345; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Highsmith, 44 Iowa, 330; Christie v. Life Indem- nity & Invest. Co., 83 Iowa, 360, 48 N. W. 94; Bowman v. Cochrill, 6 Kan. 311; Wilson v. Herinfc, 64 Kan. 607, 68 Paa 72; Louisville, etc. R, R. Co. V. Ballard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 165; Phillips V. Covington, etc. Bridge Co., 3 Met. (Ky.) 219; Smith v. Com- monwealth, 8 Bush. 108; Howland Coal & Iron Works v. Brown. 13 Bush, 681; McArthur v. Nelson, 81 Ky. 67; Adams v. Webster, 26 La.- Ann. 142; Mayor, etc. v. Reitz, 50 Md. 575; Stevens v. State, 89 Md.. 669, 43 Atl. 939; Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 49; Gillitt v. McCarthy, 34 Minn. 318, 35 N. W. 637; Put- nam V. St. Paul, 75 Minn. 514, 78 N. W. 90; St. Louis v. Tiefel, 42 Mo. 578; Ewing v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Mo. 64; Klein v. Kinkead, 16 Nev. 194; State v. Atherton, 19 Nev. 383, 10 Pac. 901 ; Union v. Rader, 39 N. J. L. 509; Campbell v. Board, 45 N. J. L. 341; Daubman v. Smith, 47 N. J. L. 300; Slocum V. Neptune, 68 N. J. L. 595,. 53 Atl. 301; Kirkpatriok v. New Brunswick, 40 N. J. Eq. 46; People v. Commissioners, 47 N. Y. 501; In re Mayer, 50 N. Y. 504; In re De- partment of Public Works, 86 N. Y. 437; Astor v. Arcade Ry. Co.,^ 113 N. Y. 93, 20 N. E. 594, 3 L. R. A. 789; People v. Sutphin, 166 N. Y. 163, 59 N. B. 770; Mosier v. Hilton, 15- 222 TITLE OF ACTS. provision is not material, if it legitimately tends to the end disclosed in the title.'" Whatever the scope of the subject, it comprehends not only its constituent parts, but its general incidents, and those which pertain to either of its parts, and everything contributory to the purpose the title expresses or necessarily implies." This principle is recognized in sev- eral of the constitutions, which confine an act to a single subject, " and the matters properly connected therewith." " The title to a bill may be general, and it is not essential that it specify every clause in the proposed statute. It is sufficient if they are all referable and cognate to the subject expressed. When the subject is expressed in general terms, everything which is necessary ^to make a complete enact- ment in regard to it, or which results as a complement of the thought contained in the general expression, is embraced in and authorized by it. If the subject-matter is within the scope of the title, the constitutional requirement is met."*^ Barb. 657; Fishkill v. Fishkill, 23 Barb. 634; In re De Vaucene, 31 How. Pr. 337; State v. N. D. Chil- dren's Home Soc, 10 N. D. 493, 88 N. W. 273; State v. Shaw, S2 Ore. 287, 29 Pao. 1028; State v. Steele, 39 Ore. 419, 65 Pac. 515; Seabolt v. Commissioners, 187 Pa. St. 318, 41 Atl. 23; Commonwealth v. Charity Hospital, 198 Pa. St. 270, 47 Atl. 980; State v. Morgan, 3 S. D. 33, 48 N. W. 314; State v. McConnell, 3 Lea, 332; State v. Whitworth, 8 Lea, 594; Cole Mfg. Co. v. Falls, 90 Tenn. 466, 16 S. W. 1045; State v. Yard- ley, 95 Tenn. 546, 32 S. W. 481, 34 L. R. A. 656; English v. State, 7 Tex. App. 171; Ingles v. Strauss, 91 Va. 209, 21 S. E. 490; Maling v. Crummey, 5 Wash. 223, 31 Pao. 600; State V. Sharpless, 31 Wash. 191, 71 Pa& 137; Shields v. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 83; Yellow River Imp. Co. v. Arnold, 46 Wis. 314; Diana Shoot- ing Club V. Lamereux, 114 Wis. 44, 89 N. W. 880, 90 Am. St. Rep. 833; Unity V. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447, 26 L. Ed. 405; Ackley School Dist. v. Hall, 113 U. S. 13o", 5 S. C. Rep. 871. 28 L. Ed. 954; Mahomet v. Quack- enbush, 117 U. S. 508, 6 S. C. Rep. 858, 29 L. Ed. 983; Farmers' L. & T. Co. V. Oregon, etc. R. R. Co., 24 Fed. 407; Skinner v. Garnett Gold Min. Co., 96 Fed. 735. « In re Mayer, 50 N. Y. 504. « In re Upson, 89 N. Y. 67. estate V. Tibbet, 52 Neb. 228, 71 N. W. 990, 66 Am. St. Rep. 493; also Carson v. State, 69 Ala. 335; State V. Tucker, 46 Ind. 355; State V. Baum, 33 La. Ann. 981; MoGrath V. State, 46 Md. 633; St. Louis v. Green, 7 Mo. App. 468; Floyd v. Perrin, 30 S. C. 1; Fahey v. State, 27 Tex. App. 146. The Illinois su- preme court says: " Courts always give a liberal and not a hyperoriti- TITLE OF ACTS. 223 An act of Arkansas was entitled "An act to provide for the erection of a new state capitol." The act located the capitol on the grounds then occupied by the state peniten- tiary and authorized the penitentiary commissioners to pro- cure a new site and erect a new penitentiary thereon. It was held that the act embraced but one subject, which was the building of a new capitol on the grounds then occupied by the penitentiary, and that the provisions referred to were incidental to the main purpose.*' § 130 (97). The subject or object stated generally in the title includes the abolition of things inconsistent. — It is germane to the subject of an act to repeal previous acts relating to it, or inconsistent with it." guch repeal is ancillary to the purpose of the new legislation. But the repeal of an act not inconsistent with the new enactment and not related to its subject-matter is not within the title and such repeal is void.*' " The constitutional requirement cal determination to this restric- tion. All matters are properly in- cluded in the act which are ger- mane to the title. The constitution is obeyed, if all the pi-ovisions re- late to the one subject indicated in the title, and are parts of it, or incident to it, or reasonably con- nected with it, or in some reason- able sense auxiliary to the object in view. ' It is not required that the subject of the bill shall be specifically and exactly expressed in the title, or that the title should be an index of the details of the act. When there is doubt as to whether the subject is clearly ex- - pressed in the title, the doubtshould be resolved in favor of the validity ■of the act." Eitchie v. People, 155 111. 98, 120, 40 N. E 454, 462, 46 Am. St. Eep. 315, 39 L. R. A. 79. « State V. Sloan, 66 Ark. 575, 53 S. W. 47, 74 Am. St, Eep. 106. <* Yellow River Imp. Ca v. Ar- nold, 46 Wis. 215; State v. County Com'rs, 13 Am. & Eng. Cor. Cas. 203; Gabbert v. Jefferson ville R. R. Ca, 11 Ind. 365, 71 Am. Dec. 358; Burke v. Monroe County, 77 111. 610; Martin v. Hewitt, 44 Ala. 418; Tol- ford V. Church, 66 Mich. 431, 33 N. W. 913; State v. Aulman, 76 Iowa, 634, 41 N. W. 379; Muldoon v. Levi, 35 Neb. 457, 41 N. W. 280; Ridge Avenue Ry. Co. v. Philadel- phia, 124 Pa. St. 319, 16 Atl. 741; Trackman v. People, 33 Colo. 83, 43 Pac. 662; People v. Backus, 11 App. Div. 147, 43 N. Y. S. 899; Common- wealth V. Moir, 199 Pa. St. 534, 49 Atl. 351, 85 Am. St. Rep. 801. <5 Los Angeles v. Hance, 133 Cal. 77, 54 Pac. 387; State v. Pierce, 51 Kan. 341, 83 Pac. 924; Bryan v. Board of Education, 90 Ky. 333, 13 S. W. 376; Hewlett v. Cheetham, 17 Wash. 636, 50 Pac. 533; Kennedy 224 TITLE OF AOTS. that every act shall embrace but one subject, which must be expressed in the title, is not violated by an omission to mention in the title of an act relating to a single subject, the repeal of prior enactments inconsistent with the new enactment, if the repealing clause is also confined to repeal- ing statutes relating to that one subject ; but when the re- pealing clause departs from the subject embraced in the title of the act, and purports to repeal a statute relating to a subject not indicated by such title, it comes within the prohibition of the constitution and must be treated as void and of no effect as to the subject not mentioned in the title." ^« "When one legislative scheme or system is intended to supersede another, the subject of the act which makes the change naturally includes the removal of the existing legis- lative institution intended to be abolished or reorganized, in whole or in part, and the establishment of the new in its place/' One act may divide the state into judicial circuits for judicial purposes, provide for election of judges, fix the time for holding courts; also abolish an existing court, and transfer its unfinished business to the new court.*' So one act properly includes all provisions for effecting the change of a steam railroad running in a tunnel in the street of a city to a surface railway, including the subject of compen- sation to the owner of the railroad and raising the means to pay it.*^ It may happen, when partial substitutions occur, that a residuum of the previous state of things will re- main, in a disrupted condition, requiring some fresh legisla- tion not germane to the disrupting act. In such case the whole situation will not be rearranged by one act. The V. Le Moyne, 188 111. 255, 58 N. R 540; Phillips v. Mayor, etc., 1 Hilt. 903. 483; Supervisors v. Heenan, 2 « Northern Pao. Exp. Co. v. Met- Minn. (281), 333. schan, 90 Fed. 80, 83, 32 C. C. A. 530. « state v. Tucker, 46 Ind. 355; " Luehrman . Taxing Dist, 3 State v. Steele, 39 Ore. 419, 65 Pac. Lea, 435; Smith v. Commonwealth, 515. 8 Bush, 108; State v. McConnell, 3 *« People v. Lawrence, 41 N. Y. Lea, 332; Mullen v. State, 34 Ind, 137. TITLE OF ACTS. 22a unity of the original condition being destroyed, the validity of the new legislation will depend on its own subject being single.^" § 131. Where the title expresses a general subject, and also details, particulars or sub-titles. — It is common for the title of an act to express a general subject, and to accompany it with the specification of details or particulars. Titles are often thus rendered very lengthy and complicated and sometimes appear to express two or more subjects. But if the particulars are or may be incidental or germane to the general title or main purpose, the title is single, and an act embracing the same general subject and particulars is valid.'' The question cannot be determined by regard- ing the title alone, but the body of the act must be looked to, and if all the provisions of the act are fairly referable to one general subject and that subject is expressed in the title, the act is valid.'^ In such cases the legislature is not 60 Cutlip V. Sheriff, 3 W. Va. 588. 51 Mitchell V. State, 134 Ala. 393, 83 So. 687; Farmers' Independent Ditch Co. V. Agricultural Ditch Co., 23 Colo. 513, 45 Pao. 444, 55 Am. St. Rep. 149; Frost v. Pfeiffer, 26 Colo. 338, 58 Pao. 147; People v. Nelson, 138 111. 565, 37 N. E. 317; People v. Brooks, 101 Mich. 98, 59 N. W. 444; Soukup V. Van Dyke, 109 Mich. 679, 67 N. W. 911; In re>Ryan, 30 Mont. 64, 50 Pac. 139; Van Horn v. State, 46 Neb. 63, 64 N. W. 365; Cooper- rider V. State, 46 Neb. 84, 64 N. W.' 373; Railroad Co. v. Crider, 91 Tenn. 489, 19 S. W. 618; In re Fourth Judicial Dist, 4 Wyo. 133, 33 Pac. 850; Baker v. Kaiser, 136 Fed. 817 (C. C. A.). In Hronek v. People, 134 111. 139, 144, 34 N. E, 861, 8 L. R. A. 837, it is said: "It is not necessary that the title shall ex- press all of the minor divisions of the general subject to which the 15 act relates, and it is sufficient if it express the general subject of the act, and all the minor subdivisions germane to the general subject- will be held to be included in it> But if the title expresses such mi- nor subdivisions which, without such expression, would be held to be included within the general subject, such expression will not render the title obnoxious to the constitutional provision." 62 Van Horn v. State, 46 Neb. 62, 64 N. W. 365; Cooperrider v. State, 46 Neb. 84, 64 N. W. 372. In the first case it is said: " The constitu- tional inhibition is against the bill's containing more than one subject. The title must clearly express the subject; but, provided the bill itself contains but one sub- ject, and this subject is clearly ex- pressed in the title, it matters not although the title, read independ- 226 TITLE OF ACTS. limited to the particulars or details specified, but may enact any provision germane to the general title, unless the title is so worded as to show a clear intent to confine the act to the particulars mentioned.'" The supremB court of Penn- sylvania says: "When a general title, sufiicient to cover all the provisions of an act, is followed by specifications of the particular branches of the subject with which it pro- poses to deal, the scope of the act is not limited nor the validity of the title impaired except as to such portions of the general subject as legislators and others would naturally and reasonably be led by the qualifying words to suppose would not be affected by the act. This is the rule estab- lished by all our cases. It is an application of the maxim expressio unius exolusio alterius. The express enumeration of the specific subjects must be affirmatively misleading as to the intent to include others, or the title will not be made invalid by it." '* § 133. Eifect of title referring to act or other sources of information. — The command of the constitution is that the subject shall be expressed in the title. The supreme court of Texas says: "The constitution declares that the ' subject shall be expressed in the title,' and it cannot be said that this has been done where the title does no more than to furnish a reference to some other writing, document or law from which by search the true purpose of the title may be ascertained. . . . No one would contend that a title as follows, ' An act in reference to the subject embraced in the bill to which this is the title,' would be suflBcient, although such a title attached to a bill would give most easy reference to sources of information from which the subject of the con- templated law might be ascertained. This is so because the ently of the bill, may seem double, pressed therein. If so, the consti- We therefore look to the bill itself tutional provision we have been to ascertain whether it contains discussing is not violated." p. 73. more than one subject, and having 53 state v. Atherton, 19 Nev. 332, ascertained that it contains but 10 Pao. 901. one, then we look to the title to ** In re Sugar Notch Borough, see if that subject is clearly ex- 193 Pa, St. 349, 43 Atl. 985. TITLE OF ACTS. 227 constitution requires the subject of an act to be given in the title to it, and a mere reference to something else for the in- formation thus required to be given is not sufficient."^' An act to authorize a city " to pledge not exceeding one-fourth of its general revenue for the payment and security of judg- ments and claims herein sjpecified" was held valid as to its title.58 § 133. Errors in title, and whether title can be corrected by act or otherwise. — Errors are more likely to occur in amendatory acts than in original acts, and this branch of the subject is treated in a subsequent section." Meaningless words and phrases may be rejected from a title,^^ and surplus- age may generally be disregarded.^' Errors which are mani- fest from an inspection of the title itself, or from the title taken in connection with facts of which the court will take judicial notice, may be corrected by the court, or the title read as if such corrections had been made. But the title cannot be changed or corrected by reference to the act alone, as that would destroy the efficacy of the constitutional provision.^" 55 Gunter v. Texas Land & Mortg. 514, 92 N. W. 853. The title of the Co., 83 Tex. 496, 17 S. W. 840. The act in question in these cases was true and actual subject or object to provide for the allowance of ad- must be expiessed in the title and ditional attorneys' fees against the not by way of reference to some- defendant in actions to enjoin thing else to show it. People v. drainage proceedings or the levy Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553; Tingue v. Port and collection of taxes and assess- Chester, 101 N. Y. 294, 303, 4 N. E. ments. The act provided for such 635; People v. Fleming, 7 Colo. 331, costs against the plaintiff. The 3 Pac. 70; Pennington v. Woolfolk, court held that it could not read 79 Ky. 13. the word "defendant" in the title 56 Austin V. McCall, 95 Tex. 565, as "plaintiff" and held the act .68 S. W. 791. void. The court, in the first case, 5' Bee post, § 138. says: "As has been seen, errors in 58 Allen v. Hopkins, 62 Kan. 175, titles are not necessarily always 61 Pac. 750. fatal. When they are obvious from 59 See ante, § 131 ; Thomas v. State, an inspection of the title, or when' 134 Ala. 48, 27 So. 315. an inadvertence is apparent from CDErickson v. Cass County, 11 facts which courts and the public N. D. 494, 92 N. W. 841; Turnquist are bound to know, and it is ap- V. Cass County Dr. Com'rs, 11 N. D. pareiit that the error could not have 228 TITLE OF ACTS. An act entitled " An act repealing sections 470 and 472, art. IX, of the political code, relating to the appointment of the state land agent and his annual salary," in fact amended both said sections so as to read as follows, etc. The act was held valid.'^ " But we cannot think," says the court, " the misuse of the word ' repeal ' in the title must result in over- throwing the whole law, inasmuch as the other words of the title to the bill very clearly point out the sections, chapter, title, code and subject to be affected by the provisions of a bill." § 134. The subject may be expressed by the description of its parts or subdivisions. — The subject of an act may be expressed generally in the title,^^ or spelled out from de- tails, and occasionally from details which are independent and unconnected except through some general subject as cousins german are related through a common ancestor.*^ misled either the legislature or the public, and the true intent is cer- tain, the error will be disregarded. But we cannot concede that words or language appearing in titles can be established as inadvertently used, and corrected as such, solely by reference to the contents of the act. Such a doctrine would utterly destroy the safeguards afforded by the requirement that the subject of legislation shall be expressed in the title, and thus make the act, instead of the title, controlling as to the subject of legislation. There are no facts of which we can take judicial notice, neither are there any reasons suggested by an inspec- tion of this title which disclose that the word 'defendants' was inserted in the title inadvertently. The title as it reads clearly expresses a sub- ject of legislation. The subject of legislation embodied in the act is an entirely different one, and is not expressed in the title. The error in the use of the word 'defend- ants,' if error it was, appeared in the bill as originally introduced, and was perpetuated through its passage and final approval. Under these circumstances we have no reason for saying, and cannot say, that no one within or without the legislature was misled by the error in the title.'' «i State V. Page, 20 Mont. 238, 50 Pac. 719. eMwfe, §121. *' Attorney-General v. Joy, 55- Mich. 94; State v. Young, 47 Ind. 150; Bitters v. Board, etc., 81 Ind. 125; State v. Board, etc., 26 Ind. 532: State V. Miller, 45 Mo. 495; State v. Bowers, 14 Ind. 195; Lauer v. State, 23 Ind. 461; In re Dept. Pub. Parks, 86 N. Y. 437; People v. Ins. Co., 19 Mich. 393; Garvin v. State, 13 Lea, 162; Neifing v. Town of Pontiao, 5& HI. 172; People v. Banks, 67 N. Y.. TITLE OF ACTS. 229 According to the authorities the general subject need not appear in the title, if it is clearly disclosed or readily in- ferred from the details expressed.^* Two examples of such titles follow: "An act to change and regulate the grand jury system by reducing the number of grand jurors, pro- viding that a grand jury shall be summoned only when ordered by the court, and providing for presentation by information and the procedure thereunder." The act fol- lowed the title and was held to embrace but one subject, " the accusation of persons accused of crime," and that that subject was sufflciently expressed in the title.*^ "An act regulating the weighing of coal, providing for the safety of employees, protecting persons and property injured, provid- ing for the proper ventilation of mines, prohibiting boys and females from working in mines, conflicting acts re- pealed, and providing penalties for violation." The real subject of this act was held to be coal mines and to be expressed by the title.^" 568; Eamognano v. Crook, 85 Ala. 226, 3 So. 845; Burnside v. Lincoln Co. Court, 86 Ky. 433, 6 S. W. 276; Indianapolis v. Huegele, 115 Ind. 581, 18 N. E. 172. •i^ Central Union Tel. Co. v. Feh- riug, 146 Ind. 189, 45 N. E. 64; Isen- hour V. State, 157 Ind. 517, 62 N. E. 40, 87 Am. St. Rep. 228; State v. Sanders, 42 Kan. 228, 21 Pac. 1073; State V. La Vaque, 47 Minn. 106, 49 N. W, 525; Ex parte Livingston, 20 Nev. 882, 21 Pac. 333; Rodenbaugh V. Phila. Traction Co., 190 Pa. St. 358, 43 Atl. 953; Bowden v. Phila. etc. E. R Co., 196 Pa. St. 563, 46 Atl. 843. 65 In re Boulter, 5 Wyo. 339, 40 Pac. 530. •JfiMatile Coal Co. v. Parthenhei- mer, 155 Ind. 100, 55 N. E. 751. The coui't says: "It may be asserted that the constitutional restriction is obeyed by the legislature in the enactment of a law, if its provis- ions relate to the one subject as indicated by the title, and in some reasonable sense may be considered as auxiliary to such subject. The title of the law in controversy is not a model, and, perhaps, is open to criticism. It at least may be said, however, that it substantially responds to the mandate of the con- stitution. The form and terms employed in framing the title pos- sibly operate to give expression, by parts, to the general subject to which the proposed legislation re- lates. When these parts, as ex- pressed in the title, are taken and considered collectively, they con- stitute such a title as serves fairly to point out or disclose the general subject-matter, coal mines, over which the legislature proposes to 230 TITLE or ACTS. § 135. Words of act restrained or qualified by title.— The words of an act will be restrained or qualified by the title. " By force of our constitutional provision, requiring the object of every law to be expressed in its title, the title limits the sphere within which the enacting clause can oper- ate." ^ " An act to make it unlawful for a person to fraud- ulently dispose of the property of another," made it penal for any person to sell, dispose of, or convert to his own use, the property of another without his consent. It was held that the general words of the act were qualified or limited by the title to a fraudulent disposition of another's prop- erty.^ § 136. Acts to prohibit, regulate, protect, etc., imply penalties and civil liabilities. — An act to regulate any specified business, or the use of property, or regulating hu- man conduct in any way, or to prohibit acts or things, or to protect persons or property or public or private rights, may include penal provisions,^' or provisions imposing a civil lia- legislate, and this renders it suffi- E. A. 821; State v. Gerhardt, 145 cient." Ind. 439, 44 N. E. 469; State t. 67 Allen V. Bernards Tp., 57 N. J. Stunkle, 41 Kan. 456, 31 Pac. 675; L. 303, 81 Atl. 219. Tosame effect: State v. Bush, 45 Kan. 138, 25 Pac. State V. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 99 614, 632; Helvenstine v. Yantis, 88 Ala. 231, 13 So. 362; Comer V. State, Ky. 695, 11 S. W. 811; Hartford 103 Ga. 69, 29 S. E, 501 ; Martin v. Fire Ins. Co. v. Raymond, 70 Mich. South Salem Land Co., 94 Va. 28, 485, 38 N. W. 474; People v. Miller, 26 S. E. 591. 88 Mich. 383, 50 N. W. 396; Burrows 68 Commonwealth v. Barney, 24 v. Delta Trans. Co., 106 Mich. 582, Ky. L. Rep. 2353, 74 S. W. 181. See 64 N. W. 501, 29 L. R. A. 468; State further on the subject, post, oh. IX. v. Power, 63 Neb. 496, 88 N. W. 69 In re Pratt, 19 Colo. 138, 34 769; State v. Corson, 67 N. J. L. Pac. 680; Alberson v. Mayor, 82 Ga. 178,50 Atl. 780; Weil v. State, 46 30, 8 S. E. 869; McCook v. State, 91 Ohio St. 450, 31 N. E. 643; State v. Ga. 740, 17 S. E. 1019; Maynard v. Koshland, 35 Ore. 178, 35 Pac. 32; Marshall, 91 Ga. 840, 18 S. E. 403; Commonwealth v. Depuy, 148 Pa. Plumb V. Christie, 103 Ga. 686, 30 St. 201,23 Atl. 896; Commonwealth S. E. 759; Sykes v. People, 127 III. v. Jones, 4 Pa. Supr. Ct. 363; Com- 117, 19 N. E. 705; People v. Blue monwealth v. Beatty, 15 Pa. Supr. Mountain Joe, 129 111. 370, 21 N. E. Ct. 5; State v. Morgan, 3 S. D. 32, 48 933; Cohn v. People, 149 III. 486,37 N. W. 314; Hathaway v. McDon- N. E. 60, 41 Am. St. Rep. 304, 23 L. aid, 27 Wash. 659, 67 Pac. 710, 91 TITLE OF ACTS. 231 bility or giving a civil remedy,™ without such penalties, liabilities or remedies being referred to in the title. The imposition of both civil and criminal liabilities in the same act does not create a duality of subjects." § 137 (101). The title and subject of amendatory and supplementary acts — General principles. — The constitu- tional requirement under discussion as applied to acts of this character when they contain matter which might appro- priately have been incorporated in the original act under its title is satisfied generally if the amendatory or supplemental act identifies the original act by its title, and declares the purpose to amend or supplement it.'^ Under such a title, Am. St. Rep. 889; Alberson v. Mayor, 82 Ga. 30, 8 S. E. 869. Com- pare State V. McDonald, 35 Wash. 123, 64 Pac. 912. 70 Barnhill v. Teague, 96 Ala. 307, 11 So. 444; Beebe v. Tolerton, 117 Iowa, 593, 91 N. W. 905; De Both v. Rich Hill Coal & Min. Co., 141 Mo. 497, 43 S. W. 1081; Peterson v. State, 104 Tenn. 137, 56 S. W. 834. 71 Commonwealth v. Moore, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct 162. 72 Street v. Hooten, 131 Ala. 492, 33 So. 580; Leake v. Colgan, 125 Cal. 413, 58 Pao. 69; Beach v. Von Detten, 139 Cal. 463, 73 Pac. 187; Davidson v. Von Detten, 139 Cal. 467, 73 Pac. 189; Gibson v. State, 16 Fla. 291; Saunders v. Provisional Municipality, 24 Fla. 326; Jones v. Columbus, 25 Ga. 610; Alberson v. Mayor, 82 Ga. 30, 8 S. E. 869; New- man V. State, 101 Ga. 534, 28 S. E, 1005; Jones v. Lake View, 151 111. 663, 88 N. E. 688; Morrison v. Peo- ple, 196 111. 454, 63 N, E. 989; Bran- don V. State, 16 Ind. 197; Bell v. Marsh, 137 Ind. 336, 36 N. E. 358; Lewis V. State, 148 Ind. 346, 47 N. E. 675; Udell v. Citizens' St. Ry. Co., 152 Ind. 507, 53 N. E. 799; Morford V. Unger, 8 Iowa, 83; Williams v. Keokuk, 44 Iowa, 88; Iowa Savings & L. Ass'n V. Selby, 111 Iowa, 403, 82 N. W. 968; Second German Am. B. Ass'n V. Newman, 50 Md. 63; Swartwout v. Railroad Co., 34 Mich. 389; Hoifman v. Parsons, 37 Minn. 336; Holden v. Supervisors, 77 Mich. 202, 43 N. W. 969; Detroit v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 112 Mich. 817, 70 N. W, 894; Fort St. Union Depot Co. v. Com'r of R. R., 118 Mich. 340, 76 N. W. 631; Attorney-General v. Bolger, 138 Mich. 355, 87 N. W. 366; State V. Madson, 43 Minn. 438, 45 N. W. 8)6; Willis v. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140, 50 N. W. 1110, 31 Am. St. Rep. 626; St. Louis v. Tiefel, 43 Mo. 578; Perry v. Gross, 35 Neb. 826, 4 N. W. 799; In re White, 33 Neb. 813, 51 N. W. 287; Kleokner v. Turk, 45 Neb. 176, 63 N. W. 469; State V. Bemis, 45 Neb. 724, 64 N. W. 348; State v. Cornell, 54 Neb. 72, 74 N. W. 432; State v. Newark, 34 N. J. L. 336; Rahway Savings Inst. V. Rahway, 53 N. J. L. 48, 20 Atl. 756; People v. Willsea, 60 N. Y. 507; Matter of New York & L. I. 232 TITLE OF ACTS. alterations by excjision, addition or substitution may be made, and any provisions may be enacted whicii might have Bridge Co., 148 N. Y. 540, 43 N. E. 1088; Bohmer v. Haffen, 161 N. Y. 390, 55 N. E. 1047; Wilcox v. Baker, 22 App. Div. 299, 47 N. Y. S. 900; Ex parte Howe, 26 Ore. 181, 37 Pao. 536; State Line, etc. R. R. Co.'s Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 429; Craig v. First Presb. Church, 88 Pa. St. 42; Millvale v. Evergreen Ry. Co., 131 Pa. St. 1, 18 Atl. 993, 7 L. R. A. 369; Philadelphia v. Ridge Ave. Ry. Co., 143 Pa. St. 484, 31 Atl. 982, 34 Am. St. Rep. 512; Mt. Joy v. Turnpike Co., 183 Pa. St. 581, 38 Atl. 411; Rodgers' Petition, 193 Pa. St. 97, 43 Atl. 475; Commonwealth v. Gilli- gan, 195 Pa. St. 504, 46 Atl. 124; Commonwealth v. Shiras, 195 Pa. St. 515, 46 Atl. 137; Commonwealth v. Howell, 195 Pa. St. 519, 46 AtL 1103; Commonwealth v. Brown, 91 Va. 763, 31 S. E. 357; Robey v. Shep- ard, 43 W. Va. 286, 26 S. E. 278; Mills v. Charleton, 29 Wis. 400, 9 Am. Rep. 578; Yellow River Imp. Co. V. Arnold, 46 Wis. 214, 224; Na- tional Bank v. Commissioners, 14 Fed. 239. See Hynian v. State, 87 Tenn. 109, 9 S. W. 372; Hyde Park v. Chicago, 124 111. 156, 16 N. E. 222. In State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257, it appears that outside of the gen- eral law for the assessment and collection of taxes an independent or cumulative act in pari materia was in force requiring notice of the expiration of redemption after a tax sale. A subsequent statute, en- titled generally as an act to amend the general law, contained a pro- vision expressly repealing this sep- arate statute, which was probably equivalent to providing that re- demption should expire absolutely by lapse of the redemption period without notice to the party who had.the right of redemption. This was matter germane to the orig- inal bill which was amended, and under the rule stated in the text the title was sufEoient. The court, however, held otherwise, and Dick- inson, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said: "An amendatory law is for the amendment not of what might have been enacted under the title of the original stat- ute, but of what was enacted; not of what the original law might have been, but of what it was. Hence the suflBoiency of the title of an act merely declared to be amendatory of a prior law, to jus- tify the legislation which may be enacted under it, depends not alone upon the fact that the title of the original statute was so compre- hensive that the legislation might have been properly enacted in such prior law, but it depends also upon the nature and extent of the prior enactment to amend which is the declared purpose or subject of the latter act. This seems self-evident; but to test the correctness of the rule invoked, let us apply it to sup- posable cases. We will assume that under the title of the law of 1878, " An act to provide for the as- sessment and collection of taxes," the only legislation adopted had been a change of the prior law in respect to the time of meeting of the state board of equalization or TITLE OF ACTS. 233 been incorporated in the original act.'' " A title which ex- presses a purpose to amend an earlier enactment, referring to the earlier enactment by its title, in which the subject of the proposed legislation is clearly expressed, is no more or less than the expression of a purpose to deal with the sub- ject so expressed in the title of the earlier enactment." '^ of the manner of publishing the delinquent list. Now, suppose a later act, declared in its title to be amendatory of that act, to consist of two sections; the first amend- ing the prior act by prescribing a different time for the meeting of the state board or a different man- ner of publishing the delinquent list. The second section, we will suppose, simply declares the repeal of section 3 of a law of 1873 (Sp. Laws, 1873, oh. Ill), authorizing railroad corporations to adopt the scheme of substituted taxation in that act provided; or let the sup- posed second section declare the repeal of the law of 1877 (chapter 105), which required an annual re- turn by railroad corporations of land sold from their untaxable land grant, so that the same might be properly subjected to taxation ; or again, let the supposed second section be like that now in ques- tion, — simply the repeal of the act of 1877, respecting the giving of notice of the expiration of the period for redemption; or let us suppose that the so-called amenda- tory act had consisted only of such repeal of the law of 1877. In such cases the mind is at once impressed with the incongruity between the subject of the act as expressed in its title and the enactment under it. Yet the principle relied upon by the respondent would sustain such legislation, because it might have been adopted under the title of the original law. The fault in the asserted rule is that it does not regard the nature and extent of the original enact'ient which it is the declared purpose of the later act to amend, but only the title of it; it rests upon the assumption that the enactment was as com- prehensive as under its title it might have been. We think it cannot be relied upon to aid in the determination of such cases, and, if recognized as a rule without qualification, that it would open a way to the accomplishment of the very evils which the constitutional provision was intended to pre- vent." Ee-affirmed in State ex rel. Nash V. Madson, 43 Minn. 438, 45 N. W. 856. '8 Id. ; Robinson v. Lane, 19 Ga. 837. 7< Street v. Hooten, 131 Ala. 492, 501, 33 So. 580. In State v. Porter, 53 Minn. 279, 285, 55 N. "W. 134, it is said: "The substance of what has been said, so far as we need to re- peat it at this time, is that an amendatory law is for the amend- ment, not of what might have been enacted under the title of the orig- inal statute, but of what was en- acted. Hence the sufficiency of the title of an act merely declared 234 TITLE OF ACTS. The title of the amendatory act need not specify or indicate- the nature of the amendment.'' And where it gives the title of the act amended it need not refer to its chapter num- ber or date of passage." It of course follows that provisions- of the amendatory act not germane to the subject expressed in the title of the original act are unconstitutional and void." In Idaho it has been held that an amendatory act may introduce new matter, not expressed in the title of the original act, nor germane thereto, provided the subject of such new matter is indicated in the title of the amendatory act.'8 § 138. Eifect of error or nucertainty in title of amend- atory act. — Where the title of the amendatory act reciter the title of the act amended, and there is only one act with that title, an error in referring to the date of the passage or approval of the act amended will not vitiate the title.™ to be amendatory of a prior law, to justify the legislation which may be enacted under it, depends, not alone upon the fact that the title to the original statute was so com- prehensive that the legislation in question might have been properly enacted in such prior law, but it depends also upon the nature and extent of the prior enactment, to amend which is the declared pur- pose or subject of the later act." Tiie decision of the court does not go quite as far as tlie quotation, but is to the effect that an amend- ment to one act cannot introduce matter which is covered by an- other independent act, although the matter so introduced is ger- mane to the title of the act amended. See post, § 139. "Leake v. Colgan, 125 Cal. 413, 58 Pac. 69; Fort St. Union Depot Co. V. Com'r of R. R., 118 Mich. 340, 76 N. W. 631. '6 Willis V. Mabon, 48 Minn. 140, 50 N. W. 1110, 81 Am. St Rep. 626. " State V. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, Sa So. 344, 89 Am. St. Rep. 23; Don- nersberger v. Prendergast, 128 111. 229, 21 N. E. 1; Kennedy v. Le Moyne, 188 111. 255, 58 N. E. 903; State V. Pierce, 51 Kan. 241, 32 Pac. 924; Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich. 579, 43 N. W. 6:38, 6 L. R. A. 102; Trum- ble V. Trumble, 37 Neb. 340. 55 N. W. 869; State v. Bowen, 54 Neb. 211, 74 N. W. 615; Mack v. State, 60 N. J. L. 28, 36 Atl. 1088; Parfitt v. Fer- guson, 3 App. Div. 176, 38 N. Y. S. 466; Crowtherv. Fidelity Ins., Trust & Safe Dep. Co., 85 Fed. 41, 29 C. C. A. 1; Walling v. Dickertown, 64 N. J. L. 203, 44 Atl. 864; Astor v. Arcade Ry. Co., 113 N. Y. 93, 20 N. E. 594, 2 L. R. A. 789. '^Andrews v. Ada County, 7 Id- aho, 453, 63 Pac. 592. '9 Alberson v. Mayor, 83 Ga. 30, 8- S. E. 869; Citizens' St. R. R. Co. v. TITLE OF ACTS. 235 Tn such case the reference to the date may be treated as sur- plusage. A slight variance in reciting the title of the act amended. will be immaterial, if the act intended is clearly identified.^" But where the variance was calculated to mis- lead as to the nature of the amendment, it was held fatal.^'' An act entitled an act to amend section 1733 of chapter XI of title XI of the criminal code of Oregon was held good, although there was no such chapter or title, there being but one section with the number given.^- The title and body of an amendatory act described the section to be amended by a number given to it in an unofficial compilation in com- mon use. The intent of the legislature was held to be plain and effect was given to the act, so that while the title and act purported to amend section 202 of article 8 of a specified statute, they were given effect as an amendment of section 1 of article 8.^' An act was entitled "An act to amend sec- tion 4 of act No. 282 of the local acts of 1877, entitled," etc. Act No. 282 was an act to revise the charter of Grand Rap- ids and was divided into ten titles, each of which had a sec- tion 4. It was held that the title referred to the first sec- tion i and was sufi5cient for the purpose.^* Eut " An act to amend chapter 9 of the penal code of the state of Montana " was held void for uncertainty, there being several chapters having that number.^^ An act to amend "sections 1770 and- 1782 inclusive of," etc., was held to include the intermediate sections, the same as though all the numbers had been given in detail.^^ Haugh, 142 Ind. 254, 41 N. E. 533; 82 State v. Robinson, 32 Ore. 43, American Surety Co. v. Great 48 Pao. 357. White Spirit Co., 58 N. J. L. 526, 43 83 otis v. People, 196 III. 542, 63 Atl. 579. N. E. 1053. See post, % HI. 80 Northern Pac. Exp. Co. v. Met- 84 gtow v. Grand Rapids, 79 Mich. sohan, 90 Fed. -80, 32 C. C. A. 530. 595, 44 N. W. 1047. 81 Sanders v. Cambria County, 4 85 state v. Mitchell, 17 Mont. 67, Pa. Dist. Ct. 241. See Manliin v. 42 Paa 100. And see Hearn v. Pennsylvania Co. (Ind.), 67 N. E. Louttit, 42 Ore. 573, 72 Pao. 132. 229. 86 state v. Long, 21 Mont. 26, 52 Pac. 645. 236 TITLE OF ACTS. § 139. Effect oftitle specifying the section or sections to be amended.— Where the title of the amendatory act specifies the section or sections to be amended, the weight of authority is that the amendments must be germane to the subject-mat- ter of the sections specified,'' and that amendments of other sections, not specified, will be void.'' In Michigan, in such cases, the specification of the sections is treated as surplus- age, and, under a title to amend a particular section or sec- tions of an act, it is held that the whole law is open to amendment.'' It is held in some states that under a title «< Ex parte Cowert, 93 Ala. 94, 9 So. 325; Newman v. State, 101 Ga. 534, 28 S. E. 1005; State v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 106 La. 553, 31 So. 181; Horkey v. Kendall, 58 Neb. 532, 73 N. W. 953, 68 Am. St. Rep. 623; State v. Cornell, 54 Neb. 72, 74 N. W. 432; Weis v. Ashley, 59 Neb. 494, 81 N. W. 318, 80 Am. St. Rep. 704; Armstrong v. Mayer, 60 Neb. 423, 83 N. W. 401; State v. Eskew, 64 Neb. 600, 90 N. W. 629; Omaha V. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 78 Fed. 1018, 20 C. C. A. 219, 36 U. S. App. 615. 88 State V. Courtney, 27 Mont. 378, 71 Pac. 308; Horkey v. Kendall, 53 Neb. 523, 73 N. W. 953, 68 Am. St Rep. 623; Ex parte Hewlett, 33 Nev. 538, 40 Pac. 96. 89 Attorney-General v. Bolger, 128 Mich. 355, 87 N. W. 366; Common Council V. Schmid, 128 Mich. 379, 67 N. W. 383, 92 Am. St. Rep. 468. And see Erickson v, Cass County, 11 N. D. 494, 92 N. W. 841. The constitution of Michigan forbids the introduction of new bills after the first fifty days of the session. In the second case cited a bill was introduced during the first fifty days to amend section 2 of chapter 4 of the charter of Detroit. This charter consisted of 37 chapters and 693 sections. After the fifty days there was substituted and passed a bill to amend sections 1, 2 and 13 of chapter 2 and sections 1 and 25 of chapter 4 of the same charter. The act was held valid on the ground that under the title of the first bill any amendment whatever could be made to the charter. Moon, J., in a dissenting opinion, says: "According to the contention of respondents, under a title to amend by number the most insignificant provision of a city charter, and one about which the average citizen may care nothing, every section of the charter is open to amendment. His right to choose his own officers may, as in this case, be taken from him for one, two, or more years; the bonded limit of the city may be raised; the tax limit may be raised; new boards organized; and in fact all his substantial rights as a citi- zen of the municipality may be seriously affected. To make the matter, if possible, more illogical, a designing legislator might intro- duce a bill to amend section 3 of chapter 25, which refers to the es- tablishment of a boulevard, and TITLE OF ACTS. 23T to amend specified sections a new section cannot be added,"* even though the matter of the new section is germane to the sections amended and might have been enacted as an amendment to one of the sections.'* Bat in Indiana it is held that under such a title new sections may be added which are germane to the subject expressed in the title of the original act.'^ Where the section is specified, matter cannot be introduced by way of amendment to such sectio» which is provided for elsewhere in the act. Thus an act to amend sections 10, 12 and 14 of an act in regard to licens- ing occupations brought into these sections by amendment licenses for the business of refining sugar and molasses^ which was provided for in section 11 of the original act. This was held to be void, as not within the title, and the court says: "When this act was passed the general public and each person pursuing any of the businesses mentioned therein were advised of the exact situation and placed in a position to take steps to thereafter maintain, alter or repeal the act as the different interests might be affected. The general public and each individual concerned was called upon to watch subsequent legislation concerning licenses. If the title of a proposed law should give notice of an inten- tion to amend or repeal generally the preceding act, every interest involved should be placed upon the alert and warned of a possible injurious change in the law. If, however, the title of the proposed law should give notice of an intention simply to amend a particular section of the bill, then all parties other than those interested in the subject-matter contained in that particular section would be thrown off their guard, and, being led to believe they had no interest in the new statute, would take no steps looking to their own protection. If, under the title to a bill to amend simply introduce in the body of the act v. Aspen Min. & C. Co., 3 Colo. App. provisions abolishing the recorder's 223, 32 Pac. 717. court, amending the law in regard 9' Shepherd v. Shepherd, 4 Kan. to sewers, etc." p. 401. App. 546, 45 Pac. 658. 90 State V. Southern Ey. Co., 115 92 Lewis v. State, 148 Ind. 346, 4T Ala. 250, 32 So. 589; County Com'rs N. E. 675. "238 TITLE OF ACTS. section 1 of a given law, which section affects only specified persons, or deals with a particular subject, distinct matters which are contained in and specially provided for in an- other section, and which concerned different sets of persons, could, after being dealt with differently from what they were in their proper section, be transferred over and inserted into 'section 1,' as so altered, the parties concerned in this change might be greatly deceived and ruined without their Jcnowledge." '' A contrary view is taken in Kentucky.'* Where the title of the amendatory act indicates a purpose to amend generally, that is, where the title is to amend a specified act, giving the title, it is no objection that a par- ticular amendment is not germane to the section amended, if it is within the title of the original acf An act to .amend several sections of a code, which are cognate or re- lated to each other, is not open to the objection that it em- braces a plurality of subjects. ^^ An act to amend sections 1T70 and 1782 inclusive was held to include the intermedi- ate sections." § 140, Effect of title indicating the amendments to be made — Whether a limitation. — Where the title of the amendatory act recites the title of the act to be amended and also specifies the amendments to be made, the legisla- 9' State V. Am. Sugar Ret Ca, legislation in question was proper 106 La. 553, 564, 31 So. 181. To same under either title, and the act was. effect: Ex parte Reynolds, 87 Ala. sustained. 138, 6 So. 335. 95 state v. Cornell, 54 Neb. 73, 74 MHosklns V. Crabtree, 103 Ky. N. W. 432; State v. Madson, 43 117, 44 S. W. 434, 83 Am. St. Rep. Minn. 438, 45 N. W. 856. 576. In this case the title was, " An ^6 Hotchkiss v. Marion, 13 Mont, act to amend and re-enact article 218, 39 Paa 831; State v. Brown, 41 three of an act entitled 'An act re- La. Ann. 771, 6 So. 638; Common- lating to and entitled husband and wealth v. Brown, 91 Va. 762, 31 S. wife,' approved May 16, 1893." This E. 357. And see Lewis v. Dunne, ^ct changed the rights of the wife 134 Cal. 291, 66 Pao. 478, 86 Am. St in the deceased husband's property. Rep. 257, 55 L. R. A. 833; Trumble This matter was already provided v. Trumble, 37 Neb. 340, 55 N. W. 869. for in a statute on descent and dis- 9^ State v. Long, 31 Mont, 36, 53 tribution. It was held that the Pao. 645. TITLE OF ACTS. 239 sure is limited to the amendments specified, and anything out- side of these is void.^^ An act was entitled "A supplement to an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the Union Passen- ger Eailway Co.,' approved April 8, 1864, authorising said company to extend their track." The act authorized the ex- tension and also undertook to relieve the company from paving any street that had never been previously paved. The latter was held not within the title and the court says: *' The act of 1865, being entitled a supplement to the act of 1864: incorporating the railway company, gave notice of its general purpose, but when the title went on to declare that it was a supplement ' authorizing said company to extend their track,' it limited the notice to that particular feature of the company's charter, and diverted attention from the matters included in the second paragraph." ^ § 141. Whether title specifying section is siiiHcient, without giving title or subject of act amended — Refer- ence to codes and compilations, official and otherwise.— It is held by the great majority of cases that it is sufficient for the title of an act to amend a code or revision, to specify the section to be amended, without giving the title of the chapter or division to which it belongs or in any way indi- cating the subject-matter of the section. Under such a title any legislation is proper which is germane to the section specified.' Such titles as the following have been ap- 98 Niles V. Steere, 102 Mich. 328, • Mobile & Girard R. R. Co. v. 60 N. W. 771; Davey v. Ruflfel, 163 Commissioners' Court, 97 Ala. 105, Pa, St. 443, 29 Atl. 894; Abernathy 11 So. 782; People v. Parvin, 74 Cal. V. Mitchell, 113 Ga. 127, 38 S. E. 549, 16 Pac. 490; Clay v. Central R. 303; Corscadden V. Haswell, 88 R. & B. Co., 84 Ga. 345, 10 S.E. 967; App. Div. 158; Moore v. Moore, 23 Foster v. State, 99 Ga. 56, 25 S. E. Pa. Supr. Ct. 73. €13; State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 9S Philadelphia v. Market Co., 161 771, 6 So. .638; State v. Read, 49 La. Pa. St. 532, 527, 39 Atl. 286. Com- Ann. 1535, 23 So. 761; Garrison v. pare English & Scottish Am. Mort. Hill, 81 Md. 551, 82 Atl. 191 ; Iowa Co. V. Hardy, 93 Tex. 389, 55 S. W. Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Curtis, 169; Citizens' Savings Bank v. 107 Iowa, 504, 78 N. W. 208; Ross v. Auditor-General, 123 Mich. 511, 82 Aguirre. 191 U. S. 60; State v, N. W. 214 Scott, 33 Wash. 279; Beatrice v. 240 TITLE OF ACTS. proved: "An act to amend section 1950 of the code of Tennessee;"^ "An act to amend section 58, chapter 45 of the code of "West Virginia ;'" "An act to amend and re- enact section 910 of the Eevised Statutes of 1870." * In the case last referred to the court says: "The manifest and sole object of the act being to amend and re-enact section 910 of the Kevised Statutes, it is difficult to conceive of a more efficient mode of expressing that Intention than the language used in the title of the act now under considera- tion. To require a more extended expression of the object intended would certainly not add clearness to the title, but would, on the contrary, incumber it, and destroy the unity of the expression which is contemplated by the requirement of the constitution on this subject." So a section of an act may be amended under a title re- ferring to the number given the section in a private but authorized compilation of statutes.* Thus, one "William Lair Hill was authorized to make such a compilation of the laws Masslich, 108 Fed. 743, 47 CCA. ^Hardaway v. Lilly (Tenn.), 48 657; State v. Olsen, 58 Minn. 1, 59 S. W. 713. N. W. 634; Eaton v. Guaranty Co., s Heath v. Johnson, 36 W. Va. 11 N. D. 79, 88 N. W. 1029; Hearn 783, 15 S. E. 980. V. Louttit, 43 Ore. 573, 73 Pao. 133; * State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771, Utley V. Cavender, 31 S. C. 883, 6 So. 638. 9 S. R 957; Hardaway v. Lilly ^otis v. People, 196 III. 543, 63 (Tenn.), 48 S. W. 713; Nichols v. N. E. 1053; Hall v. Leland,64 Minn. State. 33 Tex. Crim. Eep. 391, 88 S. 71, 66 N. W. 303; Ex parte Howe, W. 680; English & Scottish Am. 86 Ore. 181, 37 Pa_. 536; Hearn v. Mort. Co. V. Hardy, 93 Tex. 389, 55 Louttit, 43 Ore. 578, 73 Pac. 133. S. W. 169; Tabor v. State, 34 Tex. In the first case cited the court Crim. Rep. 631, 31 S. W. 668, 53 says: " But, while the General Stat- Am. St Eep. 736; Heath v. John- utesof 1878areamereconipiIation, son, 36 W. Va. 788, 15 S. E. 980; yet by the mass of people, as well McCalla v. Bane, 45 Fed. 888; In re as the legislature, they have been Moore, 81 Fed. 356; Steele Co. v. generally looked upon and treated Erskine, 98 Fed. 815,39 C. C, A. as original enactments. Our session 178. But a title which does not laws are full of amendatory stat- designate any act, code or revision utes wliose titles refer to them, and is incomplete. Gunter v. Texas never once allude to the original Land & Mortg. Co., 83 Tex. 496, 17 acts. Public policy and necessity, S. W. 840. '^ nothing else, require us to hold TITLE OF ACTS. 241 of Oregon. He did so, and the printed volume was entitled on the back, " Hill's Annotated Laws of Oregon." An act was entitled, " An act to amend section 2465 of Hill's An- notated Laws of Oregon." This section was section 8 of " An act in relation to county treasurers." The above title of the amendatory act was held sufficient.^ In the same state there existed a code of civil procedure and a code of criminal procedure, both of which were incorporated with other laws in Hill's compilation, in which the sections were numbered consecutively from the beginning to the end of the compilation. An act was passed entitled "An act to amend section 711 of the Codes and General Laws of Ore- gon." There was such a section in each of the codes as well as in Hill's compilation, but there was no code, compilation or revision entitled " The Codes and General Laws of Oregon." The amendment was germane to section 711 of Hill's com- pilation, but the court held the act void because there was no collection or compilation of statutes entitled as in the act. The court, while affirming the rule stated at the be- ginning of this section, adds: "But we do not feel justified in extending the rule, and holding that any reference from which it may be conjectured or argued that a certain section of a certain law or compilation was intended will answer." ' In Indiana and New York such titles are held to be in- sufficient. Thus, " An act supplementary to chapter 489 of the laws of 1868 " was held to express no subject whatever.^ So of an act entitled "An act to amend section 640 of the Revised Statutes of 1881." ' The supreme court of "Wash- ington territory ruled the same way,'" but the supreme court that the title to an act purporting 8 New York v. Manhattan Ry. Co., to amend any part of such com- 143 N. Y. 1, 37 N. E. 494. To same pilation is suflQcient, as it would be, effect: People v. Hills, 85 N. Y. if, instead of being a compilation, 449. it was original legislation." ^ O'Mara v. Wabash R. R. Co., 150 6 Ex parte Howe, 26 Ora 181, 87 Ind. 648, 50 N. E. 821. Also Boring Pac. 536. V. State, 141 Ind. 640, 41 N. E. 270. 'Hearn v. Louttit, 43 Ora 572, '"Harlandv. Territory, 8 Wash. 73 Pac. 133. Ter. 181, 13 Pac. 458; Rumsey v. 16 242 TITLE OF A0T8. of the state at first held otherwise," though still applying the old rule to territorial acts," but in a late case has re- verted to the earlier doctrine." Of course all difficulty is avoided if the title of the amendatory act recites the title of the chapter to which the section belongs, or otherwise indicates its subject-matter." The title of a repealing stat- ute is sufficient which designates the sections only." § 142. Title of amendatory acts — Illustrations and miscellaneous cases. — An act entitled to amend the char- ter of a named municipal corporation may contain a pro- vision changing the territorial boundary of the municipal- ity.'' Under such a title provisions have sometimes been enacted curing defects in and validating municipal proceed- ings taken of course subsequent to the enactment of the original charter. Such provisions are germane to the ob- ject of the incorporation, but not to the function or act of creating a corporation, prescribing and distributing its powers, and regulating their exercise. Such curative pro- Territory, 3 Wash. Ter. 333, 31 Pac. of which it treats, and an amending 153. act treats of the theme covered by 1' Marston v. Humes, 3 Wash. 367, the act sought to be amended. We S8 Pac. 520. therefore see no escape from the 12 State V. Halbert, 14 Wash. 806, conclusion that the title of an 44 Pac. 538; Poncin v. Furth, 15 amending act must contain some Wash. 201, 46 Pac. 241. words which indicate the theme or 13 State V. Superior Court, 28 proposition of which the act sought Wash. 317, 68 Pao. 957, 92 Am. St. to be amended treats." Rep. 831. The court says in this i* Heller v. People, 8 Colo. App. case: " What is the signllicance'of 459, 31 Pac. 773; In re White, 33 the word 'subject' in this oonnec- Neb. 813, 51 N. W. 287; Common- tion? Webster defines it as 'that wealth v. Brown, 91 Va. 762, 21 of which anything is affirmed or S. E. 357. predicated; the theme of a propo- i' State v. Garrett, 39 La. Ann. sition or discourse; that which is 637. spoken of.' To say that mere refer- " Whiting v. Mt Pleasant, 1 1 ence to a numbered section em- Iowa, 488; Morford v. Unger, 8 bodies the idea of a theme, proposi- Iowa, 83; Swift v. Newport, 7 Bush, tion or discourse, it seems to us, is 37; Humbolt County v. County not sustained by the ordinary un- Com'rs, 6 Nev. 30; Roby v. Shep- derstanding of those terma The ard, 48 W. Va. 286, 26 S. E. 278. theme of a legislative act is that TITLE or ACTS. 243 visions are retrospective, and are not of the nature of a charter," while the original act is constitutive and wholly prospective." An act was entitled " An act to amend the charter of the town of Bessemer, and to reincorporate the same as the city of Bessemer, and to establish a charter therefor." There was no act to incorporate the town of Bessemer. It was held that the words as to amendment should be treated as surplusage and that the act was valid as an original and substantive piece of legislation." The charter of Mankato, Minn., made no provision for a mu- nicipal court. Later an act was passed to establish such a court. It was held that under a title to amend the charter of the city legislation dealing with the municipal court was void.^" But in another case it was held that an independent act, which in reality was amendatory of a private charter, could be dealt with under a title to amend the charter.^' A supplement to an act concerning inns and taverns made it a misdemeanor to sell intoxicating liquors from any ambu- latory conveyance; held not within the title.^^ An act, which by its title relates to certain counties, cannot be amended under the same title so as to relate to other coun- ties.^' Where the title is to amend chapter 147, an amend- ment of chapter 117 is void.^* So where the title is to amend certain sections, and the enactment merely repeals those sections.^' Where the object is to amend both the 17 Parfitt V. Ferguson, 3 App. Div. 20 State v. Porter, 53 Minn. 379, 55 176, 38 N. y. S. 466. See post, § 675. N. W. 134 18 Williamson v. Keokuk, 44 21 Cassell v. Lexington, etc. Turn- Iowa, 88; In re Kiernan, 6 T. & C. pike Co., 10 Ky. L. E. 486, 9 S. W. 320; State v. Newark, 34 N. J. L. 503, 701. 336, and Humbolt Co. v. County 22 Mack v. State, 60 N. J. L. 38, 36 Com'rs, 6 Nev. 30, are liable to Atl. 1088. criticism for embracing provisions 23 Farson v. South Brook, 54 Minn, which are not strictly cognate with 117, 55 N. W. 864. ;the purpose of the act as stated in 24 state v. Looker, 54 Kan. 337, 38 the title. See Dolese v. Pierce, 134 Pac. 388. ,111. 140, 16 N. E. 318. 26 Callahan v. Jennings, 16 Colo. 19 Judson V. Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240, 471, 37 Pac. 1055. Vice versa, sec- •6 So. 367. tions cannot be amended under a 244 TITLE OF ACTS. title and body of an act, the title of the amendatory act should set forth the nature of the amendment to the title, otherwise there is nothing in the title to give notice of what may be expected by way of amendment to the law. Chapter 257 of the general laws of Minnesota of 1899 was an act " to prevent the use of chemical agents as pre- servatives in milk, cream, cheese and butter." In 1901, under a title " to amend the title and section 1 of chapter 257, general laws of 1899," there was added to the title of the original act the words, " or food products of any nature whatever," and the body of the act was extended accord- ingly. The act was held void because the title was insuf- ficient to indicate the wide extension of the provisions of the act.^^ "Where the title purported that an act was a sup- plement to a supplement, it was held that it must be ger- mane to the latter, and that it was not enough that it was germane to the original act." § 143 (98). Wliether an act embraces a plurality of subjects. — Similar subjects may be grouped and treated as a class for general legislation, embracing all or a part. There is evident. in the later constitutions a strong preference for such legislation, and against special, where general acts are appropriate and practicable. Generalizations to answer all cognate wants require preparation and reflection. A par- ticular need first attracts the attention of the legislator, and when he proceeds to frame a measure with reference to it, how comprehensive he will make it depends on his leisure, his courage, his capacity and his public spirit. There is a marked difference between an act treating of individual subjects as such, and embracing more than one, and an act which aims at a single purpose involving a plurality of sub- jects, and concerning all of them or several of them. The title to repeal them. Trumble v. ^ New York & Greenwood Lake Trumble, 37 Neb. 840, 55 N. W, 869. Ry. Co. v. Montolair, 47 N. J. Eq.. 26 State V. Rumberfe, 86 Minn. 399, 591, 21 Atl. 49a 90 N. W. 1055, 113& TITLE OF ACTS. 2i5 former is generally multifarious ; ^ the latter valid as deal- ing with a unity. One general law may provide how all municipal corporations may be organized, how all private corporations may be formed; but one act to create two cor- porations is void for duplicity.^' One act may define all the crimes, or all belonging to one class; '" but one act which creates two separate offenses deals with two subjects.'^ The multiplicity of persons or things which will be affected by the legislation is immaterial if the subject be single. An act authorizing two counties to issue bonds to erect a court- house in each was held to embrace but one subject — that of building court-houses.'^ Such an act might properly em- brace all counties. That it is not so general, and only applies to two, does not affect this question. It may have been as extensive as the occasion in the state required. But where the legislation concerns separate things without unity in any consideration or purpose, it is within the constitutional inhibition. Thus a law provided for the expenditure of cer- tain highway taxes on two distinct state roads, and for the location and construction of a third state road, and for the expenditure of certain other taxes upon that; it was held to embrace more than one subject. The three roads were held to be " three distinct objects of legislation," which might with entire propriety have been provided for by separate acts; and, indeed, ought to have been, in view of the care which is taken by the constitution to compel each distinct object of legislation to be considered separately." 28 In re Paul, 94 N. Y. 497; State the court, said: "These objects have V. Harrison, 11 La. Ann. 722. certainly no necessary connection, ^i* King V. Banks, 61 Ga. 20; Ex and, being grouped together in one parte Connor, 51 id. 571. bill, legislators are not only pre- 3" State V. Brassfield, 81 Mo. 162, eluded from expressing by their 51 Am. Rep. 234. votes their opinion upon each sepa- 81 In re Paul, 94 N. Y. 497. rately, but they are so united as to 32 Allen V. Tison, 50 Ga. 374; unite a combination of interest Weyand v. Stover, 35 Kan. 545. among the friends of each in order 8' People V. Denahy, 20 Mich. 349. to secure the success of all, vs'hen, Cooley, J., delivering the opinion of perhaps, neither could be passed 2i6 TITLE OF ACTS. In Daubman v. Smith" the act was entitled " to transfer the charge and keeping of the jails and the custody of the prison- ers in the counties of Essex and Hudson from the sheriff to the board of chosen freeholders, and for the employment of pris- oners, and to regulate the term of service therein." Magie, J., said, in delivering the opinion of the court: " I am compelled to the conclusion that the legislation in question is in obvious opposition to the constitutional provision in one or the other of its phases. For, if the object of this act may be taken to be the regulation of the jails and the custody of the prisoners in the two counties named in the first eight sections, then the ninth section, in providing for the extension of the scheme to separately. The evils of that spe- cies of omnibus legislation which the constitution designed to pro- hibit are all invited by acts thus framed; and although we have no reason to suppose that those evils actually existed in the present case, or that there was any pur- pose on the part of the legislature to disregard the constitutional re- quirement, yet we cannot be gov- erned by these considerations, if the act is of a class which is act- ually prohibited. " The act, it will be seen, is not one which establishes a general system for the expenditure of non-resident highway taxes, or for the construc- tion of state roads. It singles out two state roads and provides for the expenditure of certain non-resident highway taxes upon each. It then proceeds to provide for the loca- tion and construction of a third state road and tlie expenditure of certain other taxes upon that. " The three objects are as sepa- rate and distinct as the three great lines of railroad crossing the state, 'and the same arguments which might be advanced in support of this act would support also an act which would single out those three railroads for special and peculiar legislation in respect to which the roads have no necessary connec- tion. A combination of that de- scription would at once be pro- nounced unconstitutional by gen- eral consent, but would not differ at all, in principle, from the present act, in which the combination of objects is equally apparent, and equally unnecessary for the proper purpose of legislation. The only difference there could be in the two oases would be that, in a case of a combination of interests among powerful corporations to secure favorable legislation on their behalf, a purpose to evade the con- stitutional requirement would gen- erally be very apparent, while in this case we do not imagine it to have existed at all; but the ques- tion of violation of the constitution is not a question of intent." 34 47 N. J. L. 200. TITLE OF ACTS. 247 other counties, introduces another and different object, and the act embraces more than one object.'' " If, on the other hand, the object of this act may be taken to be the regulation of the jails and then of the prisoners in all the counties of the state, then that object is not expressed in the title. If such was the object of the act, the fact that with respect to some counties it was mandatory, and with respect to others optional, might not be objectionable. The matters comprehended in the act would seem to be germane to such an object. But the title does not express such an object." The act bad more scope than the title, and the excess was so much as applied to a county not named in the title. The following acts were held to embrace but one subject, the basis for the claim of duplicity being indicated by italics : An act for the formation of corporations for manufacturing and 7nercantile purposes ; '^ an act for the preservation of fish and game; '' an act to acquire rights of fishing common to all in the fresh water lakes in certain counties, fe acquire lands adjoining thereto for public use and enjoyment in connection therewith and to regulate the same, and providing for county lake andjparTc hoards, etc. ; '^ an act to provide for the collec- tion of taxes heretofore and hereafter levied ; '^ an act fixing the number of directors m public school boards in certain cities, and providing for the election of such directors, and for dis- tricting sa,id cities therefor; *" an act providing for the deposit in banks of state and county funds by county treasurers;" an act to protect hotel, inn and boarding-house keepers; *^ an act fixing the time for the opening and closing of saloons and gaminghouses; ^' an act to authorize and regulate the business 35 In re Saokett, etc. Sts., 74 N. Y. 39 Aplin v. Stiles, 83 Mioh. 460, 47 95. N. W. 241. sii Jenking v. Osman, 79 Mioh. 4" State v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439, 13 305, 44 N. W. 787. S. W. 677. 37 Ah King v. Police Court, 139 " Hopkins v. Soott, 38 Neb. 661, Cal. 718, 73 Pac. 587. 57 N. W. 391. !8 Albright v. Sussex Co. Lake « State v. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546, and Park Commission, 68 N. J. L. 33 S. W. 481, 34 L. E. A. 656. 523, 53 Atl. 613. " Ex parte Livingston, 20 Nev. 282, 21 Pac. 322. 248 TITLE OF ACTS. of commercial agencies, credit companies, and gua/rardy associ- ations; ^ an act creating the office of coimty controller, trans- ferring to that ofiBcer the duties of countj' auditor and abol- ishing the latter office; ^ an act to regulate the jurisdiction, duties and compensation oi justices of the peace and consta- bles; *^ an act which legalises proceedings for a local improve- ment and provides for a re-assessment; *' an act to amend both the title and the body of an act,*^ Where it had long been the policy of the state to work convicts on the public roads, an act relating to the public roads of counties and the management of county workhouses was held to embrace but one subject.'" An amendatory act in relation to railroads provided in substance as follows: frst, it made it the duty of the railway companies of the state to remove or destroy all dead or dry vegetation and undergrowth upon the right of way, and enforced this duty by an appropriate penalty; sec- ond, it subjected any railroad company that failed to con- struct ditches and drains to carry off the surface water ob- structed by its road-bed to a penalty of five hundred dollars, and gave to the land-owner a right of action against the com- pany for all damages caused by such failure. The act was held to embrace but one subject, the protection of land and crops in proximity to railroads from damage by fire and water caused by the construction and operation of the road.^" An act to amend certain sections, repeal certain sections and to add new sections to a chapter of the code entitled " Oys- ters," was held to embrace but one subject.'' And generally " State V. Morgan, 2 S. D. 33, 48 " Dyker Meadow L. & I. Co. v. N. W. 314. Cook, 3 App. Div. 164, 88 N. Y. a 45 Lloyd V. Smith, 176 Pa. St 218, 222. 35 Atl. 199. « Condon v. Maloney, 108 Tenn. '■•s Herbert v. Baltimore County, 82, 65 S. W. 871. 97 Md. 639. '» Cox v. Hannibal & St. Jo. R. " Richman v. Supervisors, 77 E. Co., 174 Mo. 588, 74 S. W. 854. Iowa, 513, 42 N. W. 422, 14 Am. St. ^i Commonwealth v. Brown, 91 Rep. 308, 4 L. R. A. 445; In re Pied- Va. 762, 21 a E. 357. mont Ave. East. 59 Minn. 532, 61 N. W. 678. TITLE OF ACTS. 240 an amendatory act is not open to the charge of duplicity be- cause it makes two or more amendments, if the sections amended relate to a common subject.^" It is difficult to lay down a general rule on the subject of practical utility. The supreme court of Minnesota says: "To constitute duplicity of subject, an act must embrace two or more dissimilar and discordant subjects that by no fair intendment can be considered as having any legitimate connection with or relation to each other. All that is nec- essary is that the act should embrace some one general subject; and by this is meant merely, that all matters treated of should fall under sbme one general idea, be so connected with or related to each other, either logically or in popular understanding, as to be parts of, or germane to, one general subject." ^' And the supreme court of Indiana gives the following rule: "The proper test in all questions of this sort is, does the body of the particular legislation em- brace more than one general subject, and such matters as are calculated to assist in reaching the single object intended, and is that subject disdosed by the title ? If thus tested it appears that an act embraces but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, and that that subject is shown by the title, it must be held to be constitutional; otherwise not.'"* estate V.Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771, Ala. 393, 32 So. 687; Vincenheller € So. 638; Hotohkiss v, Marion, 12 v. Keagan, 69 Ark. 460, 64 S.W. 378; Mont. 218, 29 Pac. 831. Ex parte Pfirrmann, 134 CaL 143. 53 Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 66 Pac. 305; Reed v. McCrary, 94 575, 578, 50 N. W. 933, 28 Am. St. Ga. 487, 21 S. E. 333; State v. San- Rep. 383. ders, 43 Kan. 338, 21 Pao. 1073; ** Isenliour v. State, 157 Ind. 517, Jockheck v. Shawnee Co. Com'rs, 53 «2 N. E. 40, 87 Am. St. Rep. 338. Kan. 780, 37 Pac. 631 ; Ash v. Thorp, ThefoUowing are additional cases 65 Kan. 60, 68 Pao. 1067; Edwards in which the question was consid- v. Police Jury, 39 La. Ann. 855, 3 €red and the acts involved held to So. 804; Baltimore v. Keeley Insti- embrace but one subject: State v. tute, 81 Md. 106, 31 Atl. 437, 27 L. Street, 117 Ala. 203, 33 So. 807; R. A. 646; Bissell v. Heath, 98 Hawkins v. Roberts, 123 Ala. 130, Mich. 473, 57 N. W. 585; McMorran 27 So. 337; Mitchell v. State, 1§4 v. Ladies of the Maccabees, 117 250 TITLE OF ACTS. § 144 (103). Effect of duplicity of subject in act or title. — If an act embraces two or more subjects and two or more of the same are expressed in the title, the whole act is void.'' In State v. -Lancaster Co.,'" Maxwell, J., said : " The rule is well settled that where the title to an act actually indi' cates, and the act itself actually includes, two distinct ob- jects, where the constitution declares it shall embrace but one, the whole act must be treated as void, from the mani- fest impossibility of choosing between the two and holding the act valid as to one and void as to the other.'' But this rule will apply only in those cases where it is impossible from an inspection of the act itself to determine which act, or rather which part of the act, is void and which is valid. Where this can be done the rule does not apply, unless it shall appear that the invalid portion was designed as induce- ment to pass the valid, so that the whole taken together will warrant the belief that the legislature would have passed the valid part alone." So if the body of an act embrace more than one subject, and only one be mentioned in the title, the whole act will be void, unless the subject mentioned Mich. 398, 75 N. W. 943; Newark v. Ala. 539; Builders'* Painters' Sup- Mt. Pleasant Cem. Co., 58 N. J. L. ply Co. v. Lucas, U9Ala. 203, S4So, 168, 33Atl. 396;Eodebaughv. Phila- 416; Pennington v. Woolfolk, 79 delphia Traction Co., 190 Pa. St. Ky. 13; Moore v. Police Jury, 33 La. 358, 43 Atl. 953; Commonwealth v. Ann. 1013; State v. Ferguson, 104 Charity Hospital, 198 Pa. St. 270, 47 La. 249, 28 So. 917, 81 Am. St. Rep. Atl. 980; State v. Brown, 103 Tenn.' 123; State v. Atkins, 104 La. 37, 28 449, 53 S. W. 727; State v. Hoskins, So. 919; Davis v. State, 7 Md. 151'; 106 Tenn. 430, 61 S. W. 781; Mc- Skinner v. Wilhelm, 63 Mich. 568, Master V. Advance Thresher Co., 30 N. W. 311: State v. Lancaster, 17 10 Wash. 147, 38 Pac. 760; State v. Neb. 87; Trumble v. Trumble, 37 Hall, 24 Wash. 255, 64 Pac. 153; Neb. 340, 55 N. W. 869; In re Com- Geer v. Ouray Co. Com'rs, 97 Fed. niissioners, 49 N. J. L. 488, 10 Atl. 435, 38 C. C. A. 250; Mexican Na- 363; Johnston v. Spicer, 107 N. Y. tional R R. Co. v. Jackson, 118 Fed. 185, 13 N. E. 753; State v. McCann, 549, 55 C. C. A. 315. Many addi- 4 Lea, 1; Ragio v. State, 86 Tenn. tional cases will be found in the 372, 6 S. W. 401. following sections. '* 17 Neb. 87. 55 Ballentyne v. Wickersham, 75 57 Cooley's Const. Lim. 147. TITLE OF ACTS. 251 in the title is so independently treated in the act as to be capable of separation from the other subject. This result- must be the conclusion though the act be passed under a constitution like that of California, containing the condition added to the inhibitory clause in question. - In People v. Parks,'' McKee, J., thus characterizes the act in question, entitled an act "to promote drainage:" "It will thus be seen that the body and scope of the act included a combination of subjects; the construction of reservoirs for the storage of debris from mines; the protection of mines, towns or cities from inundation, by the erection of embankments or dykes; the drainage of certain districts of the state by the rectification of river channels, and the levy of special taxes to carry on a system of public works, are all inseparably conjoined in the body of the act. The extraordinary powers conferred upon the district board of directors are to be exercised for the benefit of all the sub- jects conjointly; and the money to be raised by the exercise of these powers is to be expended for all without distinc- tion as to any particular ones, thus rendering it impos- sible to disjoin the subjects embraced in the act which are not expressed in its title so as to adjudge the one void and the other valid, as might be done under section 24 of article- 4 of the constitution." *' Where the provisions of a statute which are not con- nected with its subject are separable, they will be declared void and the residue sustained.^" In states where this con- s858Cal, 634, 638. 47 Ind. 150; Shoemaker v. Smith, 59 See State v. Exnioios, 33 La, 37 Ind. 132; Richards v. Richards,. Ann. 253; State v. Crowley, 33 La. 76 N, Y. 188; Ex parte Wood, 34 Ann. 783. Kan. 645; Dorsey's Appeal, 73 Pa. ^^Post, ch. IX; State v. Dalon, 35 St. 192; Commonwealth v. Martin, La. Ann. 1141; Cooley's C. L. 181; 107 Pa. St. 185; Stuart v. Kinsella, People V. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 566, 568; 14 Minn. 524; State v. Lancaster Succession of Irwin, 33 La. Ann. Co., 17 Neb. 87; Smith v. Mayor, 63; State v. Exnicio.s, 33 La. Ann. 34 How. Pr. 508; Allegheny Co. 233; Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. Home's Case, 77 Pa. St. 77; Adams 447, 26 L. Ed. 405; State v. Young, v. Webster, 26 La. Ann. 143; Stat& ■252 TITLE OF ACTS. -stitutional restriction applies only to local and private acts, the joinder of provisions of a public or general nature with those of a local or private nature will not invalidate the former, though the latter may be void for duplicity of sub- jects in the act or for not being germane to the title.*' § 145 (102). Provisions in an act not within the subject expressed in the title — Examples.— The title of an act defines its scope; it can contain no valid provision beyond ■the range of the subject there stated.^^ It has already been .V. Bautn, 33 La. Ann. 981; William- son V. Keokuk, 44 Iowa, 88; State V. Hurds, 19 Neb. 316; Whited v. Lewis, 25 La. Ann. 568; People v. Hall, 8 Colo. 485, 9 Paa 84; Fuqua ■\. Mullen, 18 Bush, 467; Municipal- ity No. 3 V. Michoud, 6 La. Ann. 605; Ex parte Moore, 62 Ala. 471; Mississippi & E. River B. Co. v. Prince, 10 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. -891; Ex parte Tiiomason, 16 Neb. 338; Davis v. State,? Md. 151 ; State V. Wardens, 23 La. Ann. 720; State -V. Silver, 9 Nev. 237; Gibson v. Belcher, 1 Bush, 145; Stockle v. ■Silsbee, 41 Mich. 616; People V.Flem- ing, 7 Colo. 230, 8 Pao. 70; Bugher ■v. Prescott, 23 Fed. 20; Eader V. Township of Union, 39 N. J. L. 509; Daubman v. Smith, 47 N. J. L. 200; Grubbs v. State, 24 Ind. 295; Rushing v. Sebree, 12 Bush, 198; Central & G. R R. Co. v. Peo- ple, 5 Colo. 39. •■i People V, Supervisors, 43 N. Y. 10; Richards v. Richards, 76 N. Y. 186, 189; People v. McCann, 16 N. Y. 58, 69 Am. Dec. 642; Williams ■V. People, 24 N. Y. 405. 62 State V. Silver, 9 Nev. 227; Peo- ple v. Common Council, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 121; Lowndes County v. Hunter, 49 Ala. 507; State v. War- dens, 23 La. Ann. 720; Briesvviok V. Mayor, etc., 51 Ga. 689, 21 Am. Rep. 240; Davis v. State, 7 Md. 115; In re Tappen, 36 How. Pr. 390; Ex parte Thomason, 16 Neb. 238, 20 N. W. 312; Mewherter v. Price, 11 Ind. 199; People v. Gadway, 61 Mich. 285, 28 N. W. 101, 1 Am. St. Rep. 578; Church v. Detroit, 64 Mich. 571, 31 N. W. 447; Nester v. Busch, 64 Mich. 657, 81 N. W. 572; Losch v. St. Charles, 65 Mich. 555, 32 N. W. 816; Supervisors v. Auditor-General, 68 Mich. 659, 36 N. W. 794; Ellis v. Hutchinson, 70 Mich. 154, 38 N. W. 14: Eaton v. Walker, 76 Mich. 579, 4 N. W. 638,6 L.R. A. 102; Fidelity Ins. Co. V. Shenandoah V. R. R. Co., 86 Va. 1, 9 S. E. 759; Thomas v. Wabash, etc. R. R. Co., 40 Fed. 126; Touzalin V. Omaha, 25 Neb. 817, 41 N. W. 796; MoFabe v. Kenney, 52 Hun, 514; Lane v. State, 49 N. J. L. 073; Hat- field V. Commonwealth, 120 Pa. St. 395, 14 Atl. 151; Wulftange v. Mc- Collom, 83 Ky. 361; Norton Co. Com'rs V. Snow, 45 Kan. 332, 25 Pao. 903, 26 Pac. 60; State v. Sholl, 58 Kan. 507, 49 Pao. 668; People v. Congdon, 77 Mich. 351, 43 N. W. 986; State v. Washoe Co. Com'rs. 22 Nev. 399, 41 Pac. 145; Matter of Greene, 55 App. Div. 475, 67 N. Y. S. riTLE OF ACTS. 253- shown that any provisions germane to the subject expressed,. or which are reasonably'' related or incidental thereto, or which may aid or facilitate the accomplishment of the pur- pose expressed in the title, may be included in the act and will be covered by the title."' The supreme court of Wis- consin says: "When one reading a bill, with the full scope of the title thereof in mind, comes upon provisions which he could not reasonably have anticipated because of their being in no way suggested by the title in any reasonable view of it, they are not constitutionally covered thereby. But in applying that rule, this other rule, which has been universally adopted, must be kept in mind : The statement of a subject includes, by reasonable inference, all those- things which will or may facilitate the accomplishment thereof." «* A title importing a prospective statute will not cover a retrospective provision.^' An act to prescribe the manner of creating corporations cannot constitutionally embrace provisions amending existing charters."^ A title importing exclusively a public statute will not cover provisions of a^ private nature not mentioned in the title."^ An act pur- porting by its title to legalize and make valid certain county bonds may not authorize the issue of new bonds for like reasons to other persons.*' Provisions directing the manner of executing a judgment may not be embraced in an act professing by its title to regulate fees on judicial sales."' Under a title providing for work in the improvement of certain named streets in a city, no provisions can be enacted 291; Commonwealth v. Moorhead, «'Ayeridge v. Town Com'rs, 60 7 Pa. Co. Ct. 513. Ga. 405; City Council v. Port Royal, ^3 Ante, §§ 118, 130. etc., 74 Ga. 658. «* Diana Shooting Club v. Lame- ^7 People v. Supervisors, 43 N. Y. reux, 114 Wis. 44, 50, 89 N. W. 880, 10. But see NeuendorfE v. Duryea, 90 Am. St. Rep. 833. 69 N. Y. 557, 25 Am. Rep. 235. ^ Lindsay v. U. S. Savings & •>' Board of Commissioners v. Ba- Loan Ass'n, 120 Ala. 156, 24 So. 171, ker, 80 Ind. 374. 42 L. R. A, 783; Thomas v. Collins, ^^ Gaskin v. Anderson, 55 Barb.. 58 Mich. 64, 24 N. W. 558. 259. •254: TITLE OF ACTS. for work on others not named.™ A title confined to lease- hold estates will not cover provisions relating to freeholds." So an act whose title refers only to revenue for state and county purposes cannot provide for municipal revenues.'^ It has been made a question whether an act entitled to regulate the jurisdiction of a class of inferior courts and providing for an appeal could properly regulate the juris- diction and practice of the appellate court in the cases so appealed. It appears to the writer to be an extraneous subject." '" In re Sackett, etc. Streets, 74 -N. Y. 95. ■Ji Dorsey's Appeal, 73 Pa. St. 192. '-Ross V. Davis, 97 Ind. 79; Bugher v. Presoott, 23 Fed. 20; Knoxville v. Lewis, 12 Lea, 180; Equitable Guaranty & Trust Co. v. Donahoe, 3 Penn. (Del.) 191, 49 AtL 373. ■"Jones V. Thompson, 13 Bush, .394; Faqua v. Mullen, 13 Bush, 467; Kuhns V. Krammis, 20 Ind. 490, overruled in Robinson v. Skip- worth, 23 Ind. 311. The title of the .act in question in this case was: "The election and qualification of justices of the peace and defining their jurisdiction, powers and dutie^in civil cases." The act con- tained a provision in regard to cases appealed from justices' courts to the circuit and common pleas courts, that "such oases shall stand for trial in the court of common pleas or circuit courts whenever such transcript has been filed ten days before the first day of the term thereof, and be there tried under the same rules and regula- tions prescribed for trials before justices; and amendments of the pleadings may be made on such terms as to costs and continu- ances as the court may order." In Kuhns V. Krammis the court said: "Appeals from justices of the peace entirely remove the causes appealed from the justices. They are not tried upon error but de novo, and are never returned to the justices. The final judgment regulating the rights of t^ie parties is rendered in the appellate court. Such being the case, all legislation touching the manner of rendering judgment in such cases should be in acts regulating proceedings in the appellate courts; and provis- ions in the justice's act assuming to prescribe the practice in the trial and judgment of such causes in the appellate courts is in no manner connected with the act regulating the practice in justice's court." " But," the court inquires in the overruling opinion in Robin- son V. Skip worth, "is there not a natural and proper connection be- tween this matter and the subject of the act? It is plain that to constitute this connection the mat- ter need not form any part of the subject. For it is well said by Mr. Justice Perkins in delivering the TITLE or ACTS. 255. An act which by its title is directed against the adultera- tion of milk, and professing to regulate the sale of milk, does not extend to the provision against producing unwhole- some milk by any other process than adulteration.'* So, where the title of an act referred only to bills and promis- sory notes, no other contracts could be affected or made the subject of legislation in the body of the act.'' A title of legislation relating to the transportation of freight will not permit any provision relative to passenger transportation.™ Nor is a title providing for the acknowledgment of deeds and other conveyances of land broad enough to include provisions defining the consequences of a failure to record such instruments." Under the phrase " to lay additional tracks," in the title of an act supplementary to the charter of a railway company, a new route cannot be substituted opinion of this court in the case of The Bank of the State of Indiana V. The City of New Albany, 11 Ind. 139, that 'as to sec. 19, art. 4 (of the constitution), referred to, that "every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which sub- ject shall be expressed in the title." The title incorporating the bank is, "An act incorporating the banlc without branches." We have al- ready seen that the extent and manner of taxing the capital stock of the bank, when created, is a matter properly connected witli the subject of chartering the insti- tution, and ii is only Ahe subject, and not the matter properly con- nected therewith, that must he ex- pressed in the title.' The chain connecting the matter of section 70 (supra) with the subject of the act is unbroken. We follow the case in all its stages, from the commencement of the action to the final judgment of the justice; then follows the appeal; then the proceedings in the appellate court, step by step, to final judgment, including costs in the action." Here the cases on which the juris- diction is exercised are treated as " matter properly connected there- with," even after they liave passed beyond that jurisdiction. It is not the purpose of the act to provide for cases — they are connected with the subject of the act — the justice's jurisdiction — while they are subjects of that jurisdiction — no longer. They are incidents; and when they have passed out of the sphere of the principal, they are no longer connected with it in theory or practice. '* Shivers v. Newton, 45 N. J. L, 469. 75 Mewherter v. Price, 11 Ind. 199. '''Evans V. Memphis, etc. R. R. Co., 56 Ala. 346, 28 Am. Rep. 771. " Carr v. Thomas, 18 Fla. 736. 256 TITLE OF ACTS. for that established under the original charter^' An act confined by the title to " the preservation of the Muskegon river improvement" may include authority to collect tolls and expend the money for that object, but a provision for raising means to pay and authorizing payment for the orig- inal construction of the work is beyond the object expressed in the title.™ An act " to secure complete records in the courts " does not warrant a provision for obtaining recovery from a delinquent officer who had been already paid for completing the record.^" An act "to provide revenue by taxation of corporations, associations and limited partner- ships" is too restricted to embrace individual taxation." Provisions for attaching unorganized territory to a judicial district cannot be enacted under a title to regulate the terms of court in it.^ Where the title indicates legislation in regard to specified classes, or enumerated objects or places, provisions in regard to other classes, objects or places will be without the title and void.^ A title relating to the sale of liquors will not cover provisions as to the giving away of liquors, or the sale of fruits put up in alcohol.'^ A title to prevent the use of a thing will not cover provisions as to selling or offering to sell it.^ "An act to prohibit the use of billiard tables, bowl- ing alleys, dice or card tables " also prohibited the use of " any other device by which men and boys are allured to '8 West Phila. R. E. Co. v. Union sohan, 90 Fed. 80, 33 C. C. A. 530; R. E. Co., 9 Phila. 495. Fidelity Ins,, Trust & Safe Dep. Co! '9 Eyerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269. v. Shenandoah Valley E. R. Co., 86 80 Lowndes County v. Hunter, 49 Va. 1, 9 S. E. 759, 19 Am. St. Rep. Ala. 507. 858; Fish v. Stockdale, 111 Mich. 81 Commonwealth v. Martin, 107 46, 69 N. W. 92; State v. Borden, Pa. St. 185. 164 Mo. 221, 64 S. W. 272; Bohnier 82 Ex parte Wood, 34 Kan. 645, 9 v. Haffen, 161 N. Y. 390, 55 N. E. Pac. 758. 1047. 83 Dixon V. Poe, 159 Ind. 492, 65 84 Hancock v. State, 114 Ga. 439, N. E. 518; State v. Hallock, 19 Nev. 40 S. E. 317. 384, 12 Pac. 832; Commonwealth v. 86 state v. Great Western Coffee Darlington, 8 Pa. Dist. Ct 337; & Tea Co., 171 Mo, 634, 71 S. W. Northern Pac. Express Co. v. Met- 1011. TITLE OF ACTS. 257 vice and idleness." The latter was held not to be within the title.'* A title was, "An act making it a misdemeanor to issue trading stamps and other devices;" provisions in the act as to distributing such stamps and devices were held void.'^ A title to prohibit the sale of spii-ituous liquors will not cover provisions as to other liquors.^' A title to pro- hibit the issuing of licenses to sell liquor within certain territory was held not to cover a provision forbidding the sale of liquor in the same territory.^' Where the title is to prohibit barbering on Sunday, a provision making it a mis- demeanor for a barber to keep open his bath room on Sun- day is void.'" An act was entitled "An act to provide for the assessment and collection of revenue." A provision imposing a fine upon state and county treasurers for loaning or using the public funds was held not within the title." A title to provide for licenses to stevedores does not cover a provision requiring them to give bond.'^ § 146. Acts incorporating or relating to railroads and common carriers. — "An act to revise the laws providing for the incorporation of railroad companies, and to regulate the running and management, and to fix the duties and lia- bilities of all railroad and other corporations owning and operating any railroad in this state," covers but one object. It is to bring together the legislation concerning the crea- tion and management of railroads.'^ An act to incorporate a railroad or other like company may, besides granting its corporate powers, confer on townships or municipalities 86 Commonwealth v. Ayers, 17 9" Eagio v. State, 86 Tenn. 272, S Pa. Supr. Ct. 352. S. W. 401. 8' State V. Walker, 105 La. 492, 29 Min re Breene, 14 Colo. 401, 24 So. 973. Pao. 3. 88 Elliott V. State, 91 Ga. 694,17 "ssteenkenv. State, 88 Md. 708, S. E. 1004. 42 Atl. 212. 89 Hatfield v. Commonwealth, 120 ^ Toledo, etc. E. R. Co. v. Dunlap, Pa. St. 395, 14 Atl. 151; Common- 47 Mich. 456, 11 N. W. 271; Conti- wealth V. Frantz, 135 Pa. St. 389, 19 nental Improvement Co. v. Phelps, Atl. 1025; Commonwealth v. Mont- 47 Mich. 299, 11 N. W. 167. ross, 8 Pa. Supr. Ct, 237. 17 258 TITLE OF ACTS. through which its road passes, or which otherwise derive a public advantage from the enterprise and improvement of such company, power to subscribe to the capital stock of, or make donations to, the company; and it may provide for elections to decide as to such subscriptions or donations; for taxation to pay such subscriptions or donations, if voted ; and for the issue of bonds to represent the same.'* It may also provide for the personal liability of stockholders for labor.'' But a provision in a railroad charter that certain counties might subscribe to the capital stock of the com- pany all or any part of any sums theretofore voted in aid of a certain other railroad, was held not within the title.'^ An act to amend a railroad charter authorized the company to obtain and any city or village to grant to the company any rights, privileges and franchises it might choose to do and secured such grants against revocation, change, injury or impairment. The authority was held not within the title." 9* Mahomet v. Quackenbush, 117 U. S. 508, 6 S. C. Eep. 858, 39 L. Ed. 983; Town of Abington v. Gabeen, 106 111. 300, 13 Am. & Eng. E. R. Cas. 581; Connor v. Green Pond, etc. R. E. Co., 33 S. C. 427; Board of Super. V. People, 25 III 181; Bell- ville E. R Co. v. Gregory, 15 id. 30, 18 Am. Deo. 589; Fireman's Benefit Ass'n V. Lounsbury, 31 111. 511, 74 Am. Dec. 115; People v. Loewen- thal, 93 111. 191 ; City of Virden v. Allan, 107 id. 505; Slack v. Jacob, 8 W. Va. 640; Hope v. Gainsville, 73 Ga. 346; Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447, 26 L. Ed. 405; San Antonio V. Mehaffy, 96 U. S. 313, 24 L. Ed. 816; Binz v. Weber, 81 III. 388; Peo- ple V. Brislin, 80 111. 433; Hutchin- son V. Self, 153 IlL 542, 39 N. E. 37; Powell V. Supervisors, 88 Va. 707, 14 S. E. 543. 95 Shipley v. Terre Haute, 74 Ind. 397. 96 People V. Hamill, 134 111. 668, 17 N. E. 799, 29 N. E. 380. 9' Mobile V. Louisville & N. E. E. Co., 134 Ala. 133, 26 So. 903. The court says: "If it be conceded that the subject contained in the title to the amendatory act is the sub- ject of the original act, which is sought to be amended, that is, the incorporation of the New Orleans, Mobile & Chattanooga Eailroad Co., even then the matter expressed in section 5, conferring grants of power upon incorporated towns and cities, could not be referable and cognate to the subject ex- pressed in the caption, so as to re- lieve it of its ofiensiveness to the constitutional provisions. To the legislative mind, or to the public, upon reading the title to the act in question there is not the slight- est hint or suggestion to be had of an intention or purpose to amend. TITLE OF ACTS. 259 A railroad charter authorized subscriptions to its stock by couuties and townships and provided that "townships shall be and they are hereby declared to be bodies politic and cor- porate and vested with the necessary powers to carry out the provisions of this act." This was held sufficient to in- corporate the townships and the provision was held germane to the subject expressed, because in aid of the object de- clared.'^ An act to provide for the incorporation of com- panies to operate passenger railways may properly contain authority to lease the property and franchises of other rail- road companies.'' A provision that no railway company shall have power to create a mortgage or lien valid against judgments for materials furnished, or for work done, or for damages done to persons or property by operation, was held germane to the subject of the consolidation of railways.^ An act to provide for the organization of street railways contained a provision that all companies theretofore organ- ized to operate street railways should have the same powers, rights, protection and privileges, and should be subject to all the liabilities provided for companies organized under the act.^ The court says: "It is germane and appropriate to the subject-matter of the act, and to enact under such a title that all companies of a like nature should have the same privileges is fairly within the general object described in the title." ' Under a title to extend a certain railway, a provision authorizing the company to charge not exceeding four cents per mile was held germane and valid.^ The title, "An act requiring railroad companies to pay for damages to stock," was held sufficient to cover provisions as to fenc- alter or change the chartered ' Frasier v. Railway Co., 88 Tenn. powers of the cities and villages 188, 12 S. W. 537. along the line or at the termini of ^ Detroit v. Detroit Cifeizens' St. -the railroad of the company incor- Ry. Co., 184 U. S. 368, 33 S. C. Rep. poratftd by the act." 410, 46 L. Ed. 593. " <«( Floyd V. Perrin, 30 S. C. 1, 8 S. ^ Id., p. 393. jfi. 14, 3 'u. y. A. 243. * Parker v. Elniira, etc. E. R. Co., a'Vjiikerton v. Penn Traction 165 N. Y. 274, 59 N. E, 81. 1.0., 193 Pa. Si. 339, 44 Atl. 389. 2G0 TITLE OF ACTS. ing track.' " An act to compel railroad companies to fence their roads by and through lands inclosed with a lawful fence," covers a provision that, if the company fails to com- ply, the owner may build the fence and collect the cost, with an attorney's fee.^ Acts to regulate railroads and common carriers may contain all suitable provisions for making the regulations effective.'' In an act to regulate the sale of tickets, rates of fare, and the taxes and licenses to be paid by street railway companies, a provision forbidding pas- sengers to get on or off the front platform, and requiring cars to be so equipped as to prevent the practice, was held foreign to the title.* In an act to regulate the charges for the transportation of passengers and freight by rail- roads, a provision imposing a penalty for evading the pay- ment of fare is germane.' An act to provide for the organization of a railroad termi- nal corporation provided that railroad companies contract- ing with it might guarantee its bonds and contracts and also subscribe for, hold and dispose of its stock and bonds. The provision was held valid.*" A Michigan act was en- titled " An act to authorize the incorporation of companies for the construction of union railroad stations and depots, with the necessary connecting tracks and the management of same." The act authorized such companies to lay tracks and do a suburban passenger business. The provision was held to be within the title." 5 Snook V. Clark, 20 Mont. 330, 50 W Ryan v. Terminal Co., 1 09 Tenn. Pao. 718. Ill, 50 S. W. 744, 45 L. E. A. 303. 6 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Harrel- n Fort St. Union Depot Co. v. son, 44 Kan. 253, 24 Pac. 465. Morton, 83 Mich. 265, 47 N. W. 828. 'State V. Jacksonville Terminal The following is all that is said on Co., 41 Fla. 363, 27 So. 221; State v. the point: "And the building of Bernheim, 19 Mont. 512, 49 Pac. these tracks in connection with 441 ; State V. Whitaker, 160 Mo. 59, the depot, and the running of 60 S. W. 1068. trains upon them, are all a part of ^Wetzman v. Southern Ry. Co., the same -general object, as the 131 Mo. 612, 33 S. W. 181. construction of the depots and sta- s Gieseke v. San Joaquin, 109 Cal. tion houses of the company, to wit, 489, 43 Pac, 446. the increasing the facilities and TITLE OF ACTS. 261 § 147. Acts creating, regulating or otherwise relating to corporations in general. — Any definite subject is gen- erally capable of almost infinite arbitrary division; many particular or subordinate subjects may be included in one general subject," and each of these particular or subordinate subjects may be.selected for the subject of the bill, and may itself be divisible and may embrace other particular or sub- ordinate subjects. Acts to create corporations contain gen- eral subjects capable of much division ; they are not confined to the mere creation of a corporate entity. Such an act defines the powers of the corporate body and regulates their exercise, and may include everything necessary to insure the existence of the company, to attain the objects of its creation and to carry on the business of the company." An act to prescribe the manner of organizing corporations, pub- lic or private, is prospective, and provides the mode of cre- ating new corporations. In such an act provision to modify the charter of an existing corporation is a new subject, not germane to the title." An act so entitled will operate to govern the incorporation of all subsequent companies; it is not multifarious on that account, but an act which in terms incorporates several companies is so.'' A charter to create an institution for the education of j'^oung men presents a subject which embraces everything which is designed to fa- cilitate that object; everything intended and adapted to promote the well-being of the institution or its students.'* An act to establish a house of refuge for the correction and reformation of juvenile offenders may include an appropria- tion, not only of money, but land with directions for its comforts of travel and transporta- ers, 60 Ga. 405; City Council v. Port tion of passengers and freight." Royal, 74 Ga. 658. See State v. Clin- p. 271. ton, 37 La. Ann. 40. 12 People V. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 553, "King v. Banks, 61 Ga. 20; Ex 562. parte Conner, 51 id. 571. 13 State V. Wirt Co. Ct., 37 W. Va. " O'Leary v. County of Cook, 23 «08, 17 S. E. 379. 111. 534 1* Ayeridge v. Town Commission- 262 TITLE OF ACTS. sale." An act incorporating a bank may provide that all parties liable on any bill negotiated at the bank may be sued in one action.^* An act for the benefit of a turnpike company may authorize it to borrow money and to execute mortgages to secure its payment; to sell the road, right of way, etc., applying the proceeds to the payment of its debts; may authorize a judicial sale at the instance of creditors, giving the purchaser the rights and powers of the company.'" An act to establish state depositories and prescribe their duties and liabilities will cover provisions requiring a bond, and regulating the enforcement of it in case of default.^" An act "to authorize the Utica Water-Works Company to increase its capital stock, and to contract with the common council of a city named for a supply of water in that city. for the extinguishment of fires," was held to embrace but one subject, namely, the giving of authority to two corpo- rate bodies therein named to enter into a contract for the purpose therein specified. The power to increase the cap- ital of the company was given simply to enable it to raise such sums of money as might be necessary for a perform- ance of its contract; it was a mere incident to the main ob- ject.^1 Provision for the individual liability of stockhold- ers,^'' or making directors and officers liable for the debts of the corporation, for failure to file reports, or for making a false report or certificate,^' are germane to the subject of creating. corporations. " An act to provide for the organi- zation and government of state banks," may prohibit the I'MoCasIin V. state, 44 Ind. 155; 21 utica Water-works Co. v. Klein v. Kinkead, 16 Nev. 194. Utica, 31 Hun, 426; O'Meara v. 18 Davis V. Bank of Fulton, 31 Ga. Commissioners, 3 T. & C. 236. 69. 22 Ripley V. Evans, 87 Mich. 217, 19 Louisville, eta Co. v. Ballard, 2 49 N. W. 504. Met. (Ky.) 165. zsLudington v. Heilman, 9 Colo. zoSeay v. Bank of Rome, 66 Ga. App. 548, 49 Pao. 377; Tabor v. 609. See Wardle v. Townsend, 75 Commercial Nat. Bank, 62 Fed. Mich. 385, 43 N. W. 950, 4 L. E. A. 383, 10 C. C. A. 429, 27 U. S. App. 515. 111. TITLE OF ACTS. 263 business of banking except by corporations organized under the act.2* Acts of incorporation may thus contain provisions affect- ing the rights, powers and duties of other persons and cor- porations. An act to incorporate a board of underwriters may impose a tax on the premiums of both members and non-members.^^ An act to incorporate a navigation com- pany may authorize other companies to subscribe for its stook.^^ An act for the incorporation of manufacturing cor- porations may not include corporations to do a mercantile business.^' An act regulating the liability of railroads and other corporations, known as the employers' liability act, abolished the defense of fellow-servant and prohibited con- tracts releasing the company in advance from liability for injuries, and these were held germane to the title.^^ An act relating to life and casualty insurance may provide that money and benefits due from such companies shall be ex- empt from garnishment and execution. ^^ An act requiring certain insurance companies to file annual reports with the auditor of state does not cover a provision authorizing the auditor to make a detailed examination into the business and affairs of such companies, whenever he deems it for the interest of the policy-holders to do so.'" An act concerning the judicial sale of the property and franchises of corpora- tions may provide that the purchaser at such sale, and his associates, shall constitute a corporation with all the powers and privileges of the old corporation.'^ An act concerning 24 state V. Woodmanse, 1 N. D. L. Ry. Co. v. Montgomery, 153 Ind. 246, 46 N. W. 970, 11 L. R. A. 420. 1, 49 N. E. 583, 71 Am. St. Rep. 301. 25 New York Board of Fire Under- 29 Burton v. Snyder, 32 Colo. 173, writers v. Whipple, 3 App. Div. 361, 43 Pao. 1004. 37 N. Y. S. 712. 30 state v. Commercial Ins. Co., 26 State V. Wirt Co. Ct, 37 W. Va. 158 Ind. 680, 64 N. E. 466. 808, 17 S. E. 379. " Brinkerhoff v. Newark, etc. 27Eaton V.Walker, 76 Mich. 579, Traction Co., 66 N. J. L. 478, 49 43 N. W. 638, 6 L. R. A. 103. AtL 813. 28 Pittsburgh, Cinn., Chi. & St. 264 TITLE OF ACTS. ^ building and loan associations may apply to foreign com- panies.'^ "An act to prohibit extortion and discrimination in the transmission of telegraph dispatches," provided that telegraph companies should be liable for the non-delivery of and mistakes in messages, and for all damages resulting from failure to perform any duty required by law, and should not be exempt from such liability by reason of any- thing contained in its printed blanks. These provisions were held to be germane.'^ An act to provide for extend- ing the term of corporations, provided that any corporation might amend its articles so as to put them in any form which they might have had originally; held not within the title.'* When the title purports to relate to newly-incorpo- rated companies, provisions relating to prior companies are void.'^ An act to revise the charter of a company may legalize acts previously done,^' but not those done under a prior void charter.'' An act to provide for the accomplish- ment of a certain purpose may create a corporation for the purpose though not mentioned in the title.'' An act to provide for the regulation and incorporation of insurance companies may not regulate the business of insurance by individuals." An act to incorporate an educational body may not include the repeal of a charter of a similar corpo- ration.'"' The title, "An act in relation to gas companies," was held suiHcient to cover provisions permitting gas com- panies doing business in the same city, town or village to consolidate or merge in the manner provided in the act.*^ 82 Clarke v. Darr, 156 Ind. 692, 60 S7 Snell v. Chicago, 133 III. 413, 24 N. E. 688. N. E. 532, 8 L. R. A. 858. 33 Western Union Tel. Co. v. sSAstor v. Arcade Ry. Co., 118 Lowery, 33 Neb. 732, 49 N. W. 707. N. Y. 93, 20 N. E. 594, 3 L. R. A. 34 Palmer v. Zumbrota, 73 Minn. 789. 266, 75 N. W. 380. ' " Schenck v. State, 60 N. J. L. 35 State V. The Schultz Co., 83 381, 37 Atl. 724. Md. 58, 34 Atl. 348. *^ Bryan v. Board of Education, 36 Smoot V. Peoples' Perpetual L. 90 Ky. 332, 13 S. W. 276. & B. Ass'n, 95 Va. 686, 29 S. E. 746, <■ People v. Peoples' Gas Light & 41 L. R. A. 589. C, Co., 205 IIL 483, 68 N. E. 950. TITLE OF ACTS. 265 "An act to incorporate the Bloomingdale Grove Park As- sociation" authorized the establishment of a fish and game preserve of thirty thousand acres in a particular county for the exclusive use of members and forbade trespassing or poaching under severe penalties. The title was held mis- leading and insufficient because it did not specify the county where the park was to be located and because the word " park," in the American sense, means ground set apart for public use for recreation and pleasure." § 148. Acts to create municipal corporations or to re- vise, consolidate or amend their charters. — An act to incorporate a city may contain provisions relating to the various subjects upon which municipal legislation may be required for the preservation of the peace, the promotion of its growth and prosperity, and for the raising of revenue for its government.*' It may confer the necessary legisla- tive, taxing, judicial and police powers — the grant of them is one subject." The whole thing, the creation of the mu- nicipality, is that subject; the parts of it are separate sub- jects, but parts of one general subject.*' So an act to consoli- date a city and provide for its government embraces but one subject. It may properly embrace the details for uniting different municipalities, providing for the payment of their debts, the government of the city, and all the minutia to which the general administration of its affairs would lead.*^ The revision of an act which has incorporated a municipality announces but one subject. It may treat of the essential parts of the whole as well as may the original creative en- actment." An act to revise and consolidate the several acts « Commonwealth v. Hazen, 207 373; People v. Pond, 67 id. 98, 34 Pa. St. 52, reversing S. C, 20 Pa. N. W. 647; People v. Hurst, 41 Mich. :Supr. Ct. 487. 328. 42 Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. ^5 id. ■278, 26 L. Ed. 1090; City of Jack- 4e Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. sonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 585; 278, 26 L. Ed. 1090; City of Coving- People V. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 500. ton v. Voskotter, 80 Ky. 219; State "Harris v. People, 59 N. Y, 599; v. Haskell Co., 40 Kan. 65, 19 Pac. 863. Attorney-General v. Amos, 60 Mich. ^7 Harris v. People, 59 N. Y. 603. 266' TITLE OF ACTS. in relation to the charter of a city embraces but one sub- ject. The charter consists of the creative act and all acts in force relating to the corporation. The word " consolidate " signifies that all the acts are to be brought into and re- enacted in one act. The subject is broad enough to embrace the details of the city government.''^ An act to make fur- ther provision for the government of a city or county is one to provide ways and means for its support, a revenue act, not one which can contain any provision to reorganize or change the government or its organic law.*' When the title of an act indicates the general purpose to- incorporate a municipal corporation, or to revise, consoli- date or amend the charter of such a corporation, the follow- ing provisions have been held to be germane and within the title: authority to issue bonds in aid of a railroad;'" provisions for adjusting the property rights and interests between the municipality created and the political division from which it was cut off ; '' provision for a board of police commissioners, named by the governor and self-perpetuat- ing;^^ conferring the power of eminent domain for opening streets;'' requiring street railways to pave a part of the streets which they occupy;'* giving damages for re-grading streets ; '^ that no one should acquire title to any street, lane, alley or public square by adverse possession;'' authorizing the issue of bonds to construct a combination railroad and 48 People V. Briggs, 50 N. Y. 560, ^ Board of Trustees v. Maysville, 561. 97 Ky. 145, 30 S. W. 1. WGaskin v. Meek, 4? N. Y. 186; si People v. Carson, 10 Misa 237, People V. O'Brien, 38 id. 193. This 30 N. Y. S. 817. last case decides that there cannot 52Amerious v. Perry, 114 Ga. be included in a revenue bill en- 871, 40 S. E. 1004. titled to give authority to raise ^^ state v. North Plainfield, 63 N. money by tax for the use of a city J. L. 61, 43 Atl. 805. corporation, and regulating its dis- 54 Atlanta v. Gate City St. Ry. bursement, a provision amending Co., 80 Ga. 376, 4 S. E. 269. the charter in relation to the offi- ^^ siigh v. Grand Rapids, 84 Mich, cial term of councilmen and the 497, 47 N. W. 1093. time of their election. See Huber «« Crawford v. Ross, 126 Mich. V. People, 49 N. Y. 132. C 14, 86 N. W. 132. TITLE OF ACTS. '2()T wagon bridge across an abutting river;'' providing that a court 'may revoke license of one convicted of violating an ordinance ;'' providing that the county treasurer shall pay over to the city treasurer the city taxes collected by him, with all interest and penalties and with its proportion of the interest paid by banks on moneys deposited by the- cdunty treasurer.^' On the other hand, under similar titles, the following provisions were held not germane and void : That all funds arising under the general revenue laws of the state from liquor licenses issued to parties within the city should be- paid over to the city treasurer for use of the public schools; '" authority to make repairs on a toll road partly within the city and collect the cost by suit from the company; " author- ity to build a county court-house and to issue bonds there- for;''^ that the city should afford fire and police protection to the state property within its limits and care for the streets and walks on which state property abuts and that the expense should be paid out of the state treasury;^' creating a police district, including the city and' extending one and one-half miles beyond its limits ; ^* providing for the election of a county assessor."' Such a title will cover provisions establishing a munici- pal court,^^ but will not justify the creation of a court for- other than city purposes," nor a provision forbidding the- prosecution before a justice of the peace under a- state law 5' South St. Paul V, Lampreoht ^2 Thompson v. Luverne, 138 Ala.. Bros. Co., 88 Fed. 449, 31 O. C, A, 567, 39 So. 33a 585. *3 Lansing V. Board of State Au- S8 State V. Anderson, 63 Minn, ditors, 111 Mich. 837, 69 N. W. 723. 208, 65 N. W. 265. 64 Blair v. State, 90 Ga. 326, 17 S. 5!> Orookston v. County Com'rs, 79 E. 96, 35 Am. St. Rep. 206. Minn. 383, 83 N. W. 586, 79 Am. St. i>5 Haveriy v. State, 63 Neb. 83, 88- Rep, 453. N. W. 171 ; State v. Haveriy, 63 Neb. 60 Woolf V. Taylor, 98 Ala. 354, 13 87, 88 N. W. 173. So. 688. *6 Clem niensen V.Petersen, 35 Ore. 61 Mt. Joy V. Turnpike Co., 183 Pa. 47, 56 Pao. 1015. St 581, 38 Atl. 411. 67 Ex parte Flagg, 38 Tex. Crim. Rep. 573, 44 S. W. 294. '268 TITLE OF ACTS. of a person who has already been arraigned before the mayor under an ordinance for the same offense;*' nor a pro- vision that the mayor and, in case of his disqualification, -three members of the council, shall constitute a court for the trial of certain offenses within the city.^' A general act for the incorporation of municipalities may make provision for the annexation of territory thereto.™ It has been held in Kentucky that, under a title to amend the charter of a town, its limits may be extended,'' but the contrary has been held in Colorado.''^ An act to incorpo- rate a town may not change the county relations of its ter- ritory, though its territory is taken partly from each of two counties.''^ "Where territor}'- which had been constituted a county under a void act was created a township, under a title to create the township of Garfield, it was held that a provision attaching it to Finney county was valid.'* Where the title is to re-incorporate a municipality or to amend its charter, it is held sufficient to cover provisions legalizing prior acts or proceedings.'^ "An act to alter and amend the several acts incorporating the town of S., and to confer upon said town of S. a municipal government," was "held broad enough to cover provisions changing the town to a city, the word "municipal " being ambiguous and suffi- cient to cover either town or city government.'" "An act -to amend the charter of the city of St. Paul in relation to the duties and powers of the board of public works of said 68 Bell V. State, 115 Ala. 87,22 So. 74 state v. Lewwelling, 51 Kan. 453. 562, 33 Pac. 435. MBrown v.State,79Ga.334,4So. '5 People v. Sutphin, 16G N. Y. 861. 163, 59 N. E. 770; Nottage v. Port- 1' la re Lackawana Tp., 160 Pa. land, 35 Ore. 539, 58 Pao. 883, 76 :St. 494, 28 Atl. 927. Am. St. Rep. 518. Compare Mat- ■" Parkland v. Gaines, 88 Ky. 563, ter of City of Rochester, 77 App. 11 S. W. 649. Div. 38, 79 N. Y. S. 336; Peroival v. '-Denver v. Coulehan, 20 Colo. Cowyohee, etc. Dist., 15 Wash. 471, 39 Pac. 425, 27 L. R. A. 751. 480, 46 Pac. 1035. '3 Cahoon v. Iron Gate L. & I. Co., "^ Sessions v. State, 115 Ga. 18, 41 «2 Va. 367, 33 S. E. 767. S. E. 259. TITLE OF ACTS. 269' city " did not name the board of public works in the body of the act, but related to local improvements over which that board had control and supervision. The act was held valid." An act to provide for the creation of the city of P., now known as the provincial municipality of P., pro- vided that the city should have control of wharves, and should appoint a harbor commissioner, with certain duties, and a harbor-master, who should perform all the duties then performed by the harbor-master under the statutes of the state. The existing harbor-master was thus displaced and the laws relating to his office materially changed. It was held that the title was misleading and the provisions in question were void.™ " An act to incorporate the city of Lakeside, to provide for its future annexation to the city of Duluth and to the independent school district of Duluth," in" its first eleven chapters incorporated certain territory as the city of L., and provided for its government, and in chapter 12 provided that on a certain date, a year and a half later, the city should become a part of the city of Du- luth. The act was held to embrace but one subject and ta be valid.™ ■" Ek V. St. Paul Permanent Loan the provisional municipality of Pen- Co., 84 Minn. 245, 87 N. W. 844 sacola, which in no way controlled '8 State V.Burns, 38 Fla. 367, 31 the appointment of the harbor-mas- So. 290; State v. Slooum, 38 Fla. ter." p. 890. 407, 21 So. 1028. In the former case '9 State v. La Vaque, 47 Minn, the court says that in an act to ore- 106, 49 N. W. 525. The court says: ate an original municipality such " Taking the entire act together, it a provision would have been proper, is, in substance, only an act provid- but that the words "now known," ing for the government of the ter- ete, are restrictive and indicate an ritory described in it; providing, intent to deal with the existing mu- for its government temporarily nioipality and were misleading, under the provision of an inde- " The title," says the court, " with pendent charter, and for its gov- the clause in it is calculated to di- ernment after the period specified, vert attention from any pi'oposition under the provisions of the char- to subject the harbor-master of the ter of Duluth, with two or three port of Pensacola to municipal con- unimportant exceptions — excep- trol, in that it directed attention to tions that might have been made the creation of a city, then known as had the territory been originally- ■270 TITLE OF ACTS. In an act to provide for the organization, government -and powers of cities of the second class, a provision exempt- ing such cities from liability for the neglect of street rail- roads to keep their tracks in repair was held not germane and void.^" So of a provision limiting the time in which to bring suits against the city.^' An act to revise and amend the general law in relation to cities, towns and villages con- tained a provision for the creation of park districts, which might extend beyond the municipal limits, and which were to be managed and controlled by park boards. The pro- vision was held not within the title. The court says: " While the subject of public parks is intimately connected with that of municipal government, and might properly form part of a statute regulating city, town and village charters, yet we are of opinion that the creation of such park corporations, in taxing districts embracing territory ■beyond the limits of any city, town or village, invested with some of the most important powers of the county and city government, as contemplated by the sections under review, is a subject which cannot fairly be construed as embraced within the title, 'Of cities, towns and villages.' "^ § 149. Acts relating to light, water, railroads, etc., in municipalities. — A title to authorize cities to erect and operate a lighting plant is sufficient to cover provision for commercial lighting.^' "An act to provide for the establish- inolu.led within the corporate lim- for such government for a specified its of Duluth. Providing local gov- time, and different provisions for ernment for that territory is the such government after that time, general subject, and the only gen- are equally appropriate to the gen- eral subject of the act. There are eral subject." many minor subjects, matters of so'^gigel v. Hastings, 39 Neb. detail, in the act, as there mustal- 379, 45 N. W. 694. -ways be in similar acts; but, where ^i Foxworthy v. Hastings, 23 Neb. such minor subjects are germane 773, 37 N. W. 657. to the general subject, they are 82 state v. County Court, 102 Mo. proper to be included in the act. 531, 15 S. W. 79. Where the general subject is pro- 83 Belding Land & Imp. Co. v. vision for the local government of Belding, 128 Mich. 79, 87 N. W. 113. SL particular territory, provisions TITLE OF ACTS. 271 ment of an electric-light plant in H," may authorize the municipality to do it.^* A title authorizing cities to obtain water by purchasing or constructing works was held insuflB- cient to cover a provision for condemnation.^'^ "An act pro- viding for the sale of railroad and other franchises in m,u- nioipalities and relating to granting franchises" may pro- vide for the granting of franchises by county boards as well as by cities and towns.'^ "An act to establish and maintain a water department in and for the city of Syracuse" may embrace all provisions necessary for procuring a water sup- ply-" § 150. Acts relating to municipal streets, improve- ments, buildings, lands, etc. — An act authorizing cities and towns to construct internal improvements and issue bonds therefor was held to embrace provisions authorizing the purchase of works previously constructed.^ "An act in relation to local improvements in the town of Flatbush," covers a provision authorizing the construction of an outlet sewer through an adjoining town to tide water, which was necessary to make the local sewers effective.*' "An act to provide for a board of assessors in cities of the third class," may provide that such board shall make both the assess- ment for general taxes and the assessments of damages and benefits in case of local improvements.'" An act to regu- late the condemnation of property for various municipal pur- poses specified in the title, among which were " water mains," will not cover provisions authorizing condemnation for reser- voirs and stand-pipes.'' Where the title was to provide for 84Mealey v. Hagerstown, 92 Md. 89 Van Brunt v. Flatbush, 128 N. 741, 48 Atl. 746. Y. 50, 37 N. E. 973. To same effect, 85 Enterprise v. Smith, 62 Kan. Newark v. Orange, 55 N. J. L. 514, 815, 62 Pao. 324. 26 Atl. 799. 8" Thompson v. Board of Sup'rs, 9" In re Sewer Assessment for 111 Cal. 553, 44 Pao. 230. Passaic, 54 N. J. L. 156, 83 Atl. 517. 87 Sweet V. Syracuse, 129 N. Y. ^i Adams v. San Angelo Water 316, 27 N. E. 1081, 29 N. E. 289. Works Co., 86 Tex. 485, 25 S. W. 605. 88 Seymour v. Tacoma, 6 Wash. 138, 32 Pac. 1077. 272 TITLE OF ACTS. drainage and sewerage in densely populated townships where there was a public water supply, it was held the words " public water supply " covered water-works for public use, whether owned by the public or private parties, and that an act framed on that basis was valid.''^ An act to author- ize municipalities to acquire toll roads within their limits may authorize such toll-road companies to sell to such mu- nicipalities, but a provision authorizing them also to sell to any person or corporation would be without the title and void.'' "An act authorizing the acquisition of turnpike roads and highways heretofore or hereafter constructed, near or through any borough or township, upon "which tolls are charged," provided for the condemnation of any such road wholly within a county and imposed payment on the county; held, that the title was misleading as to the roads embraced, and deficient in not indicating the burden imposed upon the county.'* " An act authorizing the inhabitants of townships to purchase and erect a building for township purposes," may provide that the inhabitants may delegate the authority to a township committee.'' An act to author- ize the erection of a poor-house may provide for filling va- cancies in the ofiice of poor directors.'^ An act to provide for the division of special assessments into instalments may provide for interest on the deferred instalments." § 151. Acts relating to the annexation and exclusion of territory to or from municipalities. — Where the title in- dicates the purpose to be to provide for the annexation of territory to municipalities, it is sufiicient to cover a provis- ion that the annexed territory shall not be taxed for the 92 state V. Northampton Tp., 52 '5 Drew v. West Orange, 64 N. J. N. J. L. 496, 19 Atl. 975. L. 481, 45 Atl. 787. 93Tolley V. Courter, 93 Mich. 469, "* Commonwealth v. Dickert,195 fl3 N. W. 620. Pa. St. 234, 45 Atl. 1058. 91 Little Equimunk, etc. Turn- '' McChesney v. Chicago, 159 IIL pike Co., 2 Pa; Co. Ct. 632; Carbon- 223, 42 N. E. 894. dale, etc. Eoad Co., 3 Pa, Co. Ct 460. TITLE OF ACTS. 273 old debts of the municipality/^ or provisions as to schools, where the boundaries of school districts are interfered with."" But where the title relates wholly to the union, division and changing the boundaries of townships, a provision that, when territory is annexed to a township which lies wholly within a city, the city shall extend over the annexed terri- tory, is without the title and void.^ § 152. Miscellaneous acts relating to municipal corpo- rations. — An act to create a board of police commission- ers, and authorizing the appointment of a police force for the city of St. Louis, covers provisions for the appointment of private policemen, watchmen and detectives, and requir- ing them to have a license, and making it a misdemeanor for any to act in such capacity without a license.^ An act to authorize a town to establish a board of health does not justify a provision that the expense of the board shall be chargeable to the county.' The word "cities " in a title was held not to include towns.* But the words " municipal cor- porations " were held to include township.* An act to pro- vide for the establishment of wards in cities may also pro- vide for dividing the wards into election precincts.^ An- act was entitled " An act relating to actions against cities, villages or boroughs for damages to persons injured on streets and other public grounds, by reason of the negli- gence of any public officer, agent or employee of any such city, village or borough." The act covered injuries by rea- son of any defect in any " bridge, street, road, sidewalk, 98 Vernon School District V. Board < State v. Bedell, 67 N. J. L, 148, of Education, 125 Cal. 593, 58 Pac. 50 Atl. 364. 175. ORathbone v. Hopper, 57 Kan. 99 McGurnv. Board of Education, 240, 45 Pac. 610,34 L. E. A. 674; 133 111. 123, 34 N. E. 529. West Plains Tp. v. Sage, 69 Fed. 1 Donnersberger v. Prendergast, 943, 16 C. C. A. 553, 32 U. S. App. 128 111. 229, 21 N. E. 1. 725. 2 State V. Bennett, 103 Mo. 356, 14 « State v. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 298, S. W. 865. 30 Atl. 543. 3 Quinn v. Cumberland Co., 163 Pa. St. 55, 29 Atl. 289. 18 274 TITLE OF ACTS. park, public ground, ferry boat or public works of any- kind." It was claimed that the words "other public grounds " in the title were to be construed by the rule ejus- dem generis, and therefore to embrace only public places of like nature with public streets; but the court held that the rule should not be applied to defeat the act, and that the words were broad enough to include all the public build- ings and places mentioned in the act.'' In the case cited a pumping station was held within the act and the title. " An act to disincorporate the city of Eeno " provided for the en- forcement and payment of claims against the city, and also for the government of its territory by the county board. These provisions were held to be within the title.' § 153. Acts relating to counties and county seats. — An .act to provide for a uniform system of county govern- ment does not cover provisions for an official stenographer for the courts of the county, he not being a county officer and having nothing to do with the county government.' " An act to provide for the creation and organization of new counties and government of the same " may make pro- vision for the location of the county seat, the organization of towns and school districts therein, and the adjustment of indebtedness between the new and old counties.'" " An act to provide for the payment by new counties of their pro- portionate share of the indebtedness of the older counties from which they were taken " will cover provisions apply- ing to counties created before the act was passed." " An act to better define the boundary lines between " specified counties will not cover a provision taking territory from a county not named in the title and attaching it to one that is named.'" Where the title is to attach K. county to F. 7 Winters v.Duluth, 83 Minn. 127, "State v. Board of Com'rs, 67 84 N. W. 788. Minn. 353, 69 N. W. 1083. 8 State V. Beck, 25 Nev. 68, 56 Pac. n Mills County v. Brown County, 1008. 87 Tex. 475, 29 S. W. 650. 9 Pratt V. Brown, 135 Cal. 649, 67 12 State v. Baker, 139 Mo. 483, 31 Pac. 1082. a W. 924. TITLE OF ACTS. 2Y5 county, a provision attaching it to H. county is void." A title " to provide for the more economical management of county affairs " was held not sufficient to embrace provis- ions fixing the salaries of county officers or changing the compensation of justices of the peace." An act to author- ize the voters of a county to vote on the removal of the county seat vrill not cover provisions for a partition of the old court-house and jail property owned jointly by the county and city.*' A title which purports to authorize counties to take cer- tain steps and incur certain expense does not justify an act which requires them to do so.^^ An act which creates an innovation in the management and control of county af- fairs should have its real purpose clearly indicated in the title." So of an act which authorizes other than the regu- lar county authorities to create a county liability.'^ An act for the creation of a new county may provide for the di- vision of property and debts, and of taxes levied but not collected." § 154. Acts relating to schools, school districts and «(lucation. — An act to dissolve school districts numbered 4, 35 and 108 and attach them to school district numbered 139, for the purpose of forming a graded school, was held to express but one subject, the forming of a graded school.^" " Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. i* State v. Wabaunsee Co. Com'rs, Kearney Co., 58 Kan. 19,48 Pac. 45 Kan. 731, 26 Pac. 483; Stegmaier 583. V. Jones, 203 Pa. St. 47, 52 Atl. 56. " Anderson v. Whatcom County, *' State v. County Com'rs, 47 Neb. 15 Wash, 47, 45 Pac. 665, 38 L. R 428, 66 N. W. 434; Stegmaier v. A. 37. Jones, 203 Pa. St. 47, 52 Atl. 56. 15 Alexandria Co. Sup'rs v. Alex- i^ Dailey v. Pelter County, 203 kndria, 95 Va. 469, 28 S. E. 883. Pa. St. 593, 53 Atl. 498. Compare But an act to provide for the lo- Read v. Clerfield County, 12 Pa, cation, construction and maint,e- Supr. Ct. 419. nance of the University of Wash- is Kings County v. Johnson, 104 ingtou was held sufficient to cover Cal. 198, 37 Pac. 870. a provision for the sale of an old 20 Ash v. Thorp, 65 Kan. 60, 68 site donated for university pur- Pac. 1067. In Ackley School Dis- poses. Callvert v. Winsor, 26 Wash, trict v. Hall, 113 U. S. 135, 5 S. C. 368, 67 Pac. 91. Rep, 371, 28 L. Ed. 954, was con- 276 TITLE OF ACTS. "Where the title related to the public schools of a city, provis- ions relating to districts partly within and partly without the city were held without the title.^' An act to enable the sidered an " Act to authorize inde- pendent school districts to borrow money and issue bonds therefor for the purpose of erecting and com- pleting school-houses, legalizing bonds heretofore issued, and mak- ing school orders draw six per cent, interest in certain cases," which was held not in violation of the provisions of the state constitution (Iowa), that "every act shall em- brace but one subject and mat- ter properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title." The act is thus summarized in the opinion of the court: "The act contains six sections, the fourth providing that 'all school orders shall draw six per cent, interest after having been presented to the treasurer of the district and not paid for want of funds, which fact shall be indorsed upon the order by the treasurer.' As there are two kinds of school districts in Iowa, 'district town- ship' and 'independent district,' — the latter carved out of the for- mer, — it is contended that the title to the act in question embraces two subjects: one relating to mat- ters in which independent school districts alone are concerned, and the other to matters in which the township district and independent districts are concerned; that whether school orders, which may be issued for many purposes, by districts of either kind, should bear interest or not, is wholly foreign to the borrowing of money to build school-houses in independent dis- tricts, Iowa Code, 1873, oh. 9, tit. 13. " We are not referred to any ad- judication by the supreme court of Iowa which supports the point here made. On the contrary the principles announced in State v. County Judge, 3 Iowa, SSI, show that the act before us is not liable to the objection that its title em- braces more than one subject. . . . The doctrines of that case have been approved by the same court in subsequent decisions, and they are decisive against the point here raised. Morfovd v. Unger, 8 Iowa, 83; Davis v. Woolhough, 9 id. 104; People v, Brislin, 70 UL 433; McAurich v. Railroad Co., SO Iowa, 348; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Highsmith, 44 Iowa, 334. The gen- eral subject to which this special act relates is the system of com mon schools. That system is main- tained through the instrumentality of district schools of different kinds. Provisions in respect ta these instrumentalities — those re- ferring to the erection and comple- tion of school -houses in independ- ent school districts with money raised upon negotiable bonds, and others, to the rate of interest which all school orders shall bear — relate to the same general object and are only steps towards its accomplish- ment.'' 21 In re Consolidation of School Districts, 33 Colo. 499, 48 Pao. 647. TITLE OF ACTS. 277 school directors of the borough of C. to establish and main- tain a graded school does not cover provisions annexing territory to the school district of C.^ An act to establish a school district was held insufficient to cover provisions forbidding the sale of liquors within the district and impos- ing penalties therefor.^' An act to establish a text-book board for the public schools of C. county and to define its powers and duties provided for a uniform system of text- books to be selected by the board and made their use com- pulsory, and that books once selected should not be changed for six years. The claim was made that the words " text-book board " did not mean anything in particular and did not sug- gest the purpose of the act, but the court held the title sufficient.^* "An act to provide for the support and main- tenance of the Universitj' of Arkansas," abolished the office of pomologist connected with the university and made the various appropriations for its support. It was held to em- brace but the one subject expressed in the title.^' An act to provide a reform school for juvenile offenders may provide for committing such offenders thereto.^' § 155. Acts relating to offices and officers. — An act to create the office of county controller in certain counties and prescribing his duties, in effect abolished the office of county auditor existing in some of the counties. It was held that 22 Payne v. School District, 168 maintenance. Economy and re- Pa. St. 386, 31 AtL 1076. trenchment, when the means are 23 Montgomery v. State, 88 Ala. limited, are as necessary to the 141, 7 So. 51 ; Glenn v. Lynn, 89 Ala. maintenance of the universities as €08, 7 So. 924. it is of individuals. The abolition 21 State V. Griffin, 132 Ala. 47, 31 of the oiBce of pomologist relieved So. 112. the university of an expense, and 25 Vincenhellerv. Reagan, 69 Ark. in part of an unauthorized ex- 460, 64 S. W. 278. The court says: pense, and left it with a larger ap- "The object of the act in question propriation to accomplish the legit- was the maintenance and support imate objects of one of its depart- of the university of the state. Any- ments." p. 473. thing which will lessen the illegal 26 Ex parte Liddell, 93 Cal 638, 29 or unnecessary expenses of that in- Pac. 251. stitution will tend to its legitimate 278 TITLE OF ACTS, this feature of the law was not expressed in the title." By an existing act the affairs of M. county were managed by a board of three commissioners. An act was passed to re- peal the former law and to provide for two commissioners to sit with the county judge for the transaction of county business. A provision legislating one commissioner out of office was held within the title.^^ An act to provide for the election of two justices of the peace for a city and to repeal an act providing for the elec- tion of four justices for the same city, continued two of the four existing justices and legislated two out of office. The title was held misleading and the act void.^' "An act defining the duties of state controller" imposed penalties upon other officers for a failure to settle with the state controller as required by law; held not within the title.'" An act to provide for the election of presidential electors may also provide for the election of alternates and for their service in case of vacancy.'^ "All city officers" in a title may include the clerk of the city court, which, though really a state court, has always been provided for in acts relating to the city.'^ An act to provide for the election or appointment of officers may provide for their qualifications or term of office.^' An act to fix the fees and salaries of certain officers may contain provisions requiring such officers to account for all fees and to pay over a certain part to the county.'* Such an act may provide for the recovery of fees illegally charged,'* 27 Commonwealth v. Samuels, 163 '2 Collins v. Russell, 107 Ga. 423, Pa. St. 283, 29 Atl. 909; Common- 33 S. E. 444. wealth V. Severn, 164 Pa. St. 463, 30 33 state v. Macklin, 41 Mo. App, Atl. 391. 335; State v. Connelly, 66 N. J. L. 28 State V. Steele, 89 Ore. 419, 65 197, 48 Atl. 955, 88 Am. St. Rep. 469. Pac. 515. The contrary is intimated in State 29 Brooks V. Hydorn, 76 Mich. 373, v. Taylor, 31 Wash. 672, 59 Pac. 489. 43 N. W. 1122. '< Hardy v. Kingman Co., 65 Kan. 30 State V. Hoadley, 20 Nev. 317, HI, 68 Pac. 1078. 22 Pac. 99. '* Benson v. Christian, 129 lud. 31 MoPherson v. Blacker, 92 Mioh. 535, 29 N. E. 2& 377, 52 N. W. 469, 31 Am. St. Rep. 587, 16 L. R. A. 475. TITLE OF ACTS. 279 or impose a penalty for so doing.'* So it may limit the number of their deputies and fix their compensation," but may not create the office of deputy and fix the compensa- tion attached thereto.'' "An act fixing the salaries and compensation of the officers of Humboldt county and con- solidating certain offices in that county," among other things, provided that the district attorney should be ex officio superintendent of schools and that the latter office should be consolidated with the former. The provision was held within the title." So under the title to regulate the salary of an officer, it was held germane to prescribe his duties and to impose upon him the duties theretofore performed by another officer and in efi'ect to abolish the latter office.*" Where the title indicates that certain additional duties will be required of an officer and that he will be authorized to call in the assistance of private persons, it is sufficient to cover provisions for making compensation for such services.*^ "When the title expresses the purpose to be to reduce the compensation of certain officers, provisions which increase their compensation are void.*'' " An act to fix the fees to be collected by the secretary of state for incorporation and certain other privileges," fixed fees for filing certificates of incorporation and provided that no corporation should ex- ercise any corporate power or da any business in the state until the fee was paid. The provision was held germane.'" "An act providing' for the appointment of committees to investigate the affairs of state institutions and conduct of officers," provided for removal by the governor of officers 3»Lowe V. Bourbon Co., 6 Kan. ^OTrehy v. Marye, 100 Va. 40, 40 App. 603, 51 Pao. 579. S. E. 126. 37 Clark V. Finley, 93 Tex. 171, 54 <' Gunder v. Wyoming County, 12 S. W. 843. Pa. Dist Ct. 78. 38 Milwaukee County V. Isenring, ^^gjmard v. Sullivan, 71 Minn. 109 Wis. 9, 85 N. W. 131, 53 L. R. A. 517, 74 N. W. 280; State v. Sullivan," 685. 72 Minn. 126, 75 N. W. 8. 39 State V. Humboldt Co. Com'rs, <3 jones v. Aspen Hardware Co.," 21 Nev. 235, 29 Pac. 974 21 Colo. 263, 40 Pao. 457, 52 Am. St. Rep. 220, 29 L. R. A. 14a 280 TITLE OF ACTS. found guilty of corruption, venality, inefficiency, miscon- duct, immorality or inattention to duty; held within title.** " An act creating the office of the state board of auditors and prescribing the duties thereof," provided that the sec- retary of state, state auditor and attorney-general should constitute the board and that they should examine the books and vouchers of the state treasurer at least twice a year, that the treasurer should deposit all funds in banks, to be designated by the board and governor, that such banks should give bond to be approved by the board and gov- ernor, and that the treasurer should not be liable for the loss of funds so deposited by the failure or act of the bank. It was held that the subject of the act was the security of state funds and that the subject was not expressed in the title.*' An act to establish an office may provide how the election to the office may be contested and in what court.** § 156. Acts relating to irrigation, drainage, levees, and the like. — An act "to regulate the use of water for irriga- tion, and providing for settling the priority of rights thereto, and for payment of the expenses thereof, and for payment of all costs and expenses incident to said regulations and use," is only equivalent to the briefer title which might have been adopted: An act to regulate the use of water for irrigation. This was held to be the controlling purpose of the law; that the rest of the title refers to nothing which is not germane to the subject thus expressed. Incidental to a proper regulation of the use of water diverted from ** Rodgers v. Morrill, 55 Kan. 737, death or resignation, and nothing 43 Pac. 355. could be raore natural than to look 45 State V. Nomland, 3 N. D. 427, to the body of the act to ascertain 57 N. W. 85, 44 Am. St Rep. 573. what provision had been made to *" State V. Slover, 134 Mo. 10, 31 insure the orderly succession in the S. W. 1054,34 8. W. 1103. Speaking incumbency of the office, and to of the title, the court says: "At provide for settling the dispute of once the suggestion comes as to the rival claimants thereto. Certainly method of electing or appointing such a provision as is found in see- the incumbent, the length of his tion 16 would be germane to the term, the salary or perquisites, the subject and would have an obvious filling of the vacancy in case of connection with it." pp. 17, 18. TITLE OF ACTS. 281 natural streams in (Colorado) is a determination of the pri- orities of water rights.'" An act to provide for water rights and irrigation may include provisions for condemning land for ditches for irrigation purposes.'" "An act to provide for the establishment, construction and maintaining drains in this state," is sufficient to cover all the provisions of a general drainage law, a drainage com- mission in each county, levying of special assessments, issu- ing bonds, creating of a sinking fund, and repeal of incon- sistent laws.'" § 157, Acts relating to roads, bridges, ferries, etc. — Acts to provide for the construction of such works may confer the power of eminent domain for that purpose.'" An act to provide for laying out, opening and extending streets in municipalities may include provisions validating former proceedings.*' Eoads and bridges are not distinct subjects, and may be legislated upon in one act.'^ An act to provide for establishing, working, repairing and maintaining the public roads and bridges in the several counties of the state authorized the levy of a county tax for the purpose, and provided that one-half the tax on property in incorporated towns and cities should be turned over to the municipalities to be used on their streets. The proviso was held within the title.'' An act to appropriate money to aid in building bridges in certain counties may provide that the counties shall keep such bridges in repair.** An act to amend the « Golden Canal Co. v. Bright, 8 »» Slocum v. Neptune, 68 N. J. L. Colo. 144. 595, 53 Atl. 301; Seabolt v. Com'rs, « Paxton & Hershey Irr. C. & 187 Pa. St. 318, 41 Atl. 22. L. Co. V. Farmers,' etc. Co., 45 Neb. 6i g^n Francisco v. Kiernan, 98 884, 64 N. W. 348, 50 Am. St. Rep. Cal. 614, 33 Pac. 720. 585, 29 L. R A. 853. 52 gtate v. Street, 117 Ala. 203, 28 « Martin v. Tyler, 4 N. D. 278, 60 So. 807. N. W. 393, 25 L. R. A. 838; Bye v. ^ County Com'rs v. Jacksonville, Stafford, 4 N. D. 304, 60 N. W. 401; 36 Fla. 196, 18 So. 339. Wishmier V. State, 97 Ind. 160. For "State v.CountyCom'rs,83Minn. title of general drainage act held 65, 85 N, W. 830. sufficientseeLien v. County Com'rs, 80 Minn. 58, 82 N. W. 1094, '282 TITLE OF ACTS. general road law, which was applicable to counties not under township organization, contained a provision that the amend- atory act should apply to counties under township organ- ization. The provision was held V(5id as not within the title." § 158 (100). Acts relating to courts and judicial prac^ tice and proceedings. — One act may relate to all or a por- tion of the courts of a state in defining their jurisdiction or regulating their practice. In the Matter of Wakker,*^ an act in relation to justices' and police courts of New York was held not to be obnoxious to constitutional objection on ac- count of two courts being the subject of legislation. The court say: "It was the object of this law to establish jus- tices' courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction within this city, and to abolish such minor jurisdictions as stood in the way of the courts to be created. The well-known jurisdic- tion of justices of the peace for the country is divided by this statute between the new justices created by it, upon one set of whom is conferred the civil and upon the other the criminal jurisdiction of the country magistrates. The office of justice, its tenure and jurisdiction, and the compen- sation of its incumbents are provided for, and clerks are ordered and compensated by this law." It provided also that its provisions should be applicable to the justices and clerk of the marine court. That court was substantially a justice's court, it being distinguishable only by having ad- ditional jurisdiction in certain marine cases not cognizable by justices. On this point the court say: "It would be giv- ing an undue importance to this one feature in respect to jurisdiction to hold that this alone deprived it of the char- acter of a justice's court, while it possessed all the main characteristics of that tribunal. It is still a court of infe- rior and limited jurisdiction, conducted, in all respects ma- terial to this argument, as a justice's court. If this be correct, then, in the strictest construction of the article of the constitution under consideration, a statute in relation 55 Shively v. Lankford, 174 Mo. 535, 74 S. W. 835. 56 3 Barb. 163. TITLE OF ACTS. 283 to justices' courts, confined to the organization and regula- tion of these courts, may properly embrace in its provisions- the marine court." An act was held valid in Kentucky which regulated the jurisdiction of several courts, the inferior courts of th& state. It was an act to regulate the civil jurisdiction of justices of the peace, police judges and quarterly courts, and the appellate jurisdiction of the circuit courts on appeals- from their judgments, and to authorize the quarterly courts- to appoint clerks. The act was treated as one to regulate the jurisdiction of several of the courts of the state. The subject was deemed single." Where the title was to create new courts in a county and to limit the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, it was held not to express two subjects.^' An act for the better admin- istration of justice in the town of Sweden abolished the- oiRce of police justice for the village of Brockport within the town and created the office of police justice for the town. The act was held valid." Under a title to establish the city court of Yaldosta in and for the county of Lowndes, a pro- vision giving the court jurisdiction throughout the county^ was held germane.*" An act to repeal an act establishing- municipal courts, passed March 17, 18-97, continued the- courts until January 1, 1898. This was held within the- title." An act in relation to superior courts and the elec- tion of superior court judges covers provisions for division of the state into districts, and for the election of judges iu' the districts.*'^ An act concerning evidence provided that- the court might make an order for the examination of the person of the plaintiff in personal injury cases by a physician- or surgeon in order to qualify him as a witness in the suit.. S7 Allen V. Hall, 14 Bush, 85. eo Mattox v. State, 115 Ga. 212, 41,. 68 In re Greer, 58 Kan. 268, 48 S. E. 709. Pac. 950. " Bogue v. Seattle, 19 Wash. 396, M People V. Lane, 53 App. Div. 53 Pac. 548. 531, 65 N. Y. S. 1004. «2 state v. Rusk, 15 Wash. 403^ 46 Pao. 387. ^84 TITLE OF ACTS. The provision was held within the title.*' An act was en- titled " An act respecting writs of error." A supplement to the act provided for the review of cases on law or fact bj' a process which was called a writ of erroi', but which was not of the nature of a common-law writ of error but of an appeal. It was held not to be within the title.'^ An act to establish a court necessarily includes provisions for the appointment or election of a judge and other officers, and how and by whom jurors should be chosen and summoned.** An act to provide for appeals from interlocutory orders granting injunctions or appointing receivers may not pro- vide for an appeal from an order refusing to dissolve an injunction or to discharge a receiver.** Where the title was "An act authorizing parties defendant in certain actions to sever, and to have the cause as to themselves transferred to the county of their residence," a provision that in certain actions a single defendant may have such transfer is void.*' 63 McGovern v. Hope, 63 N. J. L. 76, 42 Atl. 830. «i Falkner v. Dorland, 54 N. J. L. 409, 24 Atl. 403.' The court says: "The act does indeed designate «uch process a writ of error; but that does not makejit such. Be- sides, in view of the constitutional prescription, such new-fangled pro- cess thus sought to be instituted must have been, before and at the time of the passage of the law, of the nature of a writ of error, or the title was grossly illusive. The process contrived by this law has for its function the I'emoval of de- cisions founded on blended law and fact, a function that in no «ense appertains to writs of error, whose sole ability always has been and is to bring before the higher court, for review in matters of law, the judgments of inferior jurisdic- tions. Most plainly, the procedure before us is an appeal, and not one in error. " The criterion in these cases is to ascertain as closely as practi- cable what impression, as to the object of the statute, its titular ex- pression is calculated to dissemi- nate. The obvious purpose of the requirement is to give information on the subject to legislators and the public. Looking at the title of the law in question in this way, it seems quite unreasonable to denj' that its object as expressed is wholly misdesoribed; consequently it is erroneous in the worst degree, for it is misleading.'' pp. 410, 411. 's Commonwealth v." Green, 5S Pa. St. 233. •is Taylor v. Kirby, 31 111. App. 658. 6' Saunders v. Savage, 108 T^in. 340, 67 S. W. 471. TITLE OF ACTS. '285- § 159. Acts relating to probate law and the descent and distribution of property. — An act entitled " An act to es- tablish a probate code," covered the whole subject of law usually administered in probate courts, wills, administration of estates, the descent and distribution of property, etc. The title was held sufficient and the act valid.^^ A comprehen- sive act must have a comprehensive title or it will be invalid.^' An act to amend the chapter of the Ee vised States entitled " Dower," by adding a new section thereto, provided by such, new section that the husband should be entitled to one-half 68 Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575, 50 N. W. 933, 38 Am. St. Rep. 382. The court says: "The word ' code,' as now generally used, and as obviously used in this title, means a 'system of law' — 'a sys- tematic and complete body of law.' And while the word ' probate ' orig- inally meant merely 'relating to proof,' and afterwards 'relating to the proof of wills,' yet in the Amer- ican law it is now a general name or term used to include all matters of which probate courts have juris- diction, which in this state are ' the estates of deceased persons and of persons under guardianship.' Hence the term 'probate code' may and should be construed as meaning 'the body or system of law relating to the estates of de- ceased persons and of persons un- der guardianship.' In common un- derstanding this is as distinct and clearly defined a branch of the law as is criminal law or corporation law, and in popular signification the term ' probate law ' includes all matters of which probate courts generally have jurisdiction, among which is 'estates of deceased per- sons.' An examination of this act" will show that all its provisions are connected with this general sub- ject. The fact that some of them^ relate to matters of mere procedure, while others define and fix rights of property, is no valid objection to the law. The same objection might be urged against many acts the constitutionality of which has never been questioned. Neither is the fact important that a law con- tains matters that might be, and usually are, contained in separate acts, or would be more logically classified as belonging to different subjects, provided only they are germane to ftie general subject of the act in which they are put. The legislature is not limited to the most logical or philosophical clas- sification. The law of wills and of title to property by descent is a part of the law relating to the estates of deceased persons, and hence is, in popular understanding, if not logic- ally, a part of the general subject of probate law." pp. 578, 579. 69Trumble v. Trurable, 37 Neb. 340, 55 N. W. 869. The act in this case was an attempt to combine the law of dower, curtesy, descent of property and homesteads in one act with a misleading and insufiBcieni title. •286 TITLE OF ACTS. the real and personal estate of his wife, when she died intes- tate and without children or descendants. This was held within the title. The court says: "While the title of the act in question may not be absolutely correct as a definition •of the right conferred in the body of the bill, if the mean- ing of the term dower is to be considered as it was used and understood at common law, yet if we consider it in the meaning of the light of the general meaning of the term (that with which one is gifted or endowed), it is diflBcult to understand how it could be thought a deception upon the members of the legislature, or how it could have operated to mislead them ss to the chief and only topic of the bill, however we might think best to designate or classify it." ™ ^' An act in regard to the descent of property " contained a -provision that marriage should be deemed a revocation of a prior will. The provision was held valid, and the court said that any provision as to what should be deemed intes- tate estate would be germane to the title.'^ A provision abolishing dower was held within a title to regulate the descent of real estate and the distribution of personal prop- erty.'^ § 160. Acts relating to elections. — "An act to regulate municipal elections in the city of Louisville," provided for the manner of voting and conducting elections, the duties ■of officers of elections, and imposed penalties for violations of the act. The act was held to have but one subject and the provisions to be germane.'" An act relating to elections made provision for appointments to office to fill vacancies; held not within the title." An act to regulate the noraina- -tion and election of officers does not cover a provision for 7»0'Brien V. Ash, 169Mo.283,299, Land Co., 54 Fed. 209, 4 C. C. A. •69 S. W. a 290, 7 U. S. App. 494 71 Hundall v. Ham, 172 IlL 76, 49 's Rogers v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 503, 11 ISf. K 985. S. W. 513. 72 Richards v. Bellingham Bay 74 Ritchie v. Richards, 14 Utah, 345, 47 Paa 670 TITLE OF ACTS. 287 voting on an increase of municipal indebtedness, and the same was held void.™ § 161. Acts relating to taxation and revenue. — Under a title to enable a public corporation to raise money by tax, provisions may be included not only prescribing the pro- cedure to assess and collect the tax, but the objects may be designated for which the money is to be raised.''' An act entitled a supplement to "An act concerning taxes " is not open to the objection that it embraces more than one sub- ject expressed in its title because it deals with several de-~ tails of the matter of taxes." An act for the more rigid collection of the revenue properly provides for the different classes of taxes and defines the duties of officers charged with their collection. It may define the jurisdiction of jus- tices in revenue cases and prescribe the practice.'^ A stat- ute of limitations may be inserted in a tax law for the pur- pose of aiding and assisting in the collection of taxes.™ Where the title is in general words relating to the assess- ment and collection of taxes, or concerning taxation and revenue, or to provide revenue for the state, the following provisions have been held to be germane and included in the title: A provision as to the rate of taxation;'" a pro- vision imposing a tax upon the unsuccessful party in ci^il suits, and upon each indictment or presentment the sum of five dollars, to be taxed and paid as part of the costs in the case;*' provisions defining peddlers, requiring them to take out a license, that all notes given for articles or rights sold by peddlers shall have written or printed across their face '5 Evans v. Willistown Tp., 168 ''State v. Whit worth, 8 Lea, 594; Pa. St. 578, 33 "Atl. 87; Common- Ensign v. Basse, 107 N. Y. 339, U wealth V. Weir, 15 Pa. Co. Ct 435. N. E. 400. See State v. Wardens, '6 Sun Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mayor, etc., 23 La. Ann. 720. 8 N. Y. 852; Sharp v. Mayor, etc., '» Bowman v. Cookrill, 6 Kan. 311. 81 Barb. 573-575; Smith v. Mayor, 8" Manchester v. People, 178 III. etc., 34 How. Pr. 508. 385, 52 N. E. 964. " Kirkpatriok v. New Brunswick, 81 Ex parte Griffen, 88 Tenn. 547, 40 N. J. Eq. 46; Brown v. State, 78 13 S. W. 75. Ga. Sa 28S TITLE OF ACTS. the words " Peddler's JSTote," and that notes not so indorsed shall be void;*^ a provision that, after a tax is delinquent, any person may pay the tax and interest and that the treas- urer shall thereupon issue to sucTi person a certificate of such payment, which shall contain a guaranty of the county or municipality that if the tax is void it will refund to the holder the amount paid and interest.*' Eut in another case it was held that a provision that, when taxes are paid on land not subject to taxation, the money shall be refunded with interest to the person making the payment, was not within the title of an act relating to the levy and collection of taxes.'* An act to create a state board of equalization may pro- vide that the state tax shall be apportioned on the basis of the equalized valuation as fixed by such board.^ " An act to create a treasurer of Calvert count}' and to provide for the collection of taxes therein," provided for such treas- urer, and authorized him to appoint a deputy, and provided that such deputy should act as clerk of the county commis- sioners. It was held that the subject of the act was the collection of taxes in the county, and that the provisions were all germane to this subject.*' Where the title refers to the assessment of tracts of land divided by county lines, provisions as to the assessment of lands divided bj' borough or township lines are not within the title.*' "An act for the taxation of dogs and protection of sheep," provided that dogs should be deemed personal property and the sub- ject of larceny. The provision was held germane.** An amendment to an act relating to the lien of taxes as be- tween vendor and vendee provided that when a merchant 82Nunn V. Citizens' Bank, 107 '« County Com'ra v. Hellen, 73 Ky. 263, 53 S. W. 66.'). Md. 603, 20 Atl. 130. 85 State V. Whittlesey, 17 Wash. 87 La Plume v. Gardner. 148 Pa. 447, 50 Pac. 119. St. 193, 23 Atl. 899. 8Wenk v. New York, 82 A pp. * Wilson v. Herink, 64 Kan. 607, Div. 584, 81 N. Y. S. 583. 68 Pac. 73. 1 Fletcher v. State, 54 Ind. 462; "State v. Gerhardt, 145 Ind. 439^ O'Kane v. State, 69 Ind. 183; State 44 N. E. 469. V. Owens, 9 Kan. App. 595, 58 Pao. « State v. Forkner, 94 Iowa, 1, 63 240. N. W. 683; State v. Gloucester Ca, 2 Kane v. State, 78 Ind. 103. 50 N. J. L. 585, 15 Atl. 272. 3 Brown v. State, 73 Ga 38; ' People v. Japinga, 115 Mich. 223, Howell V. State, 71 Ga. 224, 51 78 N. W. 111. Am. Rep. 259. 292 TITLE OF ACTS. give bond to comply with the act, and that any person ag- grieved by such violation might sue on the bond and re- cover five hundred dollars liquidated damages for each breach of the condition.' A provision that part of the revenue derived from licen- ses should be expended on the public roads was held ger- mane.' An act to regulate the sale of liquor may not alto- gether prohibit the sale.'" When the title refers to sales only, provisions as to giving away or otherwise disposing of liquor are not included." An act toprohihit the sale of liquors, like an act to regu- late their sale, may embrace all the provisions necessary for its enforcement, including penalties, and the designation of a tribunal to try violations of the act.^''' It has been held that an act to prohibit the sale may simply regulate the sale; the court holding that " regulating a thing is the pro- hibition of it, except in accordance with certain rules." ^' An act to prohibit the sale of liquor provided for refunding the money paid on unexpired licenses; held not within the title." An act to license the sale of liquor may impose a penalty for selling without a license.*' Where the title specified the territory in which it was to operate, and the act specified different territory, it was held void.'* A provision making the operation of the act conditioned on the result of a popu- lar vote is germane." Where the title applies to cities only the act may not include towns.'' An act relating to gam- 8 Peavy v. Goss, 90 Tex. 89, 37 S. " Bradley v. State, 90 Ala. 177, W. 317. 13 So. 415. 9 Lynch v. Murphy, 119 Mo. 108, 16 Burns v. State, 104 Ga. 544. 30 24 S. W. 774. S. E. 815. Contra, Sasser v. State, 10 Crabb v. State, 88 Ga. 584, 15 99 Ga. 54, 25 S. K 619. S. E. 455; Yahn v. Merritt, 117 Ala. w Ryno v. State, 58 N. J. L. 238, 485, 23 So. 71. 33 Atl. 219. 11 State V. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, 30 n McGruder v. State, 83 Ga. 616, So. 844, 89 Am. St. Rep. 23. 10 S. E. 441; Whitman v. State, 80 12 McTigue V. Commonwealth, 99 Md. 410, 31 Atl. 325. Ky. 66, 35 S. W. 121; Brown v. is Jones v. Morristown, 66 N. J. I* Hart, 97 Ky. 735, 31 S. W. 736. 488, 49 AtL 440. 13 Cantini v. Tillman, 64 Fed. 969. TITLE OF ACTS. 293 bling devices in dramshops provided that the dramshop keeper should not keep, or permit to be kept, in or about his dramshop, any billiard, pool or other gaming table, bowling, or ten-pin alley, cards, dice, or other device for gaming or amusement, and should not " permit any spar- ring, boxing, wrestling, or other exhibition or contest or cock fight in his dramshop." The whole was held to be within the title. It was held that "device" might mean any contrivance, or anything contrived or planned, and so include the provision quoted.^' § 164. Pure food laws. — An act entitled "to prevent de- ception in the sale of dairy products, and to preserve the public health," goes beyond its title in making the manu- facture of imitation butter a crime.'"' So of an act " to pro- hibit and prevent adulteration, fraud and deception in the manufacture and sale of articles of food and drink." ^' An act " to prevent frand in the sale of lard " forbade the sale of any article intended for use as lard which contained any ingredient other than pure fat of healthy swine, unless it was labeled "compound lard" and showed the ingredients it contained. This was held within the title.^ An act ^'to provide against the adulteration of food " declared it to be an adulteration " if any inferior or cheaper substance or substances have been substituted in whole or in part for it," or "if it is an imitation of or is sold under the name of an- other article." These were held within the title.^ Instate V. B]aokstone, 115 Mo. nocent and contain no element of 434, 22 S. W. 370. wrong, there must be something in 20 Northwestern Manuf g Co. v. the title to show such purpose or Wayne Circuit Judge, 58 Mich. 381, object, under section 20, article 4, 25 N. W. 372, 55 Am. Rep. 693. See of the constitution. The title con- People V. Arensberg, 105 N. Y. 123, tains not even an intimation that an 11 N. E.'277, 59 Am. Rep. 483. entirely innocent act is to be made 21 Grosvenor v. Duffy, 121 Mich, a crime." p. 228. 220, 80 N. W. 19. The court says: 22 state v. Snow, 81 Iowa. 643, 47 N. "When the legislature attempts to W. 777, 11 Am. St. Rep. 355. change definitions, and to make 23 Commonwealth v. Curry, 4 Pa. acts criminal which are per se in- Supr. Ct. 356, 294: TITLB OF ACTS. § lfi5. Acts relating to gaining, pool-selling, etc. — An act to prevent gaming may make it an offense to keep any house or place for the purpose of betting therein,** or give an action to recover back money lost at gaming.*' " An act to prohibit the use of clock, tape, slot or other machines or devices for gambling purposes," may embrace provisions to punish for operating, keeping, owning, renting, or using such machines or devices for gambling purposes.*' An act to prohibit book-making and pool-selling may be limited in its application to events taking place without the state.*' The title of an act may be broad enough to include all forms of gambling,*^ but when it relates to one form only, such as pool-selling, provisions as to other forms of gambling will be void.*' § 166. Acts relating to fish, game, etc. — An act for the protection of game, wild fowl and birds may include both game and non-game birds in its provisions. "It is to be pre- sumed," says the court, " the general assembly, in framing the title to the act, employed the word 'game' in its proper sense, and therefore as including all game birds, game fowl and all game animals. That being true, it is clear the words ' wild fowl and birds ' were added for the reason the word 'game' did not include certain species of wild fowl and birds designed to be protected by the act. The intent which controlled in the addition of these words was, that the title should disclose that birds and fowl which were not game birds or game fowl were objects of the enactment." '" In Maryland it is held that a provision making it unlaw- ful for one to have in his possession during the closed season birds or game brought from another state is within the title 2* Lescallett v. Commonwealth, "8 Benners v. State, 124 Ala. 97, 26 89 Va. 878, 17 S. E. 546. So. 942. 26 Maling v. Crummey, 5 Wash. 29 Lacey v. Palmer, 93 Va. 159, 223, 31 Pao. 600. 34 S. K 930, 57 Am. St. Eep. 795. 28 Bobel V. People, 173 111. 19, 60 ^o Maul v. People, 198 IlL 258, 260, N. E. 333, 64 Am. St. Eep. 64 64 N. E. 1106b 27 State V. Burgdoerfer, 107 Mo. 1, 17 S. V^. 646. TITLE OF ACTS. 295 of an act for the protection and preservation of birds and game," but the contrary is held in Minnesota.'^ An act to regulate the catching of fish forbade the taking of fish dur- ing a certain period of the year. Thjs was held to be reg- ulation and within the title.'^ An act to protect salmon and other food fishes may forbid the casting into streams of saw dust, shavings and waste lumber.^* An act to pro- hibit the catching of game fish in certain cases required the owners of dams to make fish-ways. This was held not within the title.ss § 167. Acts relating to crimes in general. — An act to punish cheats, frauds, etc., may prescribe the form of indict- menf Where the title relates to misdemeanors only, pro- visions as to felonies are void." An act to prohibit the prac- tice of blacklisting made it unlawful for any company, cor- poration or partnership to prevent or hinder any discharged employee, or employee who had voluntarily left the service, from obtaining employment elsewhere; held within the title.'' An act " to provide for the punishment of crimes in certain cases," made it a felony to take indecent liberties with male children. It was held that the title gave no hint as to the character of the act to be punished and therefore failed to comply with the constitution.^' A title " to define and suppress vagrancy " was held to cover provisions as to the fees of constables and magistrates in enforcing the law.*" An act to add a new section to sub-title " Rivers " in article 30 of the code, entitled " Crimes and Punishments," pro- s' Stevens v. State, 89 Md. 669, 43 36 state v. Morgan, 113 Mo. 203, Atl. 829. 20 S. W. 456. S2 State V. Chapel, 63 Minn. 533, 3' Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 28, 19 65 N. W. 940. So. 857; Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 33 Osborn v. Charlevoix Giro. 66, 19 So. 901. Judge, 114 Mich. 655, 73 N. W. 988. 38 state v. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 31 State V. Shaw, 23 Ore. 387, 29 88 N. W. 759, 89 Am. St. Eep. 550. Pao. 1038. 39 In re Snyder, 108 Mich. 18, 65 35 West Point Water Power & L. N. W. 563. I. Co. V. State, 49 N^b. 223, 68 N. «Hays v. Cumberland County, W. 507. 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 159; affirmed, 18S Pa. St. 109, 40 AtL 282. 296 TITLE OF ACTS. vided in the new section that it should be a penal offense to dredge, take or carrj'^ away sand or gravel from the bed of the Potomac. The section was held within the title.** An act relative to disorderly persons defined who should be con- sidered disorderly persons and included drunkards and tip- plers. This was held within the title.*^ An act to amend section 4614 of the code so as to raise the age of consent, as set forth in said section, to twelve years, and to prescribe punishment in the penitentiary against persons having car- nal knowledge of females over twelve and under sixteen, was held to express but one subject, and a provision making all persons aiding or abetting the crime principals, was held germane." "Where the title relates to crimes and pun- ishments and criminal proceedings, provisions relating to a civil proceeding in bastardy are not within the title.** An act with a similar title prohibited the sale or keeping for sale of cigarettes and also imposed a license tax upon any person who sold or kept the same for sale and upon the real estate where the same were sold or kept for sale. The pro- vision for a license tax was held to be in the nature of an additional penalty, to tend to the suppression of the traflBc, and to be within the title.*' § 168. Acts relating to convicts and penal institutions. The following provisions were held not to be within a title to regulate the management of state and county convicts: *i State V. Norris, 70 Md. 91, 16 language we have employed, is Atl. 445. clearly expressed in the title when *2 People V, Kelly, 99 Mich. 82, 57 reduced to its shortest meaning N. W. 1090. and read in connection with the <' State V. Brown, 103 Tenn. 449, law amended, and sucti a title, 53 S. W. 727. The court says: "In though sufiSciently broad in its reality, the subject is single, and scope to include two or more dilfer- the two purposes indicated relate ent grades or classes of crime, is, to different parts of that one sub- nevertheless, single and expresses ject, which is the prevention and but one subject." punishment of carnal connection ** State v. Tieman, 32 Wash. 294. with young females. This subject, 45 Cook v. Marshall County, 119 though not formulated in the Iowa, 384, 98 N. W. 372. TITLE OF ACTS. 297 providing for additional imprisonment for costs'/^ provid- ing for payment by the state of certain costs in criminal trials;*' providing that when the term of sentence is two years or less, the sentence shall be to hard labor for the county, and when for more than two years, to hard labor in the penitentiary/' An act to amende specified contract for convict labor may not provide for leasmg the convict labor.<9 An act to revise the laws relative to the state prison may provide for the punishment of crimes committed by con- victs within the prison.'" But a provision that if any con- vict should escape or attempt to escape, or mutiny or incite mutiny, or the like, he should be tried in a certain court on information by the warden, and, if found guilty, should lose the benefit of all time served on his sentence and should be re-sentenced for the full original term, was held not to be within such a title.'^ An act was entitled " An act to provide for the maintenance, government and police of the peniten- tiary." It was held that a provision that, where persons are hereafter convicted and punished by imprisonment, it shall <6 Brown v. State, 115 Ala. 74, 22 different subject from that of his So. 458. management during the existence « White V. Burgin, 113 Ala. 170, of the sentence. ... If this 31 So. 832. But a title "to create section is germane to the title, it anew convict system forthe state" would seem to follow that the leg- was held sufficient to cover the islature might have proceeded in provision in question. the act to legislate generally on *8 Ex parte Gayles, 108 Ala. 514, the subject of the punishment of 19 So. 12. The court says: "Here, criminals convicted of crime and as we plainly see, we are carried abolished capital punishment, es- toaok from where hard labor and tablished a whipping post and the management of the convict set revised largely the criminal statutes in, which is the subject of this en- of the state." p. 516. actment, as indicated in its title, *' State v. Holcomb, 46 Neb. 612, to a point after conviction and be- 65 N. W. 873. fore sentence, by virtue of which ^o People v. Huntley, 113 Mich, sentence alone, the convict is sub- 569, 71 N. W. 178. ject to the management provided ^i State v. Lewin, 53 Kan. 679, 37 for in the act, his conviction and Pac. 168t sentence being quite another and 298 TITLE OF ACTS. be in the penitentiary, if it exceeds six months, was not within the title.^^ An act to provide for the organization and man- agement of a state reform school may embrace provisions for the committing of children thereto by the various courts.*'' § 169. Miscellaneous cases in which acts were held to conform to the constitution as to title. — An act provid- ing for the sale of school lands may define the rights acquired by a purchaser.'* So a grant of lands in aid of a public improvement may contain a provision exempting the land from taxation for a limited time.*' An act in relation to the manufacture and sale of vinegar may provide against adulteration and deception in sale.'^ An act to regulate the practice of medicine may include surgery, obstetrics, oste- opathy and christian science." An act to enable park com- missioners to make local improvements may authorize the levy of a new assessment to pay for an improvement pre- viously completed.'^ An act to regulate the foreclosure of chattel mortgages on household goods provided that no chat- tel mortgage executed by a married man or woman on house- hold goods should be valid unless both husband and wife joined in its execution. The provision was held valid on the ground that whatever related to the validity of the mortgage- to be foreclosed was germane.*' An act to regulate the recording of title notes or evidences of conditional sales may- 33 Brooks V. People, 14 Colo. 413, 55 Board of Supervisors v. Audi- 24 Pac. 553. tor-General, 65 Mich. 408, 83 N. W.. 53 In re Sanders, 53 Kan. 191, 36 657. Pac. 348, SB L. E. A. 603. 56 People v. Worden Grocery Co., 5* Prescott V. Beebe, 17 Kan. 320. 118 Mich. 604, 77 N. W. 315. It was held in Swayze v. Britton, 17 57 Little v. State, 60 Neb. 749, 84 Kan. 625, that an act "concerning N. W. 257; State v. Buswell, 40 Neb. notaries public" was not broad 158, 57 N. W. 1019. enough to include a provision au- 58 West Chicago Park Com'rs v. thorizingnotaries public protesting Sweet, 167 III. 326, 47 N. E. 728; commercial paper to give notice West Chicago Park Com'rs v. Far- thereof to parties secondarily lia- bar, 171 111. 146, 49 N. E. 427. ble. This conclusion cannot be *' Gaines v. Williams, 146 111. 450,. reconciled with the rule of con- 34 N. E. 934; Flynn v. Coakley, 164r struction generally adopted. III. 470, 45 N. E. 1070. TITLE OF ACTS. 290 provide that such writings shall be void if not recorded.*" In "An act relating to libel and its punishment," a provision abolishing punitive damages in civil actions for libel was held germane." " An act granting to the city of Mobile the riparian rights of the river front " was held sufficient to cover the grant of the fee of the river front.*^ An act to amend an article of the code entitled " Oysters " may require persons engaged in packing oysters to pay a license.^' An act to provide for the organization, regulation and inspec- tion of building and loan associations, and to repeal the former law on the subject, forbade any building and loan association to do business in the state without complying with the act, provided " that, except as to taxation, this act shall not affect any such association heretofore organized under the laws of the state of Montana, unless it elects to come under its provisions." The proviso was held to be within the title.** An act to provide for the manner of selecting the police force of the city of Birmingham, in reality related to the constitution and election of the board of police commissioners, who appointed the policemen. The act was held within the title, because it related to the man- ner of selecting the police force by dealing with the instru- mentality of their selection.*' A title was held not to be bad for the mere reason that it described a repealed act.** Numerous additional cases are cited in the margin in which the acts or provisions in question were held within the title of the respective acts.*' These cases are referred 60 otto Gas Engine Works V. Hare, «' State v. McCary, 128 Ala. 139, 64 Kan. 78, 67 Pac. 444. 30 So. 641. "iGoebeler v. Wilhelm, 17 Pa. •'BReynoldsv. Board of Education, Supr. Ct. 433. 66 Kan. 672, 72 Pac. 274. •iS Mobile Transportation Co. v. ^^ Alabama: Dean v. State, 100 Mobile, 128 Ala. 335, 30 So. 645, 86 Ala. 102, 14 So. 762; State v. Eog- Am. St. Rep. 143. ers, 107 Ala. 444, 19 So. 909; Daugh- «3 State V. Applegarth, 81 Md. 293, drill v. State, 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378; 31 Atl. 961, 28 L. R. A. 812. State v. Stripling, 113 Ala. 120, 21 "iHome B. & L. Ass'n v. Nolan, So. 409; Ex parte Mayor, 116 Ala. 21 Mout. 205, 53 Pac. 738. 186, 22 So. 454; State vJ Winter, -300 TITLE OF ACTS. to in the hope that those of each state may be of some use to the practitioners of that state. 118 Ala. 1, 34 So. 89; Lewis v. State, 133 Ala. 84, 26 So. 516; Williams v. Board of Revenue, 133 Ala. 433, 26 So. 346; State v. Crook, 136 Ala. 600, 38 So. 745; Sheppard v. Dow- ling, 137 Ala. 1, 38 So. 791, 85 Am. St. Eep. 68; Ellis v. Miller, 136 Ala. 185, 33 So. 890. California: Ex parte Kohler, 74 C&\. 88, 15 Pao. 436; People t. Dunn, 80 Cal. 311, 23 Pac. 140, 13 Am. St. Eep. 118; Pennie v. State, 80 Cal. 266, 33 Pao. 176; People v. Superior Ct, 100 Cal. 105, 34 Pac. 493; Jones V. Falvella, 136 Cal. 24,58 Pao. 311; Los Angeles County v. Spencer, 126 Cal. 670, 59 Pac. 303, 77 Aqi. St. Rep. 217; People v. King, 127 Cal. 570, 60 Pac. 35; People v. Linda Vista Irr. Dist, 128 Cal. 477, 61 Pao. 86; Carpenter v. Furry, 128 Cal. 665, 61 Pac. 369; People v. Mul- lender, 183 Cal. 317, 64 Pao. 299; People V. Cobb, 133 Cal. 74, 65 Pac. ■335; Jackson v. Baehr, 138 CaL 366, 71 Pac. 167. Colorado: Stockman v. Brooks, 17 Colo. 348, 29 Pao. 746; Airy v. People, 21 Colo. 144, 40 Pac. 363; <;ardillo v. People. 26 Colo. 355, 58 Pac. 678; Liggett v. People, 36 Colo. 364, 58 Pac. 144; Lamar Canal Co. V. Amity Land & Irr. Co., 36 Colo. 370, 58 Pac. 600, 77 Am. St. Rep. 361 ; Merwin v. County Com'rs, 29 'Colo. 169, 67 Pac. 385; MoUie Gib- son Con. M. & M. Co. V. Sharp, 5 ■Colo. App. 831, 35 Pac 918. Florida: Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303, 9 Sa 716; Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 891 Georgia: Spier v. Morgan, 80 Ga. 581, 5 S. E. 768; Macon & Birming- ham R R. Co. V. Gibson, 85 Ga. 1, 11 S. E. 443, 31 Am. St. Rep. 135; Columbus Southern Ey. Co. v. Wright, 89 Ga. 574, 15 S. E. 393; Butler V. State, 89 Ga. 831, 15 S. E. 763; Silvoy v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 94 Ga. 609, 31 S. E. 607; Carson v. Mayor, 94 Ga. 617, 30 S. E. 116; MoCommons v. English, 100 Ga. 653, 28 S. E. 386; Brand v. Law- renceville, 104 Ga. 486, 30 S. E. 954; Cunningham v. GrifBn, 107 Ga. 690, 33 S. E. 664; Murray v. State, 118 Ga. 7, 37 S. E. Ill; Welborne v. State, 114 Ga. 793, 40 S. E. 857; Hirsch v. Brunswick, 114 Ga. 776, 40 S. E. 786. Illinois: Danville v. Danville W. W. Co., 180 111. 235, 54 N. E. 224; Boehm v. Hertz, 183 111. 154, 54 N. E. 973, 48 L. E. A. 575; Arms v. Ayer, 193 111. 601, 61 N. E. 851, 85 Am. St. Eep. 357; In re St. Louis Loan & Invest. Co., 194 111. 609, 63 N. E. 810. Indiana: Rushville Gas Co. v. Eushville, 131 Ind. 206, 23 N. B. 72, 16 Am. St. Eep. 388; State v. Kol- sem, 130 Ind. 434, 29 N. E. 595, 14 L. R. A. 566; Smith v. McCIain, 146 Ind. 77, 45 N. E. 41; Chicago & Eastern 111. E. E. Co. v. State, 153 Ind. 134, 51 N. E. 924; Gustavel v. State, 153 Ind. 613, 54 N. E. 133; Burget V. Merritt, 155 Ind. 143. 57 N. E. 714; Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 64 N. E. 862. Iowa: Guaranty Savings & L. Ass'n V. Ascherman, 108 Iowa, 150, 78 N. W. 823. Kansas: Barber Ca Com'rs v. TITLE OF ACTS. 301: § 170. Miscellaneous cases in which acts were held not to conform to the constitution as to title.— Where the title of an act indicated a general law and the body of the Smith, 48 Kan. 331, 39 Pao. 559, 565; State v. Campbell, 50 Kan. 433, 32 Pao. 85; Blaker v. Hood, 53 Kan. 499, 36 Pac. 1115, 24 L. R. A. 854; Eudora v. Darling, 54 Kan. 654, 39 Pac. 184; Lynch v. Chase, 55 Kan. 367, 40 Pao. 666; Aikman V. Edwards, 55 Kan. 751, 43 Pao. 366, 30 L. E. A. 149; State v. Shep- ard, 64 Kan. 451, 67 Pac. 870; State V. Wilcox, 64 Kan. 789, 68 Pac 662; State V. Dunn, 66 Kan. 483,71 Pao. 811; Higgins v. Mitchell Co., 6 Kan. App. 314, 51 Pao. 72; Inlow v. Graham Co., 6 Kan. App, 391, 51 Pac. 65 ; State v. Haun, 7 Kan. App. 509, 54 Pac. 130; Ireton v. Lonbuer, 9 Kan. App. 561, 58 Pao. 278. Kentucky: Commonwealth v. Godshow, 93 Ky. 485, 17 S. W. 787; Van Meter v. Spurrier, 94 Ky. 22, 21 S. W. 337; White v. Common- wealth, 20 Ky. L. R. 1942, 50 S. W. 678 ; Raubold v. Commonwealth, 21 Ky. L. R 1125, 54 S. W. 17; Murphy V. Louisville, 34 Ky. L. R. 1574, 71 S. W. 34; Weber v. Commonwealth, 34 Ky. L. R. 1736, 73 S. W. 30; Com- monwealth V. McConnell, 35 Ky. L, R. 52; Huyser v. Common- wealth, 35 Ky. L. R, 608. Louisiana: Conery v. New Or- leans W. W. Co., 41 La. Ann. 910, 7 So. 8; Luoky v. Police Jury, 46 La. Ann. 679, 15 So. 89; State v. People's Slaughter House, etc. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1031., 15 So. 408; McKeon v. Sumner Building Sup- ply Co., 51 La. Ann, 1961, 26 So. 430; State t. Lee, 106 La. 400, 31 So. 14. Maryland: Ellicott Machine Co- V. Speed, 73 Md. 32, 18 Atl. 863;. Gans V. Carter, 77 Md. 1, 35 Atl. 663; Bond v. State, 78 Md. 523, 38 AtL 407; Hamilton v. Carroll, 83 Md. 326, 83 Atl. 648; Phinney v. Sheppard, etc. Hospital, 88 Md. 633, 48 Atl. 5& Michigan: Feek v. Township Board, 83 Mich. 393, 47 N. W. 37, 10 L. R. A. 69; Hall v. Burlingame. 88 Mich. 438, 50 N. W. 389; Frary v. Allen, 91 Mich. 666, 53 N. W. 78 ^ Van Husan v. Hearnes, 96 Mich. 504, 56 N. W. 33; Toll v. Jerome, 101 Mich, 468, 59 N. W. 816; Grand Rapids V. Burlingame, 103 Mich. 331, 60 N. W. 698; Rice v. Hosking, 105 Mich. 303, 63 N. W. 311, 55 Am. St. Rep. 448; Barnard v. McLeod,. 114 Mich. 73, 72 N. W. 24; Jackson V. Jackson Co., 117 Mich. 305, 75 N- W. 617; Sunderlin v. Board of Sup'rs, 119 Mich. 535, 78 N. W. 651; Board of State Tax Com'rs v.. Board of Assessors, 124 Mich. 491, 83 N. W. 209; Chipman v. Wayne Co. Auditors, 127 Mich. 490, 86 N. W. 1024; Jackson & Suburban Traction Co. v. Commissioner of R. R., 138 ]y?:ich. 164, 87 N. W. 133; Shearer v. Board of Sup'rs, 128 Mich. 553. 87 N. W. 789. Minnesota: Stolz v. Thompson, 44 Minn. 271, 46 N. W. 410; State v. Bigelow, 52 Minn. 307, 54 N. W. 95; Willis V. Standard Oil Co., 50 Minn. 290, 52 N. W. 653; Kelly v. Minne- apolis City, 57 Minn. 394, 59 N. W. 304, 47 Am. St Rep. 605, 36 L. R. A. 93; Lynott v. Dickerman, 65- 502 TITLE OF ACTS. act, though in form general, was so qualified and limited that it could apply to only one county, and was therefore local, the title was held to be misleading and the act void.** Under a Minn. 471, 67 N. W. 1143; Fleokten 953, 961; Nebraska L. & B. Asis'n v. V. LambertOD, 69 Minn. 187, 73 N. Perkins, 61 Neb. 254, 85 N. W. 67; W. 65; Anrierson v. Seymour, 70 State v. Aitken, 63 Neb. 438, 87 N. Minn. 358, 73 N. W. 171; State v. W. 153. Phillips, 78 Minn. 77, 75 N. W. 1029; Wm. DeeringCo. v. Peterson, 75 Minn. 118, 77 N. W. 568; O'Brien V. St. Croix Boom Co., 75 Minn. Nevada: State v. Euhe, 24 Nev. 251, 53 Pac. 374 New Jersey: Mortland v. State, 53 N. J. L. 531, 20 Atl. 673; State v. 343, 77 N. W. 991; State v. West Cherry, 53 N. J. L. 173, 30 Atl. 825; Duluth Land Co., 75 Minn. 456, 71 State v. Wescott, 55 N. J. L, 78, 25 N. W. 1115; Benz v. St. Paul, 77 Atl. 269; State v. Crusins, 57 N. J. Minn. 375, 83 N. W. 1118; McCollis- L. 279, 81 Atl. 335; Board of Educa- ter V. Bishop, 78 Minn. 328, 80 N. tion v. Clififside Park, 63 N. J. L. W. 1118. 371, 43 Atl. 722; Cooper v. Springer, Missouri: State v. Hughes, 104 65 N. J. L. 594,48 Atl. 605; State v. Mo. 459, 16 S. W. 489; State v. Or- Diamond Mills Paper Ca, 63 N. J. rick, 106 Mo. Ill, 17 S. W. 176, 329; Eq. Ill, 51 Atl. 1019. State V. Kingsley, 108 Mo. 135, 13 New Torh: People v. Fitch, 147 S. W. 994; Ward v. Board of N. Y. 355, 41 N. E. 695; Perkins v. Equalization, 185 Mo. 309, 86 S. W. Heert. 158 N. Y. 306, 53 N. E. 18, 70 648; State v. Bookstruck, 136 Mo. Am. St. Rep. 483, 43 L. R. A. 858: 3H5, 38 S. W. 317; State v. Fire- People v. Coler, 173 N. Y. 103, 05 men's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1, 52 N. E. 956; Wrought Iron Bridge Co. S. W. 595: State v. Mason, 155 Mo. v. Attica, 49 Hun, 513, 2 N. Y. S. 486, 55 S. W. 630; State v. Beugsch, 359; Fort v. Cummins, 90 Hun, 481, 170 Mo. 81, 70 S. W. 710; Elting v. 36 N. Y. S. 36; Dunton v. Hume, Hickman, 172 Mo. 237, 73 S. W. 700. 15 App. Div. 122, 44 N. Y. a 305; Montana: Jobb v. Meagher Co., Potter v. CoUis, 19 App. Div. 392, 20 Mont. 424, 51 Pac. 1034. 46 N. Y. S. 471; Matter of Buffalo Nebraska: Singer Mfg. Co. v. Traction Co., 25 App. Div. 447, 49 Fleming, 89 Neb. 679, 58 N. W. 336, N. Y. S. 1053; Matter of Clinton 43 Am. St. Rep. 613; Bishop v. Ave., 57 App. Div. 166, 68 N. Y. S. Middleton, 43 Neb. 10, 61 N. W. 139, 196; People v. Kent, 83 App. Div. 36 L. R. A. 445; Stoppert v. Nierle, 554, 83 N. Y. S. 172; People v. Web- 45 Neb 105, 63 N. W. 383; State v. ster, 8 Misc. 133, 28 N. Y. S. 646. Moore, 48 Neb. 870, 67 N. W. 876; North Dakota: State v. Haas, 2 State V. Stuht. 52 Neb. 209, 71 N. N. D. 202, 50 N. W. 254; State v. W. 941; Bryant v. Dakota Co., 53 Barnes, 3 N. D. 319, 55 N. W. 883; Neb. 755, 74 N. W. 313; Howard v. Tribune Print & Binding Co. v. Supervisors, 54 Neb. 443, 74 N. W. Barnes, 7 N. D. 691, 75 N. W. 904; 68 Wagner v. Milwaukee County, 112 Wis. 601, 88 N. W. 577. TITLE OF ACTS. 303 title "to regulate the fine and forfeiture fund of Elmore county," a provision appropriating money from the general fund of the county to the fine and forfeiture fund of the Power V. Kitohing, 10 N. D. 254, 86 N. "W. 737. Oregon: State v. Dupuis, 18 Ore. 572. 23 Pac. 255; Simon v. Northup, 27 Ore. 487, 40 Pac. 560; Ex parte Mon Luck, 29 Ore. 421, 44 Pac. 693, 54 Am. St. Eep. 804, 32 L. R. A. 738; Spaulding Logging Co. v. Inde- pendence Imp. Co., 42 Ore. 394, 71 Pac. 132. Pennsylvania: Nason v. Poor Di- rectors, 126 Pa. St, 445, 17 Atl. 616; Commonwealth v. Sellers, 130 Pa. St. 33, 18 Atl. 542; Bradley v. Pitts- burgh, 130 Pa. St. 475, 18 Atl. 730; Clearfield Co. v. Cameron Tp., 135 Pa. St. 86, 19 Atl. 952; Common- wealth V. Wyman, 137 Pa. St. 508, 21 Atl. 389; Commonwealth v. Morningstar, 144 Pa. St. 103, 22 Atl. 867; De Walt v. Hartley, 146 Pa. St. 529, 24 Atl. 185, 28 Am. St. Rep. 814, 15 L. R. A. 771; Donley v. Pitts- burg, 147 Pa. St. 348, 23 Atl. 394, 30 Am. St. Rep. 738; Kelley v. May- berry, 154 Pa. St. 440, 26 Atl. 595; Commonwealth v. Railway Co., 162 Pa. St. 614, 29 Atl. 696; Bruce v. Pittsburg, 166 Pa. St. 152, 30 Atl. 831; Gackenbach v. Lehigh Co., 166 Pa. St. 448, 31 Atl. 142; Com- monwealth V. Keystone Benefit Ass'n, 171 Pa. St. 465, 32 Atl. 1027; Grubbs' Appeal, 174 Pa. St. 187, 34 Atl. 573; Commonwealth v. Mor- gan, 178 Pa. St. 198, 35 Atl. 589; Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 178 Pa. St. 308, 35 Atl. 816; Commonwealth V. Muir, 180 Pa. St. 47, 36 Atl. 413; Dorrance v. Dorranceton, 181 Pa. St. 164, 37 Atl. 200; Otto Tp. Road, 181 Pa. St. 390, 37 Atl. 514; Page v. Williamsport Suspender Co., 191 Pa, St. 511, 43 Atl. 345; In re Regis- tration of Campbell, 197 Pa. St. 581, 47 Atl. 860; Merritt v. Wliitlocb, 200 Pa. St. 50, 49 Atl. 786; New Brighton v. Biddell, 201 Pa. St. 96, 50 Atl. 989; Hood v. Norton, 203 Pa. St. 114, 51 Atl. 748; Rose Hill Iron & C. Co. v. Fulton Co., 204 Pa. St. 44, 53 Atl. 530; Franklin v. Hancock, 204 Pa. St. 110, 53 Atl. 644; Rose v. Beaver Co., 204 Pa. St, 373, 54 Atl. 263; Ho£f v. Person, 1 Pa. Supr. Ct. 357; Otto Tp Road, 2 Pa. Supr. Ct. 20; Commonwealth V. Lloyd, 2 Pa. Supr. Ct. 6; Wilson V. Downing, 4 Pa. Supr. Ct. 487; Pittsburgh v. Daly, 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 528; Shenk v. McKennon, 11 Pa. Supr. Ct. 84; Baker v. Warren Co., 11 Pa, Supr. Ct. 170; Middletown Road, 15 Pa. Supr. Ct. 167; Common- wealth V. Hanley, 15 Pa. Supr. Ct. 271; Franklin v. Hancock, 18 Pa. Supr. Ct. 398; Commonwealth v. Mintz, 19 Pa, Supr. Ct. 283; Phila- delphia V. Pepper, 18 Phila. 419; Sanderson v. Com'rs, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 842; Commonwealth v, Baum, 28 Pa. Co. Ct. 332; Pittsburgh v. Ken- nedy, 13 Pa. Dist. Ct. 247. South Carolina: Ex parte Bacot, 36 S. C. 125, 15 S. E. 204, 16 L. R. A. 586. South Dakota: State v. Ayers, 8 S. D. 517, 67 N. W. 611; Miles v. Benton Tp., 11 S. D. 450, 78 N. W- 1004 Tennessee: Cole Mfg. Co. v. Falls, 90 Tenn. 466, 16 S. W. 1045; Mc- 304. TITLE OF ACTS. county was held without the title.** An act was entitled "An act to authorize the drainage of marsh land." It cre- ated certain persons a corporation with the usual powers, provided for its stock, management, etc., gave it power to drain and reclaim any or all of the wet or overflowed lands or tide- water marshes on or adjacent to Staten Island or Long Island, except within cities, granted to the corpo- ration the title to all such lands when surveyed on payment of a price to be fixed, and gave it power to condemn and assess benefits. It was held that the subject was not ex- pressed in the title and that the act was void.™ An act " to protect fruit trees, hedge plants and fences," simply author- ized the payment of a bounty for gopher scalps. It was held that the subject of the act was not expressed, though the destruction of gophers might protect trees.'' An act " to Elwee V. McElwee, 97 Tenn. 649, 37 S. W. 560; Kennedy v. Mont- gomery County, 98 Tenn. 165, 38 S. W. 1075; State v. McMinnville, 106 Tenn. 384, 61 S. W. 785; Carroll V. Alsup, 107 Tenn. 257, 64 S. W. 193; Phillips v. Lewis, 3 Tenc. Cases, 230. Texas: Brown v. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Hep. 119, 22 S. W. 596; Jame- son V. State, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep. 385, 24 S. W. 508; Ex parte Segars, 32 Tex. Crim. Rep. 553, 25 S. W. 26. Virginia: Morris v. Va. Ins. Co., 85 Va. 588, 8 S. E. 383; Prison Ass'n V. Ashby, 93 Va. 667, 25 & E. 893. Washington: Jolliffe v. Brown, 14 Wash. 155, 44 Pac. 149, 53 Am. St Rep. 868; S win burn v. Mills, 17 Wash. 611, 50 Pao. 489, 61 Am. St. Rep. 932; Tacoma Land Co, v. Young, 18 Wash. 495, 52 Pao. 244; Johnston v. Wood, 19 Wash. 441, 53 Pac 707; Lewis County v. Gor- don, 20 Wash. 80, 54 Pac. 779; Mer- ritt V. Corey, 23 Wash. 444, 61 Paa 171; Grant v. Cole, 23 Wash. 542, 63 Pac. 268. Wisconsin: Julien v. Model B. L. & 1 Ass'n, 116 Wis. 79, 92 N. W. 561. Wyoming: Farm Invest Co. v. Carpenter, 9 Wya 110. 61 Pac. 258, 87 Am. St Rep. 918, 50 L. R. A. 747. United States: Knights Templars & Masons' Life Indem. Co. v. Jar- man, 187 U. S. 197, 23 S. C. Rep. 108; Morgan v. Des Moines, 54 Fed. 456; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Oswego, 59 Fed. 58, 7 C. C. A. 669, 19 U. S. App. 321; Preston v. Finley, 73 Fed. 850; Roberts v. Brooks, 78 Fed. 411, '24 C. C. A. 158; Picken v. Post, 99 Fed. 659, 41 C. C. A. 1. *9 Sanders v. Court of County Com'rs, 117 Ala. 543, 23 So. 788; Pierce v. Court of County Com'rs, 117 Ala, 569, 23 So. 790. 7»Coxe V. State, 144 N. Y. 896, 39 N. E. 400. ■Ji Clark V. Wallace Co. Com'rs, 64 Kan. 634, 39 Pac. 335. TITLE OF ACTS. 305 require the payment of a poll tax by all legal voters under sixty years of age," provided that the name of no person should be registered as a voter unless he should exhibit a receipt for the poll tax required by law for the current and preceding year. It was held that the object of the act was, not to require the payment of a poll tax, but to make its payment a condition of the right to vote, and that the real subject was not expressed in the title.™ An act to provide for the formation and government of sanitary districts pro- vided that the sanitary trustees might determine the quali- fication of persons authorized to sell liquor at retail and that no license to sell liquor in the district should be effective until approved by the sanitary board. This was held to be foreign to tbe title.'' An act to create a fireman's pension fund in cities having paid fire departments provided for the fund by requiring foreign insurance companies to pay one dollar on every hundred dollars of the excess of their re- ceipts over losses paid. The act was held void because the title gave no intimation of how the fund was to be created.''* A few additional cases are cited in the margin wherein af^ts or provisions were held void because not within the title.™ '2 State V. Stone, 84 Nev. 308, 53 the title would be as misleading, Pao. 497. and might be as pernicious, as the ''s In re Werner, 129 Cal. 567, 63 evils sought to be obstructed (obvi- Pac. 97. ated) by the constitution. The sub- '^ Henderson V. London & L. Ins. ject of this act, as we have indi- Co., 135 Ind. 33, 34 N. E. 565, 41 cated, is to gather funds from. Am. St. Rep. 410, 30 L. E. A. 837. foreign insurance companies, and The court says: '"Titles should dis- to dispose of such funds for the re- tinctly recite what the particular lief of firemen. The title expresses subject of the law is.' This may the first of these objects included often be done by language quite within the subject, but wholly general; then, again, there are in- omits the other of such objects." stances which require particular- p. 31. ity. If the subject is composed of '^ Yerby v. Cochrane, 101 Ala. 541, two or more essential elements, the 14 So. 355; Spier v. Baker, 120 Cal. expression of one of such elements 370, 52 Pac. 659, 41 L. E. A- 196; in the title would not suflSce. The Western Union Tel. Co. v. Cooledge, absence of one of such elements in 86 Ga. 104, 13 S. E, 264; Woodruff 20 306 TITLE OF ACTS. § 171. Miscellaneous points as to titles. — A provision for submitting an act or any question on which its opera- tion depends to a popular vote is germane to the subject or object of such act, and is a means to facilitate its execution.™ Where the title is to repeal an act, giving its title, it need not give the date of passage or approval of the act to be repealed." Where the title is to repeal a certain section, and the act repeals and re-enacts the section, it is void.'' Eepeals by implication need not be indicated in the title.''' Where the question was not raised in the lower court nor in the briefs, the supreme court refused to consider it.'" Where an act, section or provision is void because not within the title, and such act, section or provision is afterwards in- corporated in a code or revision, and the code or revision is duly passed under an appropriate general title, such act, section or provision will be valid from the passage of the code or revision.'' So when a territorial act is approved V. Kellyville Coal Co., 182 111. 480. 55 N. E, 550; Garrigus v. Board of Com'rs, 157 Ind. 103, 60 N. E. 948; State V. Gofif, 106 La. 270, 30 So. 844; Soharf v. Tasker, 73 Md. 378, 21 Atl. 56; East Jordan Lumber Co. V. East Jordan, 100 Mich. 201, «8 N. W. 1012; State v. Oftedal, 72 Minn. 498, 75 N. W. 692; Sheasley V. Keens, 48 Neb. 57, 66 N. W. 1010; Treasurer of Plainfield v. Hall, 61 N. J. L. 437, 39 Atl. 711; Brown's Estate, 153 Pa. St. 401, 25 Atl. 630; Perkins v. Philadelphia, 156 Pa. St. 539, 27 Atl. 356; Perkins v. Phila- delphia, 156 Pa. St, 554, 37 Atl. 356; Mansfield's Case, 32 Pa. Supr. Ct. 324; Commonwealth v. Farley, 19 Phila. 561; Gassett v. State, 2Tenn. Ch. 546; State v. Bethel, 8 Tenii. Ch. 107; Case v. Loftus, 43 Fed. 839; Bank v. Divine Grocery Co., 97 Tenn. 603, 37 S. W. 390; Luman V. Kitchens Bros. Co., 90 Md, 14, 44 Atl. 1051, 46 L. R. A. 393; Kelly v. Pratt, 14 Misc. 31, 88 N. Y. S. 636; Potter County Water Co. v. Aus- tin, 306 Pa. St. 297; Bucks County Prison Board, 38 Pa. Co. Ct. 65; Smith's Petition, 12 Pa. Dist. Ct. 338. '6 City of Virden v. Allan, 107 IlL 505; Caldwell v. Barrett, 73 Ga. 604; Simpson v. Bailey, 3 Ore. 515; Unity V. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447, 26 L. Ed. 405; Stuart v, Kirley, 13 S. D. 345, 81 N. W. 147. 77 Moore V. Burdett, 62 N. J. L. 163, 40 Atl. 631. 7S State V. Benzinger, 88 Md. 481, 85 Atl. 173. '9 Union Trust Ca v. Trumbull, 137 111. 146, 37 N. E. 34. 80 North River Boom Co. v. Smith, 15 Wash. 138, 45 Pac. 750. 81 Parks V. State, 110 Ga. 760, 36 S. E. 73; Daniel v. State, 114 Ga. 533, 40 S. E. 707: McFarland v. Don- TITLE OF AOTS. 307 by congress.'^ And where a law has been duly passed with a sufficient title, it may be placed in a code or revision under any head or division the legislature choose.^ A pro- vision conferring a civil right or remedy is not void because found in a penal code.'* The constitution of Louisiana makes provision for a gen- eral appropriation bill and requires that "all other appro- priations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject."^ An act entitled "An act making ap- propriations to pay deficiencies due by the state for the years 1885, 1886 and 1887," made appropriations of money to pay: (1) for the congressional election of 1887, (2) for the expense of troops in the labor strikes of 1887, (3) for the special election of June, 1885, and (4) for the special elec- tion of August, 18S5. These were held to be four subjects within the constitution, and the act was held void.** aldson, 115 Ga. 567, 41 S. E. 1000; subject Therefore, clear enaot- Newgass v. Atl. & D. Ey. Co., 56 ments of substantive law estab- Fed. 676. lishing rights — like section 294 — s^Earasek v. Peler, 82 Wash. 419, are not to be held inoperative be- 61 Pao. 33, 50 L. E. A. 345. cause found in any particular code. 83 Hennig v. Slaed, 138 Mo. 430, If a provision in one code were in 40 S. W. 95. conflict with a provision on the si Enos V. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68, 63 same subject in another code, per- Pac. 170, 82 Am, St. Eep. 330, 53 L. haps a consideration of the general E. A. 231. In this case the court purpose of each of the codes might says: " We have here a code system afford some aid in solving the dif- which is for convenience and par- ficulty; but there is no such diffi- tial classification divided into four culty here, for there is no provision codes, to each of which a name is in any of the other codes touching given; but they are inseparably in- the question here involved." p. 72. terwoven with each other, and no ^5 Art. 53. one of them is complete in itself, or 86 Klein v. State Treasurer, 42 La. absolutely confined to a particular Ann. 174, 7 So. 230. CHAPTER Y. TIME OP TAKING EFFECT. § 172 (104). When silent as to commencement — Date of passage. — When no other time is fixed a statute takes effect from the date of its passage — from the date of the last act necessary to complete the process of legislation and to give a bill the force of law.' When approved by the executive the act of approval is the last act, and the date of it is the date of passage of the act.- If passed after a veto, 1 Matthews v. Zane, 7 Wheat. 164, 211, 5 L. Ed. 425; Louisville v. Sav- ings Bank, 104 U. S. 469, 26 L. Ed. 775; Johnson v. Merchandise, 2 Paine, 601, Fed. Caa. No. 7417; The Brig Ann, 1 Gall. 61, Fed. Cas. No. 397; Heard v. Heard, 8 Ga. 380; Fairohild v. Gwynne, 14 Abb. Pr. 12! ; Baker v. Compton, 52 Tex'. 252; Temple v. Hays, Morris (Iowa), 13; In re Richardson, 2 Story, 571, Fed. Cas. No. 11,777; Roe v. Hersey, 3 Wils. 375; Leschi v. Washington T'y, 1 Wash. T. 13; Rathbone v. Bradford, 1 Ala. (N. S.) 313; Adm'r of Weatherford v. Weatherford, 8 Port. 171; People v. Clark, 1 Cal. 406; State v. Click, 2 Ala. 26; Tay- lor V. State, 26 Ala. 283; Mobile R. R. Co. V. State, 29 id. 573; Branch Bank v. Murphy, 8 id. 119; Dyer v. State, Meigs, 237; Logan v. State. 3 Heisk. 442; Day v. McGinnis, 1 id. 310; Bowling v. Smith, 9 Md. 342: Smetsv. Weathersbee, R. M. Charlt. 537; Goodsell v. Boynton, 2 111. 555; Tarlton v. Peggs, 18 Ind. 24; West V. Creditors, 1 La. Ann. 365; Park- inson V. State, 14 Md. 184, 74 Am. Dec. 522; State v. Bank, 12 Rich. L. 609; Bassett v. United States, 2 Qt. of CI. 448. 2 Gardner v. The Collector, 6 Wall. 499, 18 L. Ed. 890; Louisville v. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 469, 26 L. Ed. 775; Mead v. Bagnall, 15 Wis. 156; Smets v. Weathersbee, R. M. Charlt. 537; Rise wick v. Davis, 19 Md. 82; Baltimore & Drum Point R. R. Co. v. Pumphrey, 74 Md. 86, 21 Atl. 559; Matter of Kenneys, 56 Hun, 117, 9 N. Y. S. 183. In West Virginia it is held that as, by the constitution, the governor does not belong to the legislative department, his approval of an act is not a legislative act and relates back to its passage by the houses, so tliat the date of passage is not the date of approval but the date of the final vote. State v. Mounts, 36 W. Va. 179, 14 S. E. 407, 15 L. R. A. 243; State v. Scott, 36 W. Va. 704, 15 S. E. 405. In Ohio it has been a TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. 309 the date of the final vote is the date of passage. When a bill becomes a law by the non-action of the executive, under constitutional regulations, the non-action of the executive is ■a. quasi approval, not complete until the lapse of the time prescribed for his aifirmative action under the given con- ditions. In the absence of evidence of the precise time when ap- proved, an act operates during the whole of the day of ap- proval' The constitution of Tennessee provides that no act shall become a law until, among other things which are legislative, it " be signed by the respective speakers." * This signing, though thus made essential, is held not to fix the date of passage; not being legislative but ministerial in its nature, when it has been performed, the act by relation takes effect from the conclusion of the proceeding which is legislative.' When no future date is fixed, the act takes effect imme- diately; no time is allowed for publication. There would be hardship if all acts were left so to take effect. The rea- son of the rule was well stated by Mr. Doddridge, of coun- sel, in Matthews v. Zane: ^ "It being practically impossible actually to notify every person in the community of the passage of a law, whatever day might be appointed for its taking effect, no general rule could be adopted less excep- uniform practice of long standing take effect from and after its pas- for the president of tlie senate in sage, the time of the passage of the signing bills to affix the date pre- act as fixed by the president of the ceded by the word "passed," thus: senate, when he signs the same, is "passed, April 1, 1890," and it is intended." State v. O Brien, 47 held that when the "passage" of Ohio St. 464, 475, 476, 85 N. E. 131. an afct is referred to in legislation 3 Oroven v. Atlantic An. R. R. Co., this date will be deemed to be the 150 N. Y. 825, 44 N. E. 968; Pooley v. -one intended. "This may be re- Buffalo, 123 N. Y. 592, 36 N. E. 16; garded," says the court, "asalegis- Mallory v. Hiles, 4 Met. (Ky.) 53; lative interpretation of the term Matter of Carrier, 13 Bankr. Reg. 'passage,' when used with refer- 208; Whitehead v. Wells, 89 Ark. 99. •ence to the time when an act shall * Art. II, sec. 18. *ake effect; and, hence, when it is ^Lewis v. Woodfolk, 58 Tenn. 25. provided in a statute that it shall * 7 Wheat. 179, 2 L. Ed. 654. 310 TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. tionable. The general rule may, in some instances, produce hardship; but if ignorance of the law was admitted as an excuse, too wide a door would be left open for the breach of it." Where statutes are liable to produce injustice by taking immediate effect, the legislature will, except through inadvertence, appoint a future day from whence they are to be in force. Elackstone, after treating of the promulgation of laws, and the duty of legislatures to make them public, says, "all laws should therefore be made to commence in futuro, and be notified before their commencement, which is implied in the term prescribed." ' § 173 (105). Acts of parliament formerly took eifect from the first day of the session. — By the common law the parliament roll being the exclusive record of statutes, and no other date appearing than that of the beginning of the session, laws took effect from that date, when no other was provided by the act. Until the statute of 33 Geo. III., ch. 13, there was no indorsement on the roll of the day on which the bills received the royal assent, and all acts passed in the same session were considered as having received the royal assent on the same day, and were referred to the first day of the session.' Ey the statute of 33 Geo. III. it was '1 Black. Com. 45; 1 Kent's Com. court, in pursuance of certain 458; Ship Cotton Planter, 1 Paine, chancerypowers delegated to them 33, Fed. Gas. No. 3270; Cross v. by an old act of assembly. The Harrison, 16 How. 196, 14 L. Ed. royal assent was refused to thisi 889. See Lessee of Albertson v. law in jBngiZawd, and it so happened Eobeson, 1 Dall. 9. Yeates. J., in that the repeal precedes the decree Morgan v. Stell, 5 Bin. 318, gave of the court above two months, but this statement of the case: Albert- the repeal was not known here son, claiming certain lands by de- when the decree was made. The scent in Bucks county, brought an court determined, upon full argu- ejeotment against Robeson for ment, that the unknown repeal their recovery. The title of the could not affect the right of the land was clearly shown to have defendant under the decree, and been at one time in the ancestor of the jury found accordingly, and the lessee of the plaintiff; but at a the decision gave general satisfac- subsequent period the lands were tion to the profession, decreed to the defendant by this * Rex v. Justices of Middlesex, 2 TIME OF TAKING ISFFEOT, 311 provided that a certain parliamentary oflBcer should indorse on every act of parliament " the day, month and year when the same shall have passed and shall have received the royal assent; and such indorsement shall be taken to be a part of such act, and to be the date of its commencement, where no other commencement shall be therein provided." § 174 (106). The actual date of passage adopted in this country. — The injustice of permitting laws to have retro- active effect by relation is so manifest that it has not had much countenance in the United States. Without depart- ing from the rule, except by constitutional direction, that the legislative record is conclusive, statutes have not gen- erally had effect from any date prior to their actual passage. The fiction that all laws are enacted on the first day of the legislative session is not adopted. The actual date either appears in pursuance of legislative and executive practice upon the statute itself, or it is otherwise shown by official records; and this date is popularly known and judicially recognized.' In North Carolina the fiction appears to be recognized as part of the common law, and all laws take effect by relation from the first day of the session." Courts are bound ex officio to take notice as well of the time when public acts go into operation as of their provisions.", Statutes of the same session passed on different days are not to be regarded as having effect from the same day because they pertain to the same subject.^^ § 175 (107). The legislature may fix a future day for an act to take effect. — The power to enact laws includes Barn. & Ad. 818; Panter v. Att'y i» Hamlet v. Taylor, 5 Jones' L. General, 6 Brown, P. C. 486; Lat- 36; Weeks v. Weeks, 5 Ired. Eq. less V. Holmes, 4 T. R. 6G0; Part- 111, 47 Am. Dec. 358. See Boston ridge v. Strange, 1 Plow. 79; King v. Cummins, 16 Ga. 103, 60 Am. V. Thurston, 1 Lev. 91; Bao. Abr., Dec. 717, 722. title Statute, C. ; 1 Kent's Com. " State v. Foote, 11 Wis. 14. 456. 12 Taylor v. State, 31 Ala. 388; 'Turnipseed v. Jones, 101 Ala. Metropolitan Board v. Schmades, 593, 14 So. 377. 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 205. 312 TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. the power, subject to constitutional restrictions, to provide when in the future, and upon what conditions or event, they shall take effect.^^ Where a particular time for the commencement of a statute is appointed, it only begins to have effect and to speak from that time, unless a different intention is manifest," and will speak and operate from the beginning of that day.^^ Where the provisions of a revising statute are to take effect at a future period, and the statute contains a clause repealing the former statute upon the same subject, the repealing clause will not take effect until the other provisions come into operation.'* The period be- tween the passage of a law and the time of its going into effect is allowed to enable the public to become acquainted with its provisions; but until it becomes a law they are not compelled to govern their actions by it. Thus, an act which was to go into effect at a future day established new pe- riods of time for the limitation of actions. It was held not applicable to a case having several years to run where the act would be a bar the moment it took effect. It could not operate to put the party on diligence before it went into "People V. Salomon, 51 111. 37; 717; Evansville, etc. E. E. Co. v. NewOrleansv. Holmes, 13 La. Ann. Barbee, 74 Ind. 169; Larrabee v. 503; Carpenter v. Montgomery, 7 Talbott, 5 Gill, 426, 46 Am. Dec. Blackf. 415; Gorham v. Springfield, 637 ; Charless v. Lamberson; 1 Iowa, 21 Ma 58; Cooper v. Curtis, 30 id. 435; Davenport v. Railroad Co., 37 488; Parkinson V. State, 14 Md. 184. id. 624; Wohlscheid v. Bergrath, "Bac. Abr., tit. Statutes, C; 46 Mich. 46. See Fosdick v. Perrys- Eioe V. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. 125; burg. 14 Ohio St. 472; Town of Price V. Hopkin, 13 Mich. 318; Gil- Fox v. Town of Kendall, 97 111. 72, key V. Cook, 60 Wis. 133; Jaokman 75. Upon the enactment of a new V. Garland, 64 Me. 133; Swann v. penalty for an offense, the former Buck, 40 Miss. 305; Grinad v. State, penalty is not superseded until the 34 Ga. S70; Fairchild v. Gwynne, statute prescribing the new pen- 14 Abb. Pr. 121; Latless v. Holmes, alty takes effect. Grinad v. State, 4 T. R. 660; Panter v. Attorney- ,84 Ga. 270. General, 6 Brown, P. C. 486; Dean i^Rice v. Ruddiman, 10 Mich. V. King, 18 Ired. L. 30; Wheeler v. 125; Turnipseed v. Jones, 101 Ala. Chubbuck, 16 111. 361; Boston v. 593, 14 So. 377. Cummins, 16 Ga. 102, 60 Am. Deo. is Spaulding v. Alford, 1 Pick. 33. TIME OV TAKING EFFECT. 313 operation. As it gave him no future time after it became a law, it was inoperative as to that case.'' Where a general statute provides that acts shall take effect at a specified day after the adjournment of the ses- sion, it will govern all future legislation unless there is some indication of a contrary purpose.'^ Acquiescence in such a statute is presumed unless dissent is shown.'' It will govern private as well as public acts.^" An act may be brought into effect at an earlier day than that appointed in its provisions by an amendatory or supplemental act. Thus the Mississippi constitution provides that, if acts are silent on the time when they shall take effect, they shall go into effect sixty days after their passage. After an original act a supplemental act was passed which proyided that it go into effect immediately. This provision was held to em- brace and give immediate; effect to the original act.^^ A statute may be framed to take effect on the happening of a future event,^^ and this event may be the passage of a law in another state.^^ § 176 (108). Constitutional provisions regulating the time of acts taking eii'ect — Emergency clause. — In many rstate constitutions are regulations of this sort: that acts shall take effect a certain number of days after their pas- sage, or after the end of the session, unless the acts them- selves otherwise provide.'* In several a larger majority is 17 Price V. Hopkin, 13 Mich. 318. ^« Cooper v. Curtis, 30 Me. 488. But see Hedger v. Eennaker, 8 Met ^'West P. R. E. Co. v. Johnson, 5 .(Ky.) 255; Stine v. Bennett, 18 How. (Miss.) 273; Swann v. Buck, Minn. 158; Smith v. Morrison, 22 40 Miss. 268. Pick. 430. See post, gS, 706, 707. '^Ante, § 96; In re Hendricks, 5 18 Ross V. New England Mortg. N. D. 114, 64 N. W. 110. Security Co., 101 Ala, 863, 13 So. ^H Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 1. 564; Santa Cruz Water Co. v. Kron, ^Bay v. McGinnis, 1 Heisk. 310; 74 Cal. 223, 15 Pac. 772; Matter of Gorham v. Springfield, 21 Me. 58; Howe, 112 N. Y. 100, 19 N. E. 513, 2 New Portland v. New Vineyard, 16 L. E, A. 825. Me. 69. i9Jackman v. Garland, 64 Me. -133. 314: TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. required to give immediate effect to an act than to pass it; in others there must be some emergency to warrant it. These provisions are mandatory .'' Where it is required by the constitution that an act shall declare that an emergency exists for making it take immediate effect, such declaration cannot be omitted. If the emergency clause be absent, the provision that the act take immediate effect will, under such constitutional requirement, be held void, and the act will take effect as though silent on that subject.^* The emer- gency clause in an act passed June 14, 1852, regulating the remission of fines and forfeitures, declared the act to be in force from and after its being filed with the clerks of the circuit courts in their respective counties. It was held that the legislature intended the act to be brought into force as soon as it could be distributed in the several counties, and though there is no express direction to the secretary of state to distribute it, the emergency clause implies such a direction ;. it is held also that the secretary of state is to be presumed to have done his duty, and hence that the act was in force on the 20th day of December, 1852." "What may be deemed an emergency for this purpose is purely a legislative ques- tion. The courts will not inquire into it, nor entertain any question of its sufficiency.^' An act which contains an emergency clause and provides that it " shall take effect and be in force from and after its approval by the governor," and on his vetoing it is passed by both houses over the veto, takes effect immediately after its passage.^' Where the constitution provides that acts shall not go into effect until ninety days after the adjournment of the legislature, unless passed with an emergency clause by a two-thirds vote of all the members elected to either house, to be entered on the journals, an emergency clause will be ^Ante, g§ 30, 44. id. 224; Carpenter v. Montgomery, 26 Cain V. Goda, 84 Ind. 209. 7 Blackf. 415. 27 State V. Dunning, 9 Ind. 20; ^SBiggs v. McBride, 17 Ore. 640^ Stine V. Bennett, 13 Minn. 153. 21 Pac. 878. 28 Gentile V. State, 29 Ind. 409; 11 TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. SIS' ineflfective unless the act is passed by the requisite vote.^" Where the constitution provided that " No act shall take ef- fect until three calendar months after the adjournment of the session at which it was passed," unless, etc., it was held that where the adjournment took effect on April 8 the act took effect on July 9.'^ Where, in a similar constitutional provision, appropriation bills were excepted, it was held that an act to provide for the purchase, completion and fur- nishing of a state capitol, making an appropriation therefor, and conferring additional powers on the capitol commission,, was within the exception.'^ An act in regard to the deposit of public moneys by county treasurers provided that it should not go into effect until the expiration of the terms of the county treasurers in office at the time of the passage of the act. The constitution provided that acts should gO' into effect three months after the adjournment of the leg- islature. It was held that the act went into effect as a law at the end of the three months and then became operative upon the officers respectively as their terms expired.'' § 177. Where the constitution requires the legislature to fix the time. — The constitution of Kansas provides that " the legislature shall prescribe the time when its acts shall be in force." It is held by the supreme court of that state that "this provision plainly requires that the legislature shall fix a single, definite time, when its act as an entirety shall become a law," '* and that where, by the terms of art act, different parts go into effect at different times, or where it goes into effect at different times as to several persons, places or things, it is unconstitutional and void.'' Where an act in relation to certain officers was to go into effect " after 3» Missouri, Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co. 33 Hopkins v. Soott, 38 Neb. 661, V. McGlamory, 93 Tex. 150, 41 S. 57 N. W. 391. W. 466. 34 Miami Co. Com'rs v. Hiner, 54 31 McGinn v. State. 46 Neb. 427, Kan. 334, 38 Pao. 286. 65 N. W. 46, 50 Am. St. Rep. 617, 30 35 id. ; Finnigan v. State, 54 Kan. L. E. A. 450. 430, 38 Pao. 477; State v. Deets, 54 32 State V. Rogers, 84 Wash. 417, Kan. 504, 38 Pao. 798; State v. New- 64 Pao. 515. bold, 56 Kan. 71, 43 Pao. 345; Mont- 316 TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. the present term of the oflBcers hereinbefore named shall have expired," it was held to mean after all the terms had expired and so to be valid.'' § 178 (109). Taking effect on publication,— Where the taking effect of an act depends on publication, required by its own terms or by the constitution, it is a condition, and the time ■can be fixed only by the date of compliance." The provis- ions of the Louisiana constitution requiring the laws to be promulgated in the English language, and in the English and French language, does not prevent the legislature from passing acts to take immediate effecf A joint resolution of a general nature requires the same publication as any other law.'' When it is provided that an act shall go into effect on publication in two newspapers, publication in one will not suffice, though officially certified to be so published." When properly published it will take effect according to its own terms, although subsequently published officially in dif- ferent terms. In one instance, by the later publication, the law erroneously appeared to repeal a prohibitory section of a previous law. The erroneous publication was not allowed to avail a person who had committed the act prohibited by such prior law, which was still in force. The statute, hav- ing gone into effect on its correct publication in two news- papers, was not affected by the subsequent erroneous pub- lication." The publication of a statute without the enacting clause was held to be altogether ineffective.*^ An act was to become effective upon its publication in the Iowa State Kegis- gomery Co. Com'rs v. Glass, 4 Kan. 689; Ke Merchants' Bank, 2 La. App. 286, 45 Pao. 935. While all Ann. 68; State v. Judge, 14 La. Ann. the cases agree upon the general 486. principle stated there seems to be '' State v. School Board Fund, 4 some inconsistency in the appli- Kan. 361. cation of it. « Welch v. Battern, 47 Iowa, 147. 36 Board of Com'rs v. Chew, 44 *iHunt v. Murray, 17 Iowa, 313; Kan. 163, 24 Pao. 62. State v. Donehey, 8 Iowa, 896. 87 Cain V. Goda, 84 Ind. 209; *^ln re Swartz, 47 Kan. 157,27 Welch V. Battern, 47 Iowa, 147. Pao. 839. 38 Thomas v. Scott, 23 La. Ann. TIME Ot TAKING EFFECT. 317 ter and this Jeflferson Souvenir. There was a Souvenir pub- lished in JefiFerson, but it was not called the Jeflferson Souve- nir. Publication in the Iowa State Eegister and in the Souve- nir of Jefferson was held suiBcient." It has been held that a statute is in force from the precise time or hour of publica- tion and that the court will- take notice of and ascertain such time when important to the rights of parties." But in Wisconsin, where an act was to take effect from and after its passage and publication, the day of publication was ex- cluded.^ Under a constitutional provision that " no act shall take effect until the same has been published and circulated in the several counties of this state by authority," it was held that the words " published " and " circulated " were used synonymously.'"' And no publication or circulation" is good unless done by authority.*'' Under a general constitutional provision that " no general law shall be in force until pub- lished," publication of a general law by mistake only, in the volume of private laws, is a sufficient publication.*^ Though going into effect only on publication, the act of record in the office of the secretary of state is the law, when different from the published copy.*' A law would probably not be deemed to be published, so as to give it effect, if the publication materially differed from the act of record, but a slight error would be disregarded.™ The date of the cer- tificate of the secretary of state,' appended to a published volume of laws, will, in the absence of any suggestion which may lead to more accurate inquiry, be taken to be the date of their publication.'' "Franklin v. Wiggins, 110 Iowa, Ind 13; McCool v. State, id 379; 702, 80 N. W. 433. State v. Dunning, 9 id. 20. ^< Leavenworth Coal Ca v. Bar- <8Re Boyle, 9 Wis. 264 ber, 47 Kan. 29, 27 Paa 114. ^9 Glare v. State, 5 Iowa, 509. See <5 O'Connor v. Fond du Lao, 109 State v. Donehey, 8 id. 396. Wis. 253, 85 N. W. 827, 53 L. R. A. so Mead v. Bagnall, 15 Wis. 156; 831. Smith v. Hoyt, 14 id. 252. « Jones V. Gavins, 4 Ind. 805. ei State v. Foote, 11 Wis. 14; 4' Hendrickson v. Hendriokson, 7 Boyle's Case, 9 Wis. 364; Berliner v. Waterloo, 14 Wis. 87& 318 TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. Iq the constitution of Wisconsin '? it is provided that " no general law shall be in force until published." The words " general law," here used, have the same meaning as public acts in their ordinary acceptation, as distinguished from private acts. The object of the prohibition was the protec- tion of the people, by preventing their rights and interests from being affected by laws which they had no means of knowing. But all are bound by and are to take notice of public statutes.^' §179 (110). The precise time of tailing effect — Fractions of a day. — At what precise time does a statute go into op- eration, and first have force as law, when it takes immedi- ate effect ? Passing over the fiction of relation to the first day of the session which has been mentioned, there is still to be answered the question whether it takes effect at the beginning of the day of its passage, at the beginning of the next day, or at the precise moment of the last essential act in its enactment. The maxim that the law takes no notice of the fractions of a day is not of universal application. The legal quality of an act may depend on when it was done with reference to other acts or events occurring not merely on the same day but in the same hour. Instances, in great variety, will at once occur to the professional mind. The sequence of such related facts may always be inquired into, unless the inquiry under consideration is an exception. What shall be accepted as the commencement of a period of a given number of days is an inquiry presently to be considered. That is another and different inquiry; such a period need not neces- .sarily be computed upon fractions of a day. Any general rule as to commencement of a period of several days might operate justly. An act which is made to operate six hours before the time when it was actually enacted and passed is liable to the same objection, except in degree, as when it has a commencement six days or six years before its enact- 52 Sec. 21, art. VIL State ex reL Cothren v. Lean, 9 Wis. *3 Clark V. Janesville, 10 Wis. 136: 284, 285. TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. 319 ment. Hardship is sometimes the result of an act taking immediate effect, and every consideration of humanity and justice is opposed to any retroaction. A statute commands only from the time it has the force of law; it should not be accorded a beginning a moment earlier than the actual time of its enactment — than the actual time of the last act in the legislative process. No person is required to anticipate the enactment of a law, though he may be charged with a knowledge of it from the moment of its adoption if it at once goes into operation. Lord Mansfield said in Combe v. Pitt:" "Though the law does not in general allow of the fractions of a day, yet it admits it in cases where it is necessary to distinguish ; and I do not see why the very hour may not be so too, where it is necessary and can be done." In Minnesota the day of the pas3age is excluded where the act provides that it shall take effect " from and after its passage." ^'' So in Wisconsin, where an act takes effect from and after its passage and publication, the day of pub- lication is excluded.^' There are cases which hold that acts taking immediate effect take effect from the first moment of the day on which they were passed." They proceeded, however, on unsatis- factory reasons. Prentiss, J., said, in the Matter of Wel- man, " It would be as unsdfe as it would be unfit to allow the commencement of a public law, whenever the question may arise, whether at a near or distant time, to depend upon the uncertainty of parol proof, or upon anything ex- trinsic to the law, and the authenticated recorded proceed- ings in passing it." It cannot be laid down as constitu- tional law that the commencement of public laws must be 54 3 Burr. 1433. " Tomlinson v. Bullock, L. R. 4 55 Parkinson v. Brandenburg, 35 Q. B. Div. 330; Matter of Howes, 31 Minn. 294, 28 N. W. 919. See State Vt. 619; Matter of Welman, 20 id. V. Messinore, 14 Wis. 163, 174. 653; State v. Superior Court, 25 56 O'Connor v. Fond du Lac, 109 Wash, 271, 65 Pac. 183. Wis. 253, 85 N. W. 327, 53 L. E. A. 831. 320 TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. proved or provable in this manner. The legislature may make a law take effect on the happening of an event which has to be ascertained otherwise than by the " recorded pro- ceedings in passing it." The validity of a statute cannot be judicially determined by the court's judgment of what is safe and_^^. The law takes notice of fractions of a day when neces- sary. The general principle declared by Lord Mansfield is believed to be sound and established by the weight of au- thority, that where it is necessary to justice and it can be done, the law takes notice of the parts of a day; then the precise time when an act is done may be shown.'' This necessity exists when an act is done on the same day that a legislative act is passed, if that statute being passed after- wards should not affect such act, or, being passed before, should do so. It was said in Grosvenor v. Magill: °' " It is true that for manj^ purposes the law knows no divisions of a day; but whenever it becomes important to the ends of justice, or in order to decide upon conflicting interests, the law will look into fractions of a day as readily as into the fractions of any other unit of time.^" The rule is purely one of con- venience, which must give way whenever the rights of par- ties require it. There is no indivisible unity about a day which forbids one, in legal proceedings, to consider its com- ponent hours, any more than about a month which restrains us from regarding its constituent days. The law is not made of such unreasonable and arbitrary rules." The weight of American authority is that a statute which is to go into effect immediately is operative from the instant of its pas- 's Wells V. Bright, 4 Dev. & Batt. 239; Burgess v. Salmon, 97 U. S. 381, li. ITS; Louisvil e v. Savings Bank, 84 L. Ed. 1104; Kennedy v. Palmer,6 104 U. S. 469, 1'6 L. Ed. 775; Savage Oray, 316; Bralnard v. Bushnell, 11 V. State. 18 Fla. 970; Bigelowrv. Will- Conn. 17. son, 1 I'lck. 485: Judd v. Fulton, 10 '9 37 m. 339. Barb. 117; Lang v. Phillips, 27 Ala. «» 3 Black. Com. 140 and notes. 311 : Clawson v. Eichbaum,2 Grant's «» Matter of Richardson, 3 Story, Cas. 130; Urosvenor v. Magill, 37 IIU 571, Fed. Cas. No. 11,777; Gardner v. TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. 321 In Ohio it is held that where an act is to take effect from its passage, it means the date of signing by the president of the senate. By a uniform custom the president of the sen- ate, in signing acts, gives the date, preceded by the word The Collector, 6 Wall. 499, 18 L. Ed. 890; Strauss v. Helss, 48 Md. 293; Berry ,. Railroad Co., 41 id. 464, 20 Am. Eep. 69; Legg v. Mayor, etc., 42 Md. 211; Louisville v. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 469, 26 L. Ed. 775; People v. Clark, 1 Cal. 406; Clark V. Janesville, 10 Wis. 136; Parkinson v. Brandenburg, 35 Minn, 294, 59 Am. Eep. 326; Grosvenor v. Magill, 37 111. 239; Burgess v. Sal- mon, 97 U. S. 381, 24 L. Ed. 1104; Kennedy v. Palmer, 6 Gray, 316; Fairchild v. Gwynne, 14 Abb. Fr. 121; Ee Wynne, Chase's Dec. 237, Fed. Cas. No. 18,117; Osborne v. Huger, 1 Bay, 176. See King v. Moore, Jefif. (Va.) 8; Leavenworth Coal Co. V. Barber, 47 Kan. 39, 27 Pac. 114; Ottman v. Hoffman, 7 Misc. 714, 38 N. Y. S. 28; Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Lynch, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 836, 55 S. W. 389. In the Matter of Richardson, 3 Story, 571, Story, J., said: " It may not, indeed, be easyin all cases toas- certain the veTjpunctum temporis; but that ought not to deprive the citizens of any rights created by antecedent laws and vesting rights in them. In cases of doubt, the time should be construed favor- ably for citizens. The legislature have it in their power to prescribe the very moment in futuro after the approval when a law shall have effect; and if it does not choose to do so, I can perceive no ground why a court of justice should be called on to supply the defect. But 21 when the time can be and is fully ascertained when a bill was ap- proved, I confess I am not bold enough to say that it became a law at any antecedent period of the same day." In Arnold v. United States, 9 Cranch, 104. 8 L. Ed. 671, it was held that an act takes effect from its passage; on the day of its pas- sage; that it affected a transaction of that day, on the rule, that " when a computation is to be made from an act done, the day on which the act is done is to be included." In Louisville v. Savings Bank, 104 U. S. 469, 478, 26 L. Ed. 775, the court, by Harlan, J., said: "In view of the authorities it cannot be doubted that the courts may, when substantial justice requires it, ascertain the precise hour when a statute took effect by the ap- proval of the executive. But it may be argued that the rule does not apply where the inquiry is as to the time when constitutional pro- visions become operative by popu- lar vote; that a popular vote, given at an election covering many hours of the same day, should be deemed an indivisible act, effectual, by re- lation, from the moment the elect- ors entered upon the performance of that act, to wit: from the open- ing of the polls. But we are of opinion that no such distinction can be maintained. In determin- ing when a statute took effect, no account is taken of the time it re- 322 TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. "passed." And where the final vote on ■such an act was taken on March 26th, and it was signed by the speaker of the house on March 31st, and sent to the senate on the same day and signed by the president of the senate on April 1st, it was held that it was not in effect until April 1st, and that acts done in pursuance of the act between March 26th and April 1st were unauthorized and void.*^ § 180. Acts approved on the same day. — Where two acts are approved on the same day the presumption is that they were approved in numerical order ;^' but the court will take judicial notice of the facts and ascertain the actual order of approval,** and, if the two acts are inconsistent, the one last approved will prevail, though it may have been the first to pass the legislature.^ §181. Time of taking effect — Miscellaneous points and cases. — If a particular day is named for an act to take effect, but it is not approved until after that day, its pro- visions, in terms prospective, will not have effect until after the date of approval."^ And if the main and principal clause of an act is to come into operation from a day named, the other subsidiary clauses may also be held to commence from that day, though it be not so expressed, if it would be in- convenient that they should commence from the passing of ceived the sanction of the two polls, the people had adopted such branches of the legislative depart- provision." See Welch v. Hanni- ment, which sanction is as essen- bal, etc. Ry. Co., S6 Mo. App. 358. tial to the validity of the statute 62 state v. O'Brien, 47 Ohio St. as the approval of the executive. 464, 25 N. E. 121. We look to the final act of approval "^ State v. Davis, 70 Md. 237, 16 by the executive to find when Atl. 529; Ottman v. Hoffman, 7 the statute took effect, and, when Misc. 714, 28 N. Y. S. 28. necessary, Inquire as to the hour of *>* Davis v. Whidden, 117 CaL 618, the day when that approval was in 49 Pac. 766; Ottman v. Hoffman, fact given. So we perceive no 7 Misc. 714, 28 N. Y. S. 28. sound reason why the courts may "^ Davis v. Whidden, 117 Cal. 618, not, in proper cases, inquire as to 49 Pac. 766; State v. Halliday, 63 the hour when such approval be- Ohio St. 165, 57 N. E. 1097. came effectual, to wit: as to the "SBurn v. Carvalho, 4 Nev. & M. time when, by the closing of the 893. TIME OF TAKING EFFECT. 323 the act.''' Where an act passed May 16, 1894, provided that it should be in efifect from May 14, 1894, it was held to be in efifect from its passage.^^ It was claimed that the fix- ing of an impossible date was the same as fixing no date, and, therefore, that the general law would apply, fixing the date of July 4. A cit}' charter provided that it should go into immediate effect. A general law provided that, if an act was silent on the subject, it should take effect twenty days after its approval by the governor. The charter in question was amended by substituting a new section for an old one and the amendatory act was silent as to its taking effect. It was held that the new section became subject to the provision in the charter and went into immediate effect. ^'' An act may provide that some provisions shall go into effect at one time and others at another time.™ An act was passed in 1893 to change the compensation of the clerk of Onon- daga county from fees to a salary. The term of the clerk then in oflRce expired December 31, 1894. The act provided : "This act shall take effect on the first day of January, 1895." It required the board of supervisors of the county to fix the salary prior to the election of every such clerk which occurred in the fall. The court held that it was the plain intent of the legislature that the act should apply to the clerk who took office on January 1, 1895, and that the provisions as to fixing the salary of the oflBce were in effect before the election.''^ § 183. Where act provides for things to be done before it tates ett'ect. — An act can have no force until it becomes a law or takes effect.''^ By reason of inadvertence and un- expected delay in passing an act, a date which was prospec- tive when a bill was introduced may become retrospective 67 Whitborn v. Evans, 3 East, 135. Judge, 114 Mich. 655, 72 N. W. 982; Cal. 436; Pritohettv. Stanislaus Co.,. 73 Cal. 310. 348 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. general nature. In Cass v. Dillon,''^ Thurman, J., said: "The origin of this section is perfectly well known. The legislature had often made it a crime to do in one county, or even township, what it was perfectly lawful to do else- where; and had provided that acts, even for the punish- ment of offenses, should be in force or not in certain locali- ties, as the electors thereof respectively might decide. It was to remedy this evil and prevent its recurrence that this section was framed." In Kelley v. State^ the court say: " Without undertaking to discriminate nicely or define with precision, it may be said that the character of a law, as general or local, depends on the character of its subject-matter. If that be of a gen- eral nature, existing throughout the state, in every county, 3. subject-matter in which all the citizens have a common interest — if it be a court organized under the constitution and laws within and for every county of the state, and possessing a legitimate jurisdiction over every citizen, — then the laws which relate to and regulate it are laws of a general nature, and by virtue of the prohibition referred to must have a uniform operation throughout the state." It is to be inferred from this that a law of a general nature requires a subject-matter of this extensive and all-pervading sort; and that all laws relating to and regulating it are of the same character — of a general nature. If limited in terms, so as not to extend to the whole state; that is, if the court referred to be established in only a portion of the state, not in every count}^, it does not have the uniform operation required. In the subsequent case of McGill v. State,'" the subject received thorough reconsideration. The question was on the validity of a law relating to the selec- tion of trial jurors in that court — whether the power to make such selection must be conferred on the same class of men or oiBcers in every county. To the contention that such uniformity was required, the court said: "This posi- es 2 Ohio St. 607, 617. 2' 6 Ohio St. 269. «>34 Ohio St. 239. GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 3i9" tion derives some support from what was said in Kelley v. State. But subsequent decisions of this court, and in which the learned judge delivering the opinion in that case con- curred, show that the proposition that a law relating to or concerning a general subject-matter is a law of a general nature is not to be taken in an unqualified sense to be true. That a law of a general nature must concern a subject-mat- ter existing and capable of uniform operation throughout the state cannot be denied; for if the law from the nature of its subject-matter is not susceptible of an operation throughout the state, it cannot, within the meaning of the constitution, be a law of a general nature. But it by no means follows that all laws pertaining to a general subject- matter, and susceptible of a uniform operation throughout the state, are laws of a general nature in the constitutional sense of that term." Such differences of details were held not to affect the constitutionality of the law. The require- ment was intended by such uniformity of operation to pre- vent the granting to any citizen or class of citizens of priv- ileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not belong to all citizens. This language is associated with the provision in question in the Iowa constitution,'' and as- qualified by it was adopted in other states.'^ In California the provision was adopted from the consti- tution of Iowa. In Smith v. Judge,'' Baldwin, J., said: " The language must be carefully noted. It is not that laws shall be universal or general in their application to the same subject, nor is it even that all laws of a general nature shall be universal or general in their application to such subjects; but the expression is that these laws shall be uniform in their operation; that is, that such laws shall bear equally in their burdens and benefits upon persons standing in the same category." The same court in a later case held that, the provision means that every law shall have a uniform operation upon the citizens or persons or things of any class- " Seo. 6, art. L *! McGill v. State, 34 Ohio St. 239. ss 17 CaL 554. -350 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. upon whom or which it purports to take effect, and that it shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges which, upon the same terras, shall not equally belong to all citizens.^* In a still later case '^ that court said : " The con- stitution has not undertaken to declare that all laws shall have a uniform operation. Uniformity in that respect is made requisite only in case the law itself be one of a gen- eral nature. . . . The nature of a given statute, as being general or special, must depend in a measure upon the legis- lative purpose discernible in its enactment. We must not say that a statute, plainly special in its scope, must either have a uniform operation or not operate at all, for this were to add another to the limitations which the constitution has imposed upon the legislative power, and to hold in effect that no special act could be passed at all, at least if 'uni- form ' operation means universal operation.'* . . . Nor are we to say that a special statute — special in its aims and in the object it has in view — is by mere construction to be converted into a general statute, because the subject with which it deals might have been made the subject of a gen- eral law. It is obvious that every law upon a general sub- ject is not j>er se, nor' by constitutional intendment, neces- sarily of a general nature. The subject may be general, but the law and the rule it prescribes may be special. Fees of officers, for instance, constitute a general subject, one which pervades the length and breadth of the state, and extends into every political subdivision of which it is composed ; yet a statute may prescribe what these fees of office shall be in a particular county.'' And may declare that they shall differ from fees established for the same official duties per- formed in another county. Such a law would not be a law 34 French v. Teschemaker, 24 Cal. general nature shall have a uni- 544; Brooks V. Hyde, 37 Cal. 375. form operation." Art. 1, sec. 11. 36 People V. C. P. B. R. Co., 43 Cal. The words " throughout the state " 433. are omitted. 36 The provision requiring uni- " State ex rel. v. Judges, etc., 21 formity in the California constitu- Ohio St. 1. ;tion of 1849 is that "all laws of a GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 351 of a general nature involving the constitutional necessity of uniform operation; but it would be a special law upon a general subject.'^ § 196. The question has received very careful considera- tion in a recent case in Minnesota. In 1887 the legislature of that state passed an act creating a commission to pur- chase certain land in Minneapolis and to erect thereon a court-house and city hall, to issue bonds therefor and to ap- portion the cost between the city and county. In 1892 the constitution was amended so as to forbid special legislation in general and in particular cases, and among others regu- lating the affairs of any county, city, etc. In 1893 an act was passed "to provide additional means for completing and furnishing the court-house and city hall building now in process of erection in the city of Minneapolis and to au- thorize the issue and sale of bonds therefor." The act cov- ered the ground indicated by the title. In a suit involving its validity, it was conceded that the act was special, but it was claimed that it did not regulate county or city affairs. The court held otherwise. On rehearing the court held the act to be a general law; that the working out of the act of 1887 had produced a unique condition of things, which ex- isted nowhere else and could not come into existence again under the constitution; that " no legislation more general in fact than the act of 1893 would fully meet the case," and that "if that act had been general in form, it could not be made more general in fact, and still cover the situation." In discussing the general principles applicable, the court says : " The line of demarcation between general and special laws often seems indefinite and difficult to draw ; but, if the principles upon which the distinction rests are kept in mind, the difficulty is not nearly so great as it might seem. A law is general in the constitutional sense, which applies to and operates uniformly upon all members of any class of persons, places or things requiring legislation peculiar to itself in matters covered by the law ; while a special law is 38 Eyan v. Johnson, 5 Ca). SR. 352 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. one which relates and applies to particular members of a class, either particularized by the express terms of the act or separated by any method of selection from the whole class to which the law might, but for such limitation, be applicable." " Some further definitions by the courts of what constitutes a general law are here given: " A law, therefore, is a general law, within the meaning of the constitution, when it operates in every part of the state upon every person or transaction embraced within its terms." *" " If the law is general, and uniform in its operation upon all persons in like circumstan- ces, it is general in a constitutional sense, but it must operate equally and uniformly upon all brought within the relation and circumstances for which it provides. On the other hand, if it is limited to a particular branch or designated portion of such persons, it is special. Although general in its char- acter, a law may, from the nature of the case, extend only to particular classes, such as minors, married women, laborers, bankers or common carriers. Such a law is not obnoxious to the provisions of the constitution if all persons of the class are treated alike under similar circumstances and conditions, but it is not a proper application of the definition to say that a law is general because it applies uniformly to all persons in the conditions and circumstances for which it provides, al- though only a particular branch of a class or some particular description of persons. If an act should attempt to confer privileges only on persons of a certain stature it could be said to apply uniformly to all people answering such descrip- tion, and yet it would be absurd to say that such a law would be a general one. The classification must be so gen- eral as to bring within its limits all those who are in substan- >» State V. Cooley, 66 Minn. 540, Philadelphia, 156 Pa. St. 554, 27 549, 58 N. W. 150. A case quite Atl. 356. similar in its facts arose in Penn- ^" Union Savings Bank & Trust sylvania and was diflferently de- Co. v. Dottenbeim, 107 Ga. 606, 618, oided. Perkins v. Philadelphia, 156 34 S. E. 217. Pa. St 539, 27 Atl, 856; Perkins v. GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 353 tially the same situation or circumstance." ^^ " A law is .special in the constitutional sense when, by force of an in- herent limitation, it arbitrarily separates some persons, places or things from others upon which, but for such limitation, it would operate. The test of a special law is the appropri- ateness of its provision to the objects that it excludes. It is not, therefore, what a law includes that makes it special, but what it excludes. If nothing be excluded that should be contained the law is general. Within this distinction be- tween a special and a general law the question in every case is whether an appropriate object is excluded to which the law, but for the limitations, would apply. If the only lim- itation contained in a law is a legitimate classification of its objects it is a general law. Hence, if the object of a law have characteristics so distinct as reasonablj'^ to form for the purpose legislated upon a class by itself, the law is general, notwithstanding it operates upon a single object only; for a law. is not general because it operates upon every person in the state, but because every person that can be brought within its predicament becomes subject to its operation." ** "A ' general law,' as the term is used in this constitutional provision, is a public law of universal interest to the people of the state, and embracing within its provisions all the citi- zens of the state, or all of a certain class or certain classes of citizens. It must relate to persons and things as a class, and not to particular persons or things of a class. It must embrace the whole subject, or a whole class, and must not be restricted to any particular locality within the state." ^' Additional cases deemed especially instructive on the question of general and special laws are referred to in the margin." " A special act cannot be converted into a gen- " Lippman v. People, 175 IlL 101, « Holt v. Mayor, 111 Ala. 369, 19 51 N. E. 8?a. So. 735; Southern Express Co. v. « Budd V. Hancock, 66 N. J. L. Mayor, etc., 132 Ala. 326, 31 So. 460; 133, 135, 136, 48 Atl. 1023. Gilson v. Board of Com'rs, 128 Ind. « Northern Paa R. R Co. v. 65,27 N. E. 235,11 L. R A. 835; Barnes, 3 N. D. 310, 341, 51 N. W. Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Har- 386. liss, 131 Ind. 446, 29 N. E. 1063, 15 23 354 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. eral act by a declaration of the legislature that it shall be so considered." ^ § 197. What are laws of a general nature. — Laws of a general nature are such as relate to a subject of a general nature, and a subject of a general nature is one that exists or may exist throughout the state, or which affects the peo- ple of the state generally, or in which the people generally have an interest. The supreme court of Ohio says: "But how are we to determine whether a given subject is of a general nature? One way is this: if the subject does or may exist in, and affect the people of, every county in the state, it is of a general nature. On the contrary, if the sub- jept cannot exist in or affect the people of every county, it is local or special. A subject-matter of such general nature can be regulated and legislated upon by general laws hav- ing a uniform operation throughout the state, and a subject- matter which cannot exist in or affect the people of every county cannot be regulated by general laws having a uni- form operation throughout the state, because a law cannot operate where there can be no subject-matter to be operated upon." *^ In State v. Powers," the court held that laws regulating the organization and management of common schools, pur- L. R A. 505; Mattox v. Knox, 96 ^SHixon v. Burson, 54 Ohio .St. Ga. 403, 83 S. E, 807; State v. John- 470, 481, 48 N. E. 1000. See also son, 77 Minn. 453, 80 Mo. 620; Mur- State v. Ellet, 47 Ohio St. 90, 23 N. ray v. County Com'rs, 81 Minn. 859, E. 931, 21 Am. St. Rep. 372; Cos- 361, 84 N: W. 103; Duluth Banking tello v. Wyoming, 49 Ohio St. 202, Co. V. Koon, 81 Minn. 486, 488, 84 30 N. E. 613; State v. Nelson, 53 N. W. 6; State v. Yancy, 123 Mo. 391, Ohio St. 88, 39 N. E. 22, 26 L. R. A. 27 S. W. 880; State v. Nelson, 52 317; Cincinnati v. Steinkamp, 54 Ohio St. 88, 39 N. E. 22, 26 L. E. A. Ohio St. 284, 43 N. E. 490; Gaylord 317; Fitzgerald v. Phelps & B. v. Hubbard, 56 Ohio St. 85, 46 N. E. Windmill Co., 42 W. Va. 570, 26 S. 66; Pearson v. Stevens, 56 Ohio St. E. 315; Milwaukee County v. Isen- 126, 46 N. E. 511; State v. Brown, 60 ring, 109 Wis. 9, 85 N. W. 131, 53 L. Ohio St. 462, 54 N. E. 525; State v. R. A. 635. Spellmire, 67 Ohio St. 77, 65 N. E. « People V. Central Pao. R. R. 619. Co., 83 Cal. 393, 404, 23 Pao. 303. " 38 Ohio St. 54. GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 365 suant to the provisions of the constitution to " secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state," ''^ were laws of a general nature; that if the con- stitution declares a given subject for legislation to be one of a general nature, all laws in relation thereto must have a uniform operation. The court expressed some diffidence in lajnng down any general rule for determining subjects for legislation of a general nature, but suggested as such mar- riage and divorce, and the descent and distribution of estates, and others of like common and general interest to all the citizens of the state. Two provisions, however, were said to be settled: 1. That the general form of a statute is not the criterion by which its general nature is to be determined. 2. That whether a law be of a general nature or not de- pends upon the character of its subject-matter.^^ It was ad- mitted that OQ subjects concerning which uniformity was required, judicious classification and discrimination between classes were admissible. In State v. Brown,^" the same court says: "If it is not true that all subjects are general which may be completely comprehended within legislation which operates uniformly throughout the state, it would be difficult indeed, and hitherto it seems to have been impossi- ble, to state any other rule which would be consistent with the language employed by those who framed these andkia- dred limitations upon the exercise of legislative power, and with the purposes for which those limitations were fixed. The language employed does not suggest, if indeed it per- mits, a narrower rule." Taxation for county purposes Is a subject of a general nature and a law relating thereto must be of uniform operation throughout the state." § 198 (12+). Tiie uniform operation of laws of a general nature. — "Where the subject-matter of an act is of a general 48 Art. 6, sec. 2. mire, 67 Ohio St. 77, 83, 65 N. K « Citing Kelley V. State, 6 Ohio 619. St. 273; McGill V. State, 34id. 228. si p„mp y. Lucas County, 69 50 60 Ohio St. 463, 469, 54 N. E. Ohio St. 448. 535. To same effect. State V. Spell- 356 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. nature, and a law deals with it by proA'isions which are de- signed for the whole state, and every part thereof, such act has a uniform operation throughout the state though the condition and circumstances of the state may be such as not to give the act any actual or practical operation in every part.^^ The purpose of this provision requiring a uniform operation of general laws is satisfied when a statute has the same operation in all parts of the state under the same cir- cumstances and conditions/' The number of persons upon whom the law shall have any direct effect may be very few by reason of the subject to which it relates, but it must operate equally and uniformly upon all brought within the relations and circumstances for which it provides.** "The uniform operation required by this provision," says the supreme court of North Dakota, "does not mean uni- versal operation. A general law may be constitutional and yet operate in fact only on a very limited number of per- sons, or things, or within a limited territory. But, so far as it is operative, its burdens and its benefits must bear alike upon all persons and things upon which it does oper- ate; and the statute must contain no provision that would exclude or impede this uniform operation upon all citizens, or all subjects and places, within the state, provided they were brought within the relations and circumstances speci- fied in the act.'"* 52 Leavenworth Co. v. Miller, 7 m Northern Pao. R. E. Co. v.. Kan. 479; In re De Vauoene, 31 Barnes, 2 N. D. 310, 341, 51 N. W. How. Pr. 337; Gilson v. Board of 836. In State v. Nelson, 52 Ohio St. Com'rs, 128 Ind. 65, 27 N. E. 235, 11 88, 98, 39 N. E. 22, 26 L. R. A. 317, L. R. A. 835; Consumers' Gas Trust the court says: ''This section of the Co. V. Harless, 131 Ind. 446, 29 N. E. constitution requires that laws of 1062. 15 L. R. A. 505; Lloyd v. Dol- a general nature shall have not only lison, 13 Ohio C. D. 571. an operation, but a uniform opera- s' Groesch V. State, 42 Ind. 547; tion, throughout the state; that is, Heanley v. State, 74 Ind. 99; Elder the whole state, and not only in one V. State, 96 id, 162; State V. Wilcox, or more counties. The operation 45 Mo. 458. must be uniform upon thesubject- ^ People ex rel. v. Wright, 70 111. matter of the statute. It cannot 398; People ex reL v. Cooper, 83 id. operate upon the named subject in 585. one part of the state differently GENBEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 857 In Indiana local laws in regard to fees and salaries are forbidden, and general laws required on that and other enu- merated subjects, as well as upon all subjects on which gen- •eral laws could be made applicable; and these were required to have a uniform operation throughout the state. An act gave certain officers different salaries and made such differ- ence depend on the question of population. This legislation was held to be neither local nor special; it operates uniformly and alike in all parts of the state under like facts. It gives the same increase of compensation in all counties where there is the same excess of population.'* In Tennessee there are constitutional provisions in a dif- ferent form, which, by judicial construction, forbid partial laws; and, as part of the law of the land, require that gen- eral and public laws shall be equally binding upon every member of the community." This requirement is satisfied if an act extends to and embraces all persons who are or who may come into the like situation and circumstances.^' The requirement of general laws, and that they have a uni- form operation, is an implied prohibition of special or local laws; so the express prohibition of local or special laws is an implied requirement that legislation shall be general. from what it operates upon it in Am. Deo. 189; Sheppard v. Johnson, •other parts of the state. That is, 3 Humph. 296; Pope v. Phifer, 3 the law must operate uniformly Heisk. 701 ; Brown v. Hay wood, 4 id. upon the named subject-matter in 357; Burkholtz v. State, 16 Lea, 71; every part of the state, and wlien Caruthers v. Andrews, 3 Cold. 378; it does that it complies with this Woodardv. Brian, 14Lea, 520; Daly section of the constitution.'' v. State, 13 id. 228; McCallie v. si^Hanlon v. Board of Commis- Chattanooga, 3 Head, 321; Hazen sioners, 53 Ind. 133; State v. Reitz, v. Union Bank, 1 Sneed, 115; Bur- 62 id. 159; Clem v. State, 33 id. 418. ton v. School Commissioners, Meigs, 6' State V. Burnett, 6 Heisk. 186; 589 ; Taylor, McBean& Co. v. Chan d- Vanzant v. Waddel, 2 Yerg. 260; ler, 9 Heisk. 349; Eagio v. State, 86 Memphis V.Fisher, 9 Baxt. 339; Par Tenn. 273, 6 S. W. 401. See art. ducah & M. R. R. Co. v. Stovall, 13 XI, sec. 8, of Const. Tenn. Heisk. 1; McKinney v. Memphis 58Mayor,etc. v. Dearmon,2Sneed, Overton Hotel Co., 13 Heisk. 104; 131; Davis v. State, 3 Lea, 876; Budd V. State, 3 Humph. 483, 39 State v. Rausoher, 1 id. 96. 358 GBNEKAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. Individual cases of the enumerated class cannot be providecJ for. These are converse forms of similar constitutional reg- ulation. The principal discussion, however, has occurred on the varied inhibitions of special or loCal enactment. §199(127). Special and local laws. — Special laws are those made for individual cases, or for less than a class re^ quiring laws appropriate to its peculiar condition and cir cumstances; local laws are special as to place.*' When pro- hibited they are severally objectionable for not extending to the whole subject to which their provisions would be equally applicable, and thus permitting a diversity of laws relating to the same subject. The object of the prohibition of special or local laws is to prevent this diversity. Each subject as to which such laws are prohibited is by such inhi- bition designated as a subject of only general legislation which shall have a uniform operation. Generality in scope and uniformity of operation are both essential. A law which embraces a whole subject would still be speqial if not framed to have a uniform operation. " Every subject of legislation," says the supreme court of Ohio, " is either of a general nature on the one hand, or local and special on the other. It cannot be in its nature both general and special, because the two are inconsistent." ™ § 200. Whether act general or special — General prin- ciples — Not a question of form. — " It seems impossible to fix any definite rule by which to solve the question whether a law is local or general, and it has been found expedient to leave the matter to a considerable extent open, to be de- termined upon the special circumstances of each case.""' " If its operation and effect must necessarily be special, the act is special, whatever may be its form. If, on the other hand, the act has room within its terms to operate upon all 59 state V. Wilcox, 45 Ma 458; Fitzgerald v. Phelps & B. Windmill Territory v. School District, 10 Okl. Co., 48 W. Va. 570, 26 S. E. 315. 556, 64 Pac. 241. "i Ferguson v. Ross, 126 N. Y. 459, *■(! State V. Spellmire, 67 Ohio St. 27 N. E. 954; Bruch v. Colombet,. 77, 81, 65 N. E. 619. To same effect, 104 Cal. 347, 352, 38 Pac. 45. GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 359 of a class of things, present and prospective, and not merely upon one particular thing, or upon a particular class of things existing at the time of its passage, the act is gen- eral.'"^ That the question is not one of form is expressly held as necessarily implied in all the cases,"' and, if this were not so, then the constitution could be easily Bvaded " by dressing up special laws in the garb and guise of general statutes."** But while in most of the adjudicated cases the laws under consideration were general in form, but were assailed as special in fact, yet in some cases laws special in form have been held to be general in fact, and the test is the same in both cases.*' The question must be determined from the act itself and from facts of which the court will take judicial notice.** An act requiring every electric street car to be provided with a screen for the protection of the motorraan was claimed to be special because it did not apply to all street cars, but the court held otherwise and refused to hear evi- dence to show that there was the same need of protection on one kind as on another.*' The court says: "While a statute must stand or fall by its operation, rather than by its mere form, yet in passing upon the constitutionality of a statute, a court can judge of its operation only through facts of which it can take judicial notice. A court cannot take testimony to determine the operation of a statute, and . thereby declare it unconstitutional. Neither can a court judicially know that a cable car, or a horse car, is so con- structed and operated as to require the same means of pro- tection for the operatives as is required on electric cars." 62Topeka v. Gillett, 33 Kan. 431, leans, 49 La. Ann. 114, 21 So. 179; 436, 4 Pac. 800. Ferguson v. Ross, 126 N. Y. 459, 27 63 Duffy V. New Orleans, 49 La. N. E. 954; Verges v. Milwaukee Ann. 114, 21 So. 179; State v. Nel- County, 116 Wis. 191, 93 N. W. 44. son, 53 Ohio St. 88, 39 N. E. 32, 26 And see post, % 215. L. E. A. 317. "* Davies v. Los Angeles, 86 Cal. 64 State V. Herrmann, 75 Mo. 340. 37, 24 Pac. 771. 65 State V. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, 67 state v. Nelson, 52 Ohio St. 88, t,8 N. W. 150; Duffy v. New Or- 39 N. E. 23, 26 L. R. A. 317. 360 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. So tha question is to be determined not from the title but the body of the act. An act was entitled " An act to make the register of deeds' office of Milwaukee county a salaried office." The body of the act, as construed by the court, ap- plied to all counties having a population of 150,000 or up- wards, and was held to be a general act, though the title indicated it was local and special.''' § 201. Acts whose operation is dependent upon local adoption — Effect of limit of time for adoption. — An act, which is otherwise general, is not rendered local or special by a provision that it should only operate in such local sub- divisions, municipal or other public corporations, as may adopt it by popular vote or otherwise.^' But it seems mani- fest that such a rule must lead to diversity, and some courts hold such acts void for that reason, when they relate to a subject as to which special legislation is prohibited.'" A Pennsylvania statute of 1874 divided all cities into three classes and provided a scheme of government for each class. A supplementary act of 1889, applicable to cities of the third class, provided a method for the control and mainte- nance of schools, different from the act of 1874, but it was not to apply to any city of the third class theretofore or- 68 Verges v. Milwaukee County, R. A. 431; State v. Hudson County, 116 Wis. 191, 93 N. W. 44. 53 N. J. L. 398, 20 Atl. 855; Lloyd v. 69 People V. Kipley, 171 111. 44, 49 Dollisin, 13 Ohio C. D. 571 ; Adam N. E 329; People v. Simon, 176 111. v. Beloit, 103 Wis. 363, 81 N. W. 165, 53 N. E. 910, 68 Am. St. Rep. 869, 47 L. R. A. 441. See contra, 175; Brown v. Holland, 97 Ky. 349, Commonwealth v. Den worth, 145 30 S. W. 629; Maysville & Lexing- Pa. St. 172, 33 Atl. 830. ton T. Road Co. v. Wiggins, 104 Ky. '» Owen v. Baer, 154 Mo. 434, 55 540, 47 S. W. 434; State v. Copeland, S. W. 644; Commonwealth v. Rey- 66 Minn. 315, 69 N. W, 37, 61 Am. nolds, 137 Pa, St. 389, 20 Atl. 1011; St. Rep. 410; Lum v. Vicksburg, 73 Ward v. Boyd Paving & C. Co., 79 Miss. 950, 18 So. 476; State v. Pond, Fed. 390; Boyd Paving & C. Co. v. 93 Mo. 606, 6 S. W. 469; Ex parte Ward, 85 Fed. 87, 28 C. C. A. 667. Swann, 96 Mo. 44, 9 S. W. 10; State And see Meredith v. Perth Amboy, V. Moore, 107 Mo. 78, 16 S. W. 937; 60 N. J. L. 134, 36 Atl. 779; State v. State V. Wlngfield, 115 Mo. 438, 88 Copeland, 66 Minn. 315, 69 N. W. S. W. 363; In re Petition of Cleve- 27, 61 Am. St. Rep. 410. land, 52 N. J. L. 18S, 19 Atl. 17, 7 L. GKNEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 361 ganized unless adopted in the manner provided. The su- preme court held that the act was void and say: "If the act of 1889 is sustained, we. are liable to have cities of the third class : (1) By special charter as before ; (2) by special charter and under the act of 1889; (3) under the general act of 1874; and (4) under the acts of 1874 and 1889. An- other such statute would double these possibilities, and each succeeding similar enactment would double the possibilities then existing. This diversity, thus increasing in a geometrical ratio, would result in a confusion and disorder with which the «vils of undisguised special legislation cannot be compared. In order to procure special legislation upon any subject re- lating to the government of cities, it would only be neces- sary to procure the passage of a law, general in form, with the specific and special features desired, with a provision that it should apply only to such cities as might accept it; and it would be possible, in this form of legislation, for each city in the third class in the state to have, to some ex- tent, its own peculiar system, with like effect as if enacted by special law." ^' The courts which uphold the validity of such acts also hold that, when the time for adoption is limited, the act is thereby rendered special and void. An act of New Jersey .provided that a district court should -be established in every «ity of the state having a population of twenty thousand or less, which should, by resolution of its city council, adopt the act within three months from the date of its passage. The court of errors and appeals held that the limitation rendered the act special and void and said : " After the ex- piration of the three months the law remains, but applica- ble only to those cities of the class indicated that have .adopted it. Its benefit is denied to then existing cities whose necessity may at any time after the three months have demanded, or may hereafter demand, a district court, and as well to all cities that may have come into being aftiT the expiration of the three months' limitation or mr.y here- 71 Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 137 Pa. St. 389, 404 405, 20 Atl. 1011. 362 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. after come into being. The effect of the limitation is a re- striction of the class to which the law may be applied. It has not been suggested, and it is not perceived, that the re- striction has any reasonable relation to the purpose of the enactment. On the contrary, it is impossible to consider the restrictive clause without feeling that it is illusive. To sustain it as a proper basis of classification in the present case would be to overthrow the principle so often enunciated in our courts, that it must be a characteristic which in some reasonable degree, at least, will justify the restriction, and not that alone, but also to encourage a course of legislation that could, in effect, be used to nullify the constitutional pro- vision considered, for if the limit be three months, why not, as well, three days or three hours? '"^ In another case in the same state an act relating to county boards was not to apply in any county unless adopted by popular vote, nor unless certain steps for its submission were taken within twenty-two days after its passage. In holding the act to be special and void the court suggests a general rule, " that if the legislature selects a group of places for the possible operation of a statute, and makes its actual operation, in any member of the group, conditional upon the expression therein of a sentiment favorable to the statute, such expression becomes a substantial element in the basis- of classification, and the class must be kept open for the ad- mission of any member of the group wherein the sentiment shall at any time be appropriately expressed."" Similar rulings have been made where the adoption was to be made at the next municipal election after the passage of the act,^* or within one year after its passage.'^ But where an act was only to operate in such counties as should adopt it by popular vote and required that it should be submitted at the next election for local officers, it was held that the pro- 72 De Hart v. Atlantic City, 63 N. 74 Christie v. Bayonne, 64 N. J. J. L. 223, 43 Atl. 743. L. 181, 44 Atl. 887. " State V. Holmes, 68 N. J. L. 198, 75 Rqss v. Passaic City, 64 N. J. L. 197, 53 Atl. 76. 488, 45 Atl. 817. GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 363^- vision as to time of submission was directory and the act valid.™ .Enabling acts or acts conferring powers are not special because, practically, they may be availed of or acted upon in some localities and not in others." But here again the right to avail of the act must not be limited in time. Thus an act to provide for the annexation of territory to cities of the second class, of which there were ten, contained a pro- vision that it should not apply to cities of less than six thousand inhabitants, and contained other provisions the ef- fect of which was that the act could not be availed of unless a certain notice was given within fourteen days after the passage of the act, nor unless the annexation was completed' within fifty-eight days after such passage. The act was held special and void.'* But it is held that such limitation of time is valid in a remedial act passed to relieve certain ex- isting and temporary conditions.™ § 202. Class legislation. — The provision that laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation does not- alone prevent special legislation, except where, upon a sub- ject of general concern, it would have the effect to make unjust discriminations between people or places in the same condition and circumstances; in other words, have the effect to grant to certain persons or classes privileges or immuni- ties which, upon the same terms, are not made available to- all, or which impose liabilities and burdens upon some but not upon all in the same class or condition.^" Legislation; 76 Albright v. Sussex Co. Lake & ^ Topeka v. Gillett, 32 Kan. 431, Park-Commission, 68 N. J. L. 538, 4 Pao. 800. And see Burnham v. 53 Atl. 613. Milwaukee, 98 Wis. 138, 73 N. W. "Hellmanv. Shoalters, 114 Cal. 1018. 136, 45 Pac. 1068; State v. King, 37 '9 Alexander v. Duluth, 77 Minn. Iowa, 463; Zumstein v. Mullen, 67 445, 80 N. W. 623; State v. Ames, 1^7 Ohio St. 383,66 N. E. 140; Lehigh Minn. 33, 91 N. W. 18. And see Valley Coal Co.'s Appeal, 164 Pa. State v. Guttenberg, 63 N. J. L. St. 44, 30 Atl. 310; Middletown 605, 48 Atl. 703; Herman v. Gutten- Road, 15 Pa. Supr. 167; Jerrayn v. berg." 63 N. J, L. 616, 44 Atl. 758. Scranton, 186 Pa. St. 595, 40 Atl. 973. so in McGill v. State, 34 Ohio St.. ^64 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. of the latter description is known as "class legislation."'* In most cases, whether an act is a general law or not de- pends upon a question of classification. So whether an act is class legislation or not depends upon a question of classi- 246. the court thus discussed this distinction: "In State ex rel. v. The Judges, etc., 31 Ohio St. 1, it was held that an act limiting and regulating the fees of the county ofEcers of Hamilton county was not a law of a general but of a local nature. And in Cass v. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 617, it was said that a law authorizing and requiring the com- missioners to subscribe in behalf of -the county to the stock of a rail- 'road company was no more of a general nature than would be an act to authorize the construction of a bridge, or the erection of a poor-house; and yet it is perfectly •clear that an act regulating the fees of county ofHcers throughout the state pertains to a general subject-matter existing in e^ery county, and in which all citizens have an interest, as do the general acts authorizing county commis- sioners to construct bridges, erect poor-house.s and other necessary public buildings. And yet who would venture to question the power of the legislature to clothe the commissioners of a county, or the trustees of a township, by local enactment, with authority to pro- vide all public buildings or struct- ures that the local wants of a com- munity might require ; or who will contend that the power of the leg- islature is so circumscribed and re- stricted as to prohibit it from re- quiring a tax to be levied or a court-house to be erected in one county without requiring the same thing to be done in every county In the state? The act authorizing the judges of the court of common pleas to fix the times for holding the terms of court in their respect- ive districts is a general law, the subject-matter of which concerns all the people throughout the state. Cannot the legislature change by local enactment the term of a court so fixed? If it may do so, it is because the act authorizing the judges to fix the time for holding the courts, although general in its terms, and relating to a subject- matter that pervades all parts of the state, is not, within the mean- ing and intendment of the consti- tution, a law of a general nature. Such laws are clearly distinguish- able in their nature from those that confer privileges and immuni- ties or impose burdens upon a citi- zen or class of citizens that are not upon the same terms and condi- tions conferred and imposed upon all. It is easy to comprehend that 81 "By class legislation, we un- is imposed upon another in like derstand such legislation as denies case offending." People v. Bellet, rights to one which are accorded 99 Mich. 151, 153, 57 N. W. 1094, 41 to others, or inflicts upon one indi- Am. St. Rep. 589, 22 L. E. A. 696. vidual a more severe penalty than GENEEAL AND SPEOIAL LAWS. 365- fication. And it is held that the same tests are to be applied' in both cases in determining whether a proper classification' has been made.^ For this reason the reviser has included cases on class legislation in this chapter. § 203. Classification of subjects for legislation — Gen- eral principles. — Whether or not an act is class legis- lation, or whether or not it is a general or special law, depends fundamentally upon a question of classification. "When an act is assailed as class or special legislation, the- attack is necessarily based upon the claim that there are persons or things similarly situated to those embraced in the act, and which by the terms of the act are excluded from its operation. The question then is whether the per- sons or things embraced by the act form by themselves a proper and legitimate class with reference to the purposes of the act. It is agreed on all hands that the constitution does not forbid a reasonable and proper classification of the objects of legislation. The question is, what is reasonable and proper in the premises. No definite or absolute rule «an be laid down by which- the question can be determined in all cases, but the ques- tion must be determined in each case as it arises, and for a law defining burglary or bigamy, nature, or may be local or special and its penalty, or regulating de- and relate to matter that may be- scent and distribution, or presorib- made the subject of a general law,, ing a rate of interest for the use of not only rests upon some reason money, and others of a similar ef- but is well supported by author- feet and operation, are laws of a ity." general nature, requiring uniform '2 state v. Cooley, 56 Minn. .^40, operation throughout the state. 58 N. W. 150; Julien v. Model B. To discriminate between localities L. & I. Ass'n, 116 "Wis. 79, 93 N. W. or citizens in the enactment of laws 561. In the latter case the court of such nature would be to grant says: "Legislative discretion to- privileges or impose burdens of a classify persons for the purposes of character which it was the clear legislation is substantially the same purpose of the constitution to pro- under the fourteenth amendment vide against. But that a law may of the federal constitution as imder be general and concern matters the state constitutional provision, purely local or special in their prohibiting special legislation." 366 GENEfSAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. that case alone. ^' It is laid down in one case that " the •test of the reasonaoleness of a classification is that it must be based upon some difference which bears a just and proper relation to the attempted classification, and is not a mere arbitrary selection." ^ The question was very elaborately considered in Minne- sota in a case the facts of which have already been stated.^' The court in that case lays down the following propositions: 1. "The fundamental rule is that all classification must be based upon substantial distinctions which make one class reall}'^ different from another." 2. " Another rule is that the -characteristics which form the basis of the classification must be germane to the purpose of the law; in other words, legislation for a class, to be general, must be confined to matters peculiar to the class. There must be an evident connection between the distinctive features to be regulated and the regulation adopted." 3. " Another rule is that to whatever class a law applies, it must apply to every member of that class." 4. " Another proposition that may be laid down as beyond question is that, if the basis of classification is valid, it is wholly immaterial how many or how few mem- bers there are in the class." 5. "The last proposition to which we will refer is that the character of an act as general or special depends on its substance, and not on its form. It may be special in fact although general in form, and it may >be general in fact although special in form. The mere form is not material." ^^ 83 Bruch V. Colombet, 104 Cal. for which the rule is adopted, pro- :^47, 352, 38 Pao. 45; Ferguson v. vided the classification be a proper 126 N. Y. 459, 27 N. E. 954. one. The legislature, however, can- 84 State V. Jacksonville Terminal not adopt an arbitrary classifica- Co., 41 Fla. 363, 374, 27 So. 221. tion, for it must be based on some 85 Ante, § 196. reason suggested by such diSerence ssi State V. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, in the situation and circumstances 550-552, 58 N. W. 150. In a aubse- of the subjects placed in the differ- ■quent case the same court says: "A ent classes as to disclose the neces- law is general and uniform in its sity or propriety of dififerent legis- ■operation which operates equally lation in respect thereto. Any law upon all subjects within the class based upon such olassifloation must GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 367 There has been much, discussion of this subject by the courts of E"ew Jersey. It has there received a very definite and satisfactory solution. The principles there established for classification of subjects for legislation have been gen- erally recognized; they will probably harmonize the well- considered cases in all the states where similar constitutional regulations are in force. In Yan Kiper v. Parsons " the supreme court declared this principle: that a general law, as contradistinguished from one special or local, is a law which embraces a class of sub- jects or places, and does not omit any subject or place natu- rally belonging to such class. The second time that case passed under judicial -examination in the same court the holding was thus expressed: "A law framed in general terms, restricted to no locality, and operating equally upon all of a group of objects which, having regard to the pur- pose of the legislature, are distinguished by characteristics sufficiently marked and important to make them a class by themselves, is not a special or local law but a general law, without regard to the consideration that within this state there happens to be but one individual of that class, or one place where it produces effects." The statute to which the court in that case gave effect spent its force entirely in its application to one city. This is a leading case in that state, and has been followed by many others in that state and elsewhere affirming and exemplifying it.^' embrace all, and exclude none, 84 N. W, 103; Duluth Banking Co. whose condition and wants render v. Koon, 81 Minn. 486, 488, 84 N. W. 6. such legislation necessary or ap- *' 40 N. J. L. 123. propriate to them as a class. Legis- '* Board of Assessors v. Central lation limited in its relation to par- R. R Co., 48 N. J. L. 146, 4 Atl. S78: ticular subdivisions of the state, to Sutterly v. Camden Common Pleas, be valid, must rest on some charac- 41 N. J. L. 495; Field v. Silo. 44 id. teristic or peculiarity plainly dis- 355; Hines v. Freeholders, etc., 45 tinguishing the places included id. 504; Bucklew v. Railroad Co., from those excluded." Murray v. 64 Iowa, 603, SI N. W. 103; Central BoardofCo. Com., 6l Minn. 359, 361, Trust Co. v. Sloan, 65 Iowa, 665: 36S GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. In Rutgers v. New Brunswick'' an act came in question which had the effect to abolish a court at a particular city, established under a prior general law. This prior law pro- vided that one district court should be established in every city in the state of fifteen thousand inhabitants. New Brunswick had a population of sixteen thousand six hundred. By a supplement to this act, the original act was amended by substituting twenty thousand in the place of fifteen thousand. This amendment was held not to be a local or spe- cial law, and that it abolished the district court in that city An act which for the purpose of fixing the compensation of president judges classifies them into separate classes by reference to population of the counties in which they serve was sustained as a general law. The duties of such judges are well known to vary. Those located in populous coun- ties are likely to be called on to perform more onerous du- ties, and their time will probably be more fully occupied. And so such a distinction^, looking at the matter of fixing compensation alone, cannot be said to be in any respect illusive.'" A law may be general in its terms, and apply to a class constituted by having characteristics which make it a class, and yet be an illusory classification which will not warrant legislation confined to it, where special or local legislation Darrow v. People, 8 Colo. 417; Wei- 56 N. J. L. 469, 39 Atl. 183; State v. ter V. Potter, 18 Ohio St. 85; Peo- Newark, 57 N. J. L. 83, 30 Atl. 186; pie V. Wallace, 70 111. 680; State v. Hudson County v. Clarke, 65 N. J. Hoagland, 51 N. J. L. 63; Bingham L. 371, 47 Atl. 478; Budd v. Han- V. Camden, 40 id. 156; Pell v. New- cock, 66 N. J. L. 183, 48 Atl. 1028; ark, id. 71, 550, 29 Am. Rep. 266; State v. Holmes, 68 N. J. L. 192, 53 Rutgers v. New Brunswick, 43 N. Atl. 76; Albright v. Sussex Co. J. L. 51; State ex rel. Richards v. Lake & Park Com., 68 N. J. L. 523, Hammer, id. 435; Tiger v. Morris 53 Atl. 612. Pleas, id. 631; Worthley v. Steen, »»i2 N. J. L. 51. 43 id. 542; Bumstead v. Govern, 47 "o Skinner v. Collector, 42 N. J. id. 868; affirmed, 48 id. 612; State L. 407; Hanlon v. Board of Com- V.Trenton, 54 N. J. L. 444, 34 Atl. missioners, 53 Ind. 133; State v. 478; State v. Borland, 56 N. J. L. Reitz, Auditor, 62 id. 159. 364, 28 Atl. 599; State v. Trenton, GENEEAL ANl3 SPECIAL LAWS. 369 is prohibited. The grouping must be founded on peculiar- ities requiring legislation, and legislation which by reason of the absence of such peculiarities is not necessarj'^ or apr plicable outside of that class. In other words, the true principle requires something more than a mere designation by such characteristics as will serve to classify; for the characteristics which will thus serve as a basis of classifica- tion must be of such a nature as to mark the objects so des- ignated as peculiarly requiring exclusive legislation. There must be a substantial distinction, having a reference to the subject-matter of the proposed legislation between the ob- jects or places embraced in such legislation and the objects or places excluded. The marks of distinction on which the classification is founded must be such, in the nature of things, as will in some reasonable degree at least account for and justify the restriction of the legislation.'* Distinc- tions which do not arise from substantial difiPerences, so marked as to call for separate legislation, constitute no ground for supporting such legislation as general.'^ The supreme court of Pennsylvania says: "Legislation for a class distinguished from a general subject is not special but general, and classification is a legislative question, sub- ject to judicial revision only so far as to see that it is founded on real distinctions in the subjects classified, and not on artificial or irrelevant ones used for the purpose of evading the constitutional prohibition. If the distinctions are genuine the courts cannot declare the classification void, though they may not consider it to be on a sound basis. n Hammer v. State, 44 N. J. L. 479, 42 N. W. 396; State v. Stand- 667. ley, 76 Iowa, 215, 40 N. W. 815; 92 Hammer v. State, 44 N. J. L. Newman v. Emporia, 41 Kan. 583, 667; Hudson v. Buck, 51 N. J. L. 21 Pac. 593; Nichols v. Walier, 37 155, 16 Atl. 698; Beaver County In- Minn. 264, 33 N. W. 800; RutUer- dexes, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 525; Allen ford v. Hamilton, 97 Mo. 543, 11 S. V. Pioneer Press, 40 Minn. 117, 41 W. 249; Atlantic City Water-works N. W. 936: Preston v. Louisville, 84 Co. v. Consumers' Water Co., 44 N. Ky. 118; Cobb v. Bord. 40 Minn. J. Eq. 427. 24 370 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. The test is, not wisdom, but good faith in the classifica- tion.'"^ It is manifest from the foregoing discussion that the sub- ject is a difficult one, and that opinions will frequently differ as to the character of a particular act. In many cases the court is divided and dissenting opinions are filed. In giving the opinion of the court in one such case in the su- preme court of the United States, Mr. Justice Brewer says: " While cases on either side and far away from the dividing line are easy of disposition, the difficulty arises as the stat- es Seabolt V. Commonwealtlv 187 Pa. St. 318. 323, 41 Atl. 23. The question of classification is particularly discussed in tbe fol- lowing cases: Lasher v. People, 183 111. 226, 55 N. E. 663, 75 Am. St. Rep. 103, 47 L, R A. 802; Union Savings Kank & T. Co. v. Dottenheim, 107 Ga. 606, 34 S. E. 317; Simard v. Sul- livan. 71 Minn. 517, 74 N. W. 280; State V. Sullivan, 72 Minn. 126, 75 N. W. 8; Duluth Banking Co. v. Koon, 81 Minn. 486, 84 N. W. 6; Ballard v. Miss. Cotton Oil Co., 81 Miss. 507, 34 So. 533; State v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439, 18 S. W. 677; Dunne v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 131 Mo. 1, 32 S. W. 641; Owen v. Baer, 154 Mo. 43i 55 S. W. 644; State v. Boyd, 19 Nev. 43, 5 Pac. 735; Edmonds v. Herbrandson, 3 N. D. 370, 50 N. W. 970, 14 L. R. A. 735; Sutton v. State, 96 Tenn. 696, 36 S. W. 697, 33 L. R. A. 589; Clark v. Pinley, 98 Tex. 171, 54 S. W. 343; Julien v. Model B. L. & I. Ass'n, 116 Wis. 79, 93 N. W. 561. In the latter case the court says: "Legislative discretion to classify persons for the purposes of legislation is substantially the same under the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution as under the state constitutional provision prohibiting special legislation. The rules on the subject which generally prevail, and which have received the sanction of this court, are as fol- lows: (1) All classification must be based upon substantial distinctions which make one class really differ- ent from another. (3) The classifi- cation adopted must be germane to the purposes of the law. (3) The classification must not be based upon existing conditions only; it must not be so constituted as to prevent additions to the number included within tbe class. (4) To whatever class a law may apply, it must apply equally to each member thereof./ Whether any particular classification made by the legisla- ture satisfies those requisites is pri- marily a legislative question. The field covered by its discretionary power in the matter is very broad. It is. of course, not above judicial control, but is safe from restraint so long as any reasonable ground can be discovered to support it. The court can apply no test to the matter except a constitutional test. That of the mere wisdom of the measure is exclusively for legisla- tive consideration." GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 371 ute in question comes near the line of separation. Is the classification prescribed thereby purely arbitrary, or has it some basis in that which has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be accomplished? It is not at all to be wondered at that as these doubtful cases come before this court the justices have often divided in opinion. To some the statute presented seemed a mere arbitrary selection; to •others it appeared that there was some reasonable basis of classification."'* § 204. Classification of municipalities according to population — California. — In this state the constitution permits of the classification of cities for the purpose of in- corporation and organization, and it is held that this classi- fication must be made by a general law, and that subsequent legislation must have reference to the classification so made. The supreme court says: " I think it was intended that the classification there au- thorized was to be by a general law in the same sense and in the same way in which it was necessary to provide for the incorporation and organization of cities and towns. Legislation in regard to such corporations would thereafter be made by reference to the classes thus made. The special authority to thus classify cities and towns would also seem to imply that they cannot be otherwise classified for pur- poses of legislation. If they may be, and new classes cre- ated whenever it is desired by an}'' one to procure legislation which shall apply to only a few cities of the class, the lim- itations of the constitution, so carefully made, and so often repeated, can be easily defeated. " I think a law made in conformity with this special per- mission in the constitution must be a law classifying all ■cities in the state, or a law amendatory of such a law. It must leave all the municipal corporations classified.'"' 9* Atchison, T. & S. F. R. R. Co. proved in Denman v. Broderick, V. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 105, Iq's. Ill Cal. 96, 43 Pac. 516, and Ex ■C. Rep. 609, 43 L. Ed. 909. parte Giamhonini, 117 Cal. 573, 49 95 Darcy v. San Jose, 104 Cal. 643, Pac. 733. ■38 Pac. 500. This case has been ap- 372 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. A general classification law to be valid must be based upor substantial diCerences of population, such as may rationally be deemed to call for, or at least to justify, diversity of or ganization.'^ In the cases cited it is held that laws which make new classes for particular purposes connected witli the organizatioa of the municipality are void, but that new classes may be made for other purposes, if the classification is reasonable and appropriate to the purpose of the act.'' A law applicable to cities of the fifth and sixth classes of municipalities and regulating the mode of exercising the eminent domain power was held special and void, because this is not a part oi municipal organization and may be reg- ulated by general laws applicable to all alike.'' §205. Same — Minnesota. — Municipalities may be clas- sified in this state according to population where there is a natural connection between the subject-matter of the pro- posed legislation and the number of inhabitants. '* In 1899 the constitution was amended so as to divide cities into classes according to population and to authorize the legis- lature to pass general laws relating to municipal affairs and to limit their application to one class only.' This amend- ment was held not to repeal prior provisions in regard to special legislation, but simply to permit legislation confined to one of the classes without regard to any relation be- tween the subject-matter of the law and the number of in- habitants.^ § 206. Same — Missouri. — The constitution of 1875 con- tains the following: "The general assembly shall provide, by general laws, for the organization and classification of «" Id. Electric & W. Ca, 74 Minn. 180, 77 9' Rauer v. Williams, 118 Cal. 401, N. W. 180. 50 Pac. 691. 1 Const, art 4, sec. 30. '8 Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 CaL ^ Alexander v. "Duluth, 77 Minn. 238, 27 Pac. 604. 445, 80 N. W. 623. See generally, estate V. District Court, 61 State v. Johnson, 77 Minn. 453, 80 Minn. 542, 64 N. W. 190; McCor- N. W. 620; State v. Minor, 79 Minn, mick V. West Duluth, 47 Minn. 373, 201, 81 N. W. 913. 50 N. W. 128; Flynn v. Little Falls GBNEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 373 cities and towns. The number of such classes shall not ex- ceed four; and the power of each class shall be defined by general laws, so that all such municipal corporations of the same class shall possess the same powers and be subject to the same restrictions."' Pursuant to this provision the leg- islature divided the cities and towns into four classes, as follows: 1. Those having a population of 100,000 or over; 2. Those having 30,000 to 100,000; 3. Those having 3,000 to 30,000; 4, Those having 500 to 3,000.* The constitution also made provision by which St. Louis was authorized to frame its own charter, and also provided that all cities of 100,000 population might frame and adopt their own char- ters. These provisions were held in effect to make two ad- ditional classes.^ Acts relating to St. Louis by name have been held valid.* s Art. 9, sec. 7. 'Murnane v. St. Louis, 123 Mo. 479, 27 S. W. 711. 5 Kansas City v. StegmiUer, 151 Mo. 189, 53 S. W. 733. The court says: "Again, we think it is plain that the framers of the constitu- tion ex vi termini excluded from its legislative classitication the city of St. Louis, which it ex- pressly authorized to adopt its own scheme and charter, and all such cities as it authorized by section 16, article IX, to frame and adopt their own charters. These cities consti- tute two constitutional classes dis- tinct from those chartered and classified by the legislature." "It follows that the legislature may legislate directly forthese con- stitutional cities without infring- ing the constitution, and in legis- lating'therefor it does not create a new class butsnnply provides for a class created by the constitution. Having expressly provided for - these constitutional cities, and hav- ing also provided in section 15 of the schedule of the constitution, that 'the general assembly shall pass such laws as may be necessary to carry this constitution into full effect,' it has become a settled rule of decision in this court that no law can be either local or special within the meaning of the consti- tution which has for its object and purpose the carrying out of the constitutional command. It was and is apparent that these excep- tional cities were not to be left without necessary legislation to govern them with respect to their relations and obligations to the state at large. As to subjects which bear upon their relation to the state government the general assembly can by general law pro- vide for their government." p. 20i. « State V. Walton, 69 Mo. 556; Kenefick v. St. Louis, 127 Mo. 1, 29 S. W. 838; Walser v. Wear, 13S 374 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. So acts have been sustained which were limited in their operation to cities of 100,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, St. Louis- being the only one; but others limited in like manner have been held invalid. As there would seem to be some conflict in these decisions, they are referred to more in detail. The followmg were held valid, either as general laws or as in compliance with a command of the constitution: An act to provide for oflScial stenographers in criminal courts having jurisdiction of felony in cities of 100,000 inhabitants or more; ' an act fixing the number of directors in public school boards and providing for their election ; ' an act to provide for a board of police commissioners and the appointment and government of a police force; ^ an act to provide for the registration of voters;" an act to provide for the elec- tion, jurisdiction and compensation of justices of the peace."^ On the other hand the following were held to be local or special and void: An act in relation to notaries;'^ an act re- Mo. 653, 31 S. W. 37. In the case first cited an act to divide St. Louis into districts and to provide for the election of justices of the peace therein was held valid, and the court says: ""While the act in question, when viewed simply with reference to the territory in which it is to operate, may in strictness be classed as a local law, yet when it is considered that other pro- visions of the constitution have so separated the city of St. Louis from other territorial divisions of the state as to give it an organi- zation different from that ot any county or other city, thus necessi- tating legislation applicable to it alone and which cannot be made applicable by a general law, we are forced to the conclusion that the act of 1877, providing for the election of justices of the peace in said city, is not such a local law as falls within the prohibitions of sec- tions 53 and 54, supra." pp. 558, 559. 7 State v. Wofford, 121 Mo. 61, 25- S. W. 851. The ground is thus stated: "A statute applicable to all cities of a certain population is a general law when it prescribes a rule for future government in all such cities as may, in the course of time, reach the requisite popula- tion, and is not restricted by its provisions to a state of facts then existing, and not applicable to any other city which may in future at- tain that population." pp. 68, 69. 8 State V. Miller, 100 Mo. 439, 13 S. W. 677. estate V. Mason, 153 Mo. 23, 54 S. W. 524. 10 State V. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 55 S. W. 636. " State V. Higgins, 125 Mo. 364, 28 S. W. 638. 12 State V. Herrman, 75 Mo. 340, GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 375 la ting to local improvements;" an act to provide for the establishment of boulevards and to regulate the traffic thereon ; " an act relating to the compensation of probate judges;" an act relating to the punishment of election frauds.'^ In Henderson v. Koenig there is a review of the cases and an attempt to explain them." And in the last two cases referred to, which are very recent, it is held that no legislation for St. Louis as a class is valid, if on a subject where a general law exists or can be made applicable. Acts applying to one of the legislative classes are held valid,'^ but a particular act applicable to cities of a specified population, which 'does not correspond with either of the 13 Murnane v. St. Louis, 123 Mo. 479, 27 S. W. 711. 14 St. Louis V. Dorr, 145 Mo. 460, 41 S. W. 1094, 46 S. W. 976, 68 Am. St. Rep. 575, 42 L. R. A. 686. 15 Henderson v. Koenig, 168 Mo. 356, 68 S. W. 73. i« State V. Anslinger, 171 Mo. 600, 71 S. W. 1041. 1' The court says: " But the asser- tion is made that oases have been decided by this court when local or special legislation, that is to say, legislation applicable alone to the city of St. Louis, or alone to Kan- sas City, has been held valid. This is true, but in the decisions in none of these cases vras there any expres- sion or ruling which impinges in the slightest degree on the consti- tutional prohibition against a local or special law being enacted where a general law could have been made applicable; on the contrary, either distinct or elseimplied recog- nition is constantly given to the idea that, owing to the circumstances and exigencies of the particular case, a general law could not have been made applicable, or where it could not have been made appli- cable by reason of the fact that the legislation questioned waslthe resul t of direct obedience to some specific com mand of the con stitution. Th is statement will be found to embrace all the cases decided on this subject. In this case, however, there is no command of the constitution re- quiringthe general assembly to reg- ulate respecting the compensation to be awarded the judge of probate of the city of St. Louis. Nor is there any exigency requiring such legis- lation and confining its operation, as does this act in question, to the city of St. Louis alone. There are cases where this court has said an act would have been valid applied to St, Louis by name; but this court has never said this of an act where a general law could have been made applicable, but only in cases where it could not." Hender- son v. Koenig, 168 Mo. 356, 376, 377, 68 S. W. 72. 18 Copeland v. St. Joseph, 126 Mo. 417, 29 S. W. 281; State v. Fleming, 147 Mo. 1, 44 S. W. 758. 376 GENEEA.L AND SPECIAL LAWS. four classes, creates a fifth class in violation of the constitu- tion and is void." It is also held that laws applicable to a class of cities must actually operate in each city of the class and cannot be left to operate in such citfes only as may adopt the act by popular vote.^" Cities. under special charters are held to constitute a sepa- rate and distinct class,^' and an act authorizing cities under special charters, and containing more than 30,000 and less than 60,000 inhabitants, to construct a system of sewers, was held to be a general law and valid.^^ § 207. Same — New Jersey. — The constitution forbids local or special legislation regulating the internal afifairs of municipalities, and such legislation must be general and applicable to all alike, except where, by reason of the exist- ence of a substantial difference between municipalities, a general law would be inappropriate to some while it would be appropriate to others. In such case the municipalities in which the peculiarity exists would constitute a class, and 19 state V, Borden, 164 Ma 321, 64 produce diverse powers the mo- S. W. 272. ment such Jaws are put into prac- soQwen V. Baer, 154 Mo, 434, 55 tical operation. How can it be S. W. 644. The court says: "That said that when this act went into the result of all legislation for the eflfect in Westport, and did not go several classes of cities was the ob- into operation in all those cities of jeot which the convention had in the fourth class which declined to view is obvious. It says ' the power avail themselves of it, that it was of each class shall be defined by uniform in all cities of the fourth generallaws,' so that 'all municipal class ? It certainly cannot be said corporations of the same class shall by the suggestion that it was pos- have the same powers.' In a word, sible for all cities of that class to pass general laws for the govern- adopt it and thereby again bring ment of each class, but see to it about the uniformity which the that when your laws go into effect, a4option by some and neglect to the consequences shall be that each adopt by others had destroyed." class shall at all times have the p. 442. same powers and be subject to the ^i Murnane v. St. Louis, 123 Mo. same provisions; that is to say, you 479, Si7 S. W. 711. shall not go through the form of ^^ Rutherford v. Heddens, 82 Mo. passing general laws which nom- 388; Rutherford v. Hamilton, 97 inally confer the same powers upon Mo. 543, 11 S. W. 249. a given class, but which inevitably GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 377 the legislation would in fact bo general because it would apply to all to which it would be appropriate.^' An act concerning inns and taverns gave the court of common pleas the power to grant such license, but the act was re- stricted to cities, towns and counties by population so as to indicate an intention that it should operate in but three small towns in one county. It was objected that it was local and special, as there was no distinction of those towns from other municipalities which would in any reasonable degree account for such restriction. The court held the act unconstitutional.^* The court said the constitutional provisions against special or local laws regulating the inter- nal affairs of municipal corporations and political divisions of the state was to secure uniformity. "The uniformity that is thus sought can only be broken by classifications of those bodies that are founded on substantial differences, such as are not illusory or fraudulent in their character." ^= An act purporting to confer on cities having a population of twenty-five thousand a power of issuing bonds to fund their floating debt was held special, and unconstitutional on account of its operation being restricted to cities of that magnitude. There was deemed to be no connection be- tween the number of people in a city and the right to fund its floating debt.^" Where an act provided for a change in the management of the internal affairs of towns and bor- oughs which were seaside resorts and then governed by 23 Van Giesen v. Bloomiield, 47 tained where the differences are N. J. L, 443, 2 Atl. 249; Hudson v. not extreme, but exist. The test Buck, 51 N. J. L. 155, 16 Atl. 698; would not then be judicial, depend- Atlantic City W. W. Co. v. Cou- ing on whether the law was spe- «umers' Water Co., 44 N. J. Eq. 437, oial, but legislative, whether wise 15 Atl. 581. or not. Wheeler v. Philadelphia, 24 Zeigler v. Gaddis, 44 N. J. L. 863. 77 Pa. St. 338 ; Kilgore v. Magee. 85 25 Id. ; Coutieri v. New Brunswick, id. 401 : Rutgers v. New Brunswick, 44 N. J. L. 58; Reading v. Savage, 43 N. J. L. 51; Skinner r. Collector, 124 Pa. St. 838. id. 407; Fellows v. Walker, 39 Fed. 28 Anderson v. Trenton, 43 N. J. 651. li. 486. A classification may be sus- 378 GENKEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. commissioners," the court held it came within the consti- tutional interdict; The whole statute by its terms was confined to seaside resorts governed by boards of commis- sioners. The individuals thus grouped into a class by legis- lative enactment are distinguished from other municipali- ties by these two features only, and the court said: "Conse- quently, no legislation touching this class alone is constitu- tional, unless it properly relates to these peculiarities. "We cannot see how the section under review is so related. That the power to expend the road tax of a municipality on its streets should be vested in its own governing body, rather than in the committee of the township of which its terri- tory forms a part, is a proposition which seems to have no natural connection with the facts that the municipality is a seaside resort, and that its governing body is styled a board of commissioners."^^ So far the first edition. Since that edition was published there have been numerous decisions in the state arising out of the constitutional provision in question. In a very re- cent case the court of errors and appeals, after referring to a great number of New Jersey cases, says: "The principle deducible from all the decisions above cited is this: that the '^'' Ross V. Winsor, 48 N. J. L. 95, matter of the legislation all cities 2Atl. 658. are a class, and an attempt to seg- 28 In Closson V. Trenton, 48 N. J. regate cities into distinct classes L. 438, 9 Atl. 719, the act in ques- for this purpose by a standard of tion was to establish a license and population is not classification but excise department in certain cities anarbitraryseleotionofoneorniore containing more than fifteen thou- localities." Hightstown v. Glenn, sand inhabitants, and in which the 47 N. J. L. 105; Gibbs v. Morgan, granting of licenses is not already 39 N. J. Eq. 126; Tiger v. Morris vested in a board of excise or in the Common Pleas, 42 N. J. L. 631; court of common pleas. Itwasheld Ernst v. Morgan, 39 N. J. Eq. 391; local and special. The court said : Freeliolders v. Stevenson, 46 N. J. "There can be no reason suggested L. 173; Alsbath v. Philbrick, 50 N. why cities with more than fifteen J. L. 581, 15 Atl. 587; Bray v. Hud- thousand inhabitants should have son, 50 N. J. L. 83, 10 Atl. 135. See a system of granting licenses dif- Dobbins v. Northampton, 50 N, J., ferent from that of cities with a L. 496, 14 Atl. 587. less population. In respect to the GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 3T9' legislation which classifies municipalities in matters of their structure, machinery and powers on a basis of population,, where population has reasonable relation to the necessities of the municipalities so classified, as contradistinguished from others not so circumstanced, is good ; and where it ap- pears that such is the actual effect of the statute, the act is- a general law, and, classification being solely a matter of legislative judgment, a legislative classific-ation will al ways- prevail when it appears to be within the principle above stated and there is no apparent attempt to apply it illu- sively."^' Many recent cases are of the same purport.^" In 1882 the legislature passed an act making three classes- of cities, as follows : First class, those exceeding 100,000 pop- ulation; second class, those containing 12,000 to 100,000; third class, those with less than 12,000." In 1883 boroughs- and villages were divided into three classes: First, those with more than 3,000 population ; second, those with 1,500 to 3,000; third, those with less than 1,500.'^ Where the subject- matter of legislation bears a proper relation to population, 29 Hudson County v. Clarke, 65 S77, 21 Atl. 1026; In re Haynes, 54 N. J. L. 271, 279, 47 AtL 478. In N. J. L. 6. 23 Atl. 923; State v. another case the same court says: Moore, 54 N. J. L. 121, 22 Atl. 993; " That our cities may be classified In re Sewer Assessment for Pas- on the basis of population, under saic, 54 N. J. L. 156, 23 Atl. 517;. statutes relating to municipal af- State v. Caminade, 55 N. J. L. 4, 25 fairs, when population bears a rea- Atl. 933 ; State v. Delaney, 55 N. J. sonable relation to the subject- L. 9, 25 Atl. 936; State v. Ridge- matter of the legislation, has fre- way, 55 N. J. L. 10, 25 Atl. 936;^ quently been decided, but such State v. Gibson, 55 N. J. L. 11, 25 relationship exists only when such Atl. 935; State v. Wescott, 55 N. J. legislation deals with the structure L. 78, 25 Atl. 269; State v. Newark, or machinery of municipal govern- 57 N. J. L. 298, 30 Atl. 543; Foley ment. Classification on the basis v. Hoboken, 61 N. J. L. 478, 38 Atl. of population, for any other pur- 833; McArdle v. Jersey City, 66 N. pose than those mentioned, is illu- J. L. 590, 49 Atl. 1013, 88 Am. St.. sive and unsubstantial, and oonse- Rep. 496; Grey v. Dover, 62 N. J., quently is within the constitutional L, 40, 40 Atl. 640. prohibition." State v. Trenton, 63 3' Laws of 1883, p. 47. N. J. L. 795, 797, 44 Atl. 755. 32 Laws of 1883, p. 157. restate v. Clayton, 53 N. J. L. ^80 GENEKAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. k acts confined in their operation to one or more of these ■classes will be valid.'' But it is held that the legislature is not confined to the classes so established, but that it may in «ach act establish a new and different class, appropriate to the particular act. Thus an act to provide for the construc- tion of water-works in municipalities of not more than 15,000 inhabitants, nor less than 500, was held valid.'* So of acts relating to cities of the second class having 50,000 inhabit- ants or more,'^ or to all cities having a population of 55,000 to 100,000.'^ This would seem to open the door to any number of overlapping or interlacing classes, and to an in- finite diversity of organization and powers. It also appears that there have long existed in this state 'municipalities under the names, respectively, of cities, bor- oughs, towns, townships and villages, and that the existence of municipalities unde!- these different names is recognized in the constitution. In the later cases, soon to be cited, they are referred to as common-law classes of municipalities. There is no uniformity as to the structure and powers of those under one name, but towns with substantially the same charters are sometimes called cities and sometimes boroughs, towns or villages. The latter are generally smaller and have a less complicated government, but not always. It is held by the highest court " that, as incorpo- rated cities, boroughs, towns and villages, as well as town- ships, are recognized by the constitution as classes for leg- islation, laws limited to either of such classes will not violate 35 In re Haynes, 54 N. J. L. 6, 33 4, 35 Atl. 933; State v. Gibson, 55 Atl. 933; In re Sewer Assessment N, J. L. 11, 35 Atl. 935; State t. De- fer Passaic, 54 N. J. L. 156, 33 AtL laney, o5 N. J. L. 9, 35 Atl. 936; 517; State v. Newark, 57 N. J. L. State v. Ridgeway, 55 N. J. L. 10, 398, 30 Atl. 543; MoArdle v. Jersey 25 Atl. 936; State v. Wesoott, 55 City, 66 N. J. L. 590, 49 Atl. 1013, N. J. L. 78, 25 Atl. 269; State v. 88 Am. St. Rep. 496. Fury, 55 N. J, L. 1, 35 Atl. 934. 34 State V. Moore, 54 N. J. L. 131, se State v. Kremer, 63 N. J. L. ^3 Atl. 993. 483, 41 Atl. 711. '5 State V. Caminade, 55 N. J. L, GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 3 SI' the prohibition of private, local or special laws regulating^ the internal affairs of towns and counties." '' § 208. Same — Ohio. — Classification based upon sub^ stantial differences in population, and so defined as to in- clude cities which afterwards attain the requisite popula- tion, are yalid.'^ Originally municipalities were divided into five classes, three of cities and two of villages. But as time went on the classes were increased until they be- came very numerous, and the eleven largest cities were provided for in as many different classes. At last this classification was cut up by the roots by the supreme court, which held that it was not based upon differences of popu- lation or upon any other real or supposed differences in local requirements. "Its real basis," says the court, "is found in the differing views or interests of those who pro- mote legislation for the different municipalities of the state."'' The court further says in the case referred to: "The body of legislation relating to this subject shows the legislative intent to substitute isolation for classification, so that all the municipalities of the state which are large enough to attract attention shall be denied the protection intended to be afforded by this section of the constitution. The provisions of the section could not be more clear or im- perative, and relief from the present confusion of munici- pal acts and the burdens which they impose would not be- afforded by its amendment. Since we cannot hold that legislative power is in its nature illimitable, we must con- clude that this provision of the paramount law annuls the S7 Hermann v. Guttenberg, 63 N. Allison v. Crocker, 67 N. J. L. 596, J. h. 616, 623, 44 Atl. 758, affirming 52 Atl. 863. S. C, 62 N. J. L. 605, 43 Atl. 703. ss state v. Baker, 55 Ohio St. 1, To same eflfect, State v. Wright, 54 44 N. E. 516; State v. Jones, 66 Ohio N. J. L. 130, y3 Atl. 116; State v. St. 453, 64 N. E. 424, 90 Am. St. Rep. Asbury Park, 58 N. J. L. 604, 33 592. Atl. 850; Drew v. West Orange, 64 39 state v. Jones, 66 Ohio St. 453, N. J. L. 481, 45 Atl. 787: Flook v. 64 N, E. 424, 90 Am. St. Rep. 592;. Smith, 65 N. J. L. 224, 47 Atl. 443; State v. Beacon, 66 Ohio St. 491, 64^ N. E. 427, 90 Am. St Rep. 599. 582 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. acts relating to Cleveland and Toledo, if they confer cor- porate power." The acts in question were conceded to confer corporate power, and were held void. Laws making a class of all cities between certain narrow limits of population, such as all cities of the fourth grade, second class, having not less than 5,550 and not more than 5,560 inhabitants, are evasive and void'.*" An act relating to elections, which applied to cities of certain classes but ex- cepted Mansfield and cities of the fourth grade in the first ■class, was held to be local and special by reason of the exception.*^ An act authorized any city of the third grade of the first class to construct and repair bridges over any navigable river in the city. Toledo was the only one of the class which had such a river and the only city to which it could apply. It was held special and void.*^ § 209. Same — Pemisylvauia. — The constitution of 1873 forbade the passage of local or special laws "regulating the affairs of counties, cities, townships, wards, boroughs, or school districts," or " incorporating cities, towns or villages, or changing their charters."*' In 1874: the legislature passed a classification act, declaring that "for the exercise of certain corporate powers, and having respect to the number, character, powers and duties of certain ofiicers thereof, the cities now in existence or hereafter to be created in this commonwealth are divided into three classes." The first embraced all having 300,000 population or more, the second, all having 100,000 and less than 300,000, and the third, all under 100,000. A scheme of government was provided for each class but the act did not operate upon existing cities until adopted by them. At the time the act was passed Philadelphia constituted the first class and Pitts- burgh the second. This act and its classification have been ■<» Kenton v. State, 53 Ohio St. 59, " State v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St. S8 N. E. 885; Pittsburgh. Ft. W. & 273, 54 N. E. 273. C. Ry. Co. V. Martin, 53 Ohio St. «2 Piatt v. Craig, 66 Ohio St. 75, 3S6, 41 N. E. 690; Carr v. Carioll- 63 N. E. 594. ton, 8 Ohio C. C. 1. « Art. 3, sec. 7. GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 383 sustained in numerous cases." In 1876 the classes were in- creased to five, and in 1887 to seven. In Ayars v. "Westfield," these acts were held to be an evasion of the constitution and void. After reviewing cases the court says: " Some of the cases above cited have been quoted at considerable length for the purpose of showing that this court never in- tended to sanction classification as a pretext for local or special legislation. On the contrary, the underlying prin- ciple of all the cases is that classification with the view of legislating for either class separately is essentially uncon- stitutional unless a necessity therefor exists; a necessity springing from manifest peculiarities clearly distinguishing those of one class from each of the other classes, and imper- atively demanding legislation for each class separately that would be useless and detrimental to the others. Laws en- acted in pursuance of such classification, and for such pur- poses, Ure, properly speaking, neither local nor special. They are general laws, because they apply alike to all that are similarly situated as to their peculiar necessities. All legislation is necessarily based on a classification of its sub- jects, and when such classification is fairly made, laws en- acted in conformity thereto cannot be properly character- ized as either local or special." And referring to the act of 1874 the court further says: "As to the number of classes created, that act appears to have covered the entire ground of classification. It provided for all existing as well as every conceivable prospective necessity. It is impossible to sug- gest any legislation that has or may hereafter become nec- essary for any member of either class, that cannot without detriment to other members of the same class be made applicable to all of them. If classification had stopped where the act of 1874 left it, it would have been well, but " Wheeler v." Philadelphia, 77 Pa. Harris Tp., 160 Pa. St. 494, 28 AtL St. 338; Kilgore v. Magee, 85 Pa. 927; Commonwealth v. Hanley, 15 St. 401. Pa. Supr. Ct. 271 ; Commonwealth « 123 Pa. St. 266, 16 Atl. 366, 2 L. v. Mintz, 19 Pa. Supr. Ct. 283. E, A. 577. Also Lackawana Tp. v. 384 GENEBAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. it did not. Without the slightest foundation in necessitj'- the number of classes was soon increased to five, and after- wards to seven; and, if the vicious principle on which this was done be recognized by the courts, the number may at any time be further increased until it equals the number of cities in the commonwealth. The only possible purpose of such classification is evasion of the constitutional limitation; and, as such, it ought to be unhesitatingly condemned." The necessity for classification and the extent thereof, and whether a law is local or special, are held to be judicial questions. Acts not relating to municipal purposes are invalid if limited in their operation to a class of cities.^' An act re- lating to the collection of taxes of all kinds, municipal and otherwise, and limited in its operation to cities of the third class, was held local and special.*' The court says : "Classi- fication has been upheld for municipal purposes only. Legis- lation for a class of cities is only general and valid under our constitution when it relates to some municipal purpose. If it does not affect the exercise of some municipal power, or the number, character, powers and duties of municipal officers, or the regulation of some subject within the appro- priate range of municipal control, the legislation is local and unconstitutional." So long as the classes are not made so numerous as to be evasive of the constitution, it is for the legislature to say where the lines shall be drawn and what differences shall exist between the schemes of government for the several classes.*^ The act of 1874, heretofore referred to, provided that « Ruan St. Opening, 133 Pa. St Philadelphia v. Pepper, 18 Phila. 257, 19 Atl. 219, 7 L. R. A. 193; 419. Wyoming St., 137 Pa. St. 494, 21 « Van Loon v. Engle, 171 Pa. St. Atl. 74; Pittsburgh's Petition, 138 1.57, 33 Atl. 77. To same effeof. Pa. St. 401, 21 Atl. 761; Safe De- Soranton v. Whyte. 148 Pa. Si. 419, posit & Trust Co. v. Fricke, 153 Pa. 23 Atl. 1043. St. 331, 35 Atl. 530; McKay v. <8 Commonwealth v. Moir, 199 Trainor, 153 Pa. St. 343, 25 Atl. 534; Pa. St. 534, 49 Atl. 351, 85 Am. St. GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 385 when a city attained to the population of the class above it, it should, upon the filing of a certain cei'tificate of the fact by the governor, pass at once into the new class, and that its corporate powers and the number, character, powers and duties of its officers should remain the same, except as otherwise provided in the general act. It is held that on the transition of a city to a new class all special laws per- taining to the city in conflict with the general law for such cities are left behind.*' It is held that an act relating to a class of cities, which is to operate only in the cities which adopt it, tends to pro- duce diversity and is void.'" § 210. Same — Other states. — The courts of the various states, as a general rule, sustain the right of the legislature to classify cities according to population, where the classifi- cation is based upon substantial differences in population and is so made as to include cities afterwards attaining the req- uisite population.*! " The classes cannot be made so numer- Eep. 801. The court says: " Classi- fication, therefore, is based on dif- ference of municipal afifairs, and so long as it relates to and deals with such affairs, the questions of where the lines shall be drawn and what differences of system shall be prescribed for differences of situation are wholly legislativa What is a distinction without a difference is largely matter of opinion. No argument, for exam- ple, could be more plausible than there is no real difference in mu- nicipal needs between a city of 99,000 and one of 100,000 popular tion. It is a sufficient answer that the line must be drawn somewhere, and the legislature must determine where. So long as it is drawn with reference to municipal and not to irrelevant or wholly local matters, 25 the courts have no authority to in- terfere." p. 545. <" Commonwealth v. Macferron, 153 Pa. St. 244, 25 Atl. 556. sn Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 137 Pa, St. 389, 20 Atl. 1011. See ante, § 201. «i Crovatt V. Mason, 101 Ga. 246, 28 S. E. 891; Owen v. Sioux City, 91 Iowa, 190, 59 N. W. 3; Tuttle v. Polk, 92 Iowa, 433, 60 N. W. 733; Cummings v. Chicago, 144 111. 563, 33 N. E. 854; Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. 139, 47 N. E. 525, 41 L. E. A. 387; Smith v. Indianapolis St. Ry. Co., 158 Ind. 485, 63 N. E. 849; State V. Standley, 76 Iowa, 215, 40 N. W. 815; Topeka v. Gillett. 33 Kan. 431, 4 Pac. 800; Newman v. Emporia, 41 Kan. 583, 21 Pac. 593; Preston v. Louisville, 84 Ky. 118: Brown v. Holland, 97 Ky. 249, 30 386 GENBEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. ous that it would require a separate statute for each separate corporation ; nor could any supposed class be so specifically named or defined that only one particular corporation could come within such name or definition ; for in either such case the statute itself would be special and not general." '^ The constitution of Kentucky of 1891 provides as follows: " The cities and towns of this commonwealth, for the purpose of their organization and government, shall be divided into six classes. The organization and powers of each class shall be defined and provided for by general laws, so that all mu- nicipal corporations of the same class shall possess the same power and be subject to the same restrictions." ^ The con- stitution designates the six classes by population, and pro- vides that the general assembly shall assign the cities and towns of the state to the classes to which they respectively belong and shall change the assignments made as the popu- lation may increase or decrease. The legislature assigned Pineville to the fourth class, which embraced cities of from 3,000 to 8,000 inhabitants. The census of 1890 gave it but 1356. It was held that only the legislature could change the assignment, and that its right to an organization under the law for cities of the fourth class could not be tried in a quo warranto proceeding." Where an act applies to all cities /laving a certain population, it is prospective and. will embrace cities thereafter attaining that population.'^ As to the province and effect of classification acts the S. W. 639; Nichols v. Walter, 37 13S. W. 331; Boyd v. Milwaukee, Minn. 364, 33 N. W. 800; Allen v. 92 Wis. 456, 66 N. W. 603; Wait v. Pioneer Press, 40 Minn. 117, 41 N. Santa Cruz, 75 Fed. 967; Wait v. W. 936; Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn. Santa Cruz, 89 Fed. 619. 479, 42 N. W. 396; Rutherford v. 52 Topeka v. Gillett, 33 Kan. 431, Hamilton, 97 Mo. 543, 11 S. W. 249; 434, 4 Pac. 800. State V. Stuht, 53 Neb. 209, 71 N. W. ^ Const. 1891, sec. 156. 941; People V. Squire, 14 Daly, 154; ^'i Green v. Commonwealth, 95 Reading v. Savage, 124 Pa. St. 338, Ky. 233, 24 S. W. 610. 16 Atl. 788; Beaver Co. v. Indexes, 6 »' Kansas City v. Stegmiller, 151 Pa. Co. Ct. 535; Cook v. State, 90 Mo. 189, 53 S. W. 733; Boyd v. Mil- Tenn. 407, 16 S. W. 471, 13 L. R. A. waukee, 93 Wia 456, 06 N. W. 603. 442; Johnson v. Martin, 75 Tex. 33, GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 387 supreme court of New Jersey, referring to the classification act of that state, says: "It is a mere formula, a convenient method by which to avoid the repetition of words and nu- merals when legislating for or interpreting enactments con- cerning municipalities. Beyond this it is incapable of ex- ercising any controlling effect upon either the legislature or the courts. It does not extend the power of the one, nor limit that of the other; it may be ignored without impairing legislation, and its employment will not in the least degree tend to legitimize legislation otherwise vicious in a consti- tutional sense." ^ § 211. For what purposes the classification of munici- palities is permissible. — The question is thus answered by the supreme court of Pennsylvania: " This is, therefore, the test by which to determine the validit}' of a law relating to a given class of cities. If it relates to subjects of munici- pal concern only, it is constitutional, because operating upon all the members of the class it is a general law. If it relates to subjects of a general, as distinguished from a mu- nicipal, character, it is local, and therefore invalid, although it may embrace all the members of the class.^' In New Jersey it is held to be the settled law of the state that ■" with regard to structural forms of government and admin- istration, the municipalities of the state may be distributed, for legislative purposes, into classes constructed on the basis of population ; " and that it is only when legislation " relates to something manifestly foreign to the distinctive grade of sf" state V. Wesoott, 55 N. J. L. siflcation act of cities and counties. 78, 80, 25 Atl. S69. To same effect, The classification act is simply a State V, Connelly, 66 N. J. L. 197, method of convenient reference to 48 Atl. 955, 88 Am. St, Rep. 469; counties by population, by refer- ■Hudson County Freeholders v. ring to such act instead of designat- •Clarke, 65 N. J. L. 271, 47 Atl. 478. ing in the statute itself the pop- In the last case the court says: "If ulation of the counties or munici- a classification would be illusory if palities to which it is to apply." it were based upon population defi- p. 276. nitely stated, it is equally illusory ^7 Scranton v. Whyte, 148 Pa. St, if based upon reference to the clas- 419, 426, 23 Atl. 1043. 388 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. the cities to which it is applied," that it is special and void.'^ Many other cases to the same effect will be found referred to in the preceding sections.™ The reason upon which classification is founded is that cities of widely different population have different needs and conditions which render necessary corresponding differ- ences in their corporate powers and in the number, char- acter, powers and duties of the officers by whom the mu- nicipal government is to be conducted and its necessities provided for.™ Where the reason ceases to operate classi- fication by population ceases to be valid. Acts relating to primary and general elections and the registration of voters may be made applicable to one or more classes of cities." So of acts relating to the election or appointment of municipal officers or boards, or to their terras of office, powers, duties or compensation.*^ Eut the decisions do not seem to be uniform even in the same state. 68 state V. Caminade, 55 N. J. L. 4, 25 Atl. 933. Continuing the court says: "This principle leaves it to the legislature to create or to modify, in general, the institutions in each class of our cities as it may deem expedient, and such institu- tions may differ in all respects, or in some respects, from those exist- ing in cities of other grades, pro- vided the diflCerentiation thus in- troduced is not demonstrably evar sive of the constitutional provision under discussion." p. 6. 69 See also State v. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 298, 30 Atl. 543; Foley v. Ho- boken, 61 N. J. L. 478, 38 Atl. 833; Buan Street Opening, 133 Pa. St. 257, 19 Atl. 219, 7 L. R. A. 193; Wyoming Street, 137 Pa. St. 494, 21 Atl. 74; Commonwealth v. Moir, 199 Pa. St. 534, 49 Atl. 351, 85 Am. St. Rep. 801. 6»Ruan Street Opening, 132 Pa. St. 257, 19 Atl. 219, 7 L. R. A. 198; State V. Caminade, 55 N. J. L. 4, 35 Atl. 938. 61 State V. Fleming, 147 Mo. 1, 44 S. W. 758; State v. Mason, 155 Mo. 486, 55 S. W. 636; Ladd v. Holmes, 40 Ore. 167, 66 Pac. 714; Cook v. State, 90 Tenn. 407, 16 S. W. 471, IS L, R. A. 443. «2 Crovatt V. Mason, 101 Ga. 246, 28 S. E. 891; State v. Mason, 15a Mo. 33, 54 S. W. 524; In re Haynes, 54 N. J. L. 6, 23 Atl. 933; State v. Fury, 55 N. J. L. 1, 35 Atl. 934; State v. Caminade, 55 N. J. L. 4,. 25 Atl. 988; State v. Gibson, 55 N. J. L. 11, 35 Atl. 935; State v. Delaney, 55 N. J. L. 9, 35 Atl. 936; State v. Ridgeway, 55 N. J. L. 10, 25 Atl. 936; State v. Kremer, 63 N. J. L. 483, 41 Atl. 711; State v. Conelly,. 66 N. J. L. 197, 48 Atl. 955, 88 Am. St. Rep. 469. GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 389 An act relating to the consolidation of ofBces and to the terms, duties and compensation of oflBcers, and limited to cities of the second class having less than 35,000 population, was held special and void because there was no reason why it should not apply to cities of more or less population."' The same ruling was made upon an act providing that in cities of the first class municipal officers should be elected on the same day and voted for on the same ballot as state and county officers. It was said that if an evil existed in the old system it existed in all municipalities, and that the remedy should extend to all.** An act changing the method of appointing the city physician in cities of the second class was held void because there was no reason why it should not apply to all classes.^ Acts relating to gas and water supply and similar public services may be limited to a class.*" And so of acts relating to local improvements.*' But acts or provisions as to pro- cedure in condemnation cases, or in the assessment of dam- ages and benefits, or as to the lien of assessments, are held to relate to subjects of a general nature, and such legisla- ^3 state V. Orange, 60 N. J. L. Ill, which the middle class is separated 36 Atl. 706. from the others." p. 553. 6* State V. O'Donnell, 60 N. J. L. «6 in re Haynes, 54 N. J. L. 6, 33 35, 37 Atl. 73. Atl. 923; State v. Moore, 54 N. J. L. 65 State V. Simon, 53 N. J. L. 550, 131, 83 AtL 998; Flynn v. Little 23 Atl. ISO. The court says: "In Falls Elec. & Water Co., 74 Minn, this case there has been no reason 180, 77 N. W. 180. Contra, Van assigned, nor is it apparent, why Fleet, V. C, in Atlantic Water an ofiBcer known as city physician, Works Co. v. Consumers' Water Co., in a city of the second class, should 44 N. J. Eq. 437, 15 Atl. 581. have a different appointment, with *' Cummings v. Chicago, 144 111. a term fixed by the mayor and 563, 33 N. E. 854; Tuttle v. Polk, 93 with an annual salary to be allowed Iowa, 433,60 N. W. 738; State v. by the legislative body confirming District Court, 61 Minn. 543, 64 N. the appointment, from a physician W. 190; Rutherford v. Heddens, 83 to be appointed and compensated Mo. 388; Rutherford v. Hamilton, in a city of the first class, or of the 97 Mo. 543, 11 S. W. 249; Scranton third class. Population cannot v..»Whyte, 148 Pa. St. 419, 28 Atl. have any just reference to this dis- 1043. tinction between these classes by 390 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. tion, limited to a class of municipalities, is held to be. spe- cial and void.^' An act which permitted the formation of companies to construct and maintain sewerage systems, on consent of one-half the owners of real estate in the munici- pality and the consent of the municipality, was amended so as to permit such companies to operate in cities of the third class on consent of the municipality alone. The amend- ment was held special and void.^' The same ruling was made upon an act which permitted cities of the second class to defray the cost of repaying streets by an issue of bonds to be paid by a general tax.™ The following acts, limited in operation to a class of cities, were held valid: For the regulation of undertakers ; '^ for the regulation of junk and second-hand dealers;'^ re- specting licenses;" fixing the number of school directors and providing for their election;'* for dividing cities into wards and election districts;" establishing a police court;'* authorizing an extension of boundaries;" authorizing the issue of bonds to refund indebtedness;'^ to establish an ex- cise department;™ regulating the liquor traffic;"" relating ^8 Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. ''State v. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 238, 27 Pac. 604; Wain v. Beverley, 298, 30 Atl. 543; State v. Atlantic 55 N. J. L. 544, 26 AtL 709; Wyo- City, 56 N. J. L. 232, 28 Atl. 427. ining Street. 137 Pa. St. 494. 31 Atl. « State v. Caminade, 55 N. J. L. 74; Pittsburgh's Petition, 138 Pa. 4, 35 Atl. 933; State v. Wescott, 55 St. 401. 31 Atl. 761. N. J. L. 78, 35 Atl. 269. •■s State V. Plainfield, 54 N. J. I* "Copeland v. St. Joseph, 126 Mo. 529, 24 Atl. 494. 417, 29 S. W. 281. '0 Foley v. Hoboken, 61 N. J. L. 's Waite v. Santa Cniz, 75 Fed. 478, 38 Atl. 833. 967; Waite v. Santa Cruz, 89 Fed. ■" Commonwealth v. Hanley, 15 619. Pa. Supr. Ct 271. " McArdle v. Jersey City, 66 N. '2 Commonwealth V. Mintz, 19 Pa. J. L. 590, 49 Atl. 1013, 88 Am. St. Supr. Ct. 383. Eep. 496; State v. Guttenberg, 62 '3 Johnson v. Asbury Park, 58 N. N. J. L. 605, 48 Atl. 703; S. C, af- J L. 604. 33 Atl. 850; S. C, affirmed, firmed. 63 N. J. L. 616, 44 Atl. 758. CO N. J. L. 427, 39 Atl. 693. so state v. Glenn, 47 N. J. L. 105; '•• State V. Miller, 100 Mo. 439, 18 State v. Staats, 54 N. J. L. 286, 23 S. W. 677. Atl. 667. GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 391 to the use of streets by railroad companies; *' exempting cities of the first class from giving bond in case of appeal; '^ providing for disincorporation.^' On the other hand the following acts, limited in like manner, were held local, or special and void, because of the limitation: Relating to the collection of debts and enforc- ing of judgments;^* limiting the time for commencing suit in certain cases ;^ requiring fire-escapes on certain classes of buildings ; *^ relating to liens and the collection of debts ; ^ providing a special mode for the construction and repair of high school buildings; ^^ providing for the collection of taxes of all kinds;" providing for a board of equalization and as- sessment for purposes of taxation;"" regulating the manner of receiving and paying fees for oflBcial services and designed to protect the municipality from loss;" relating to nota- ries; ^^ fixing the term of office of clerk and collector of taxes;"' fixing the punishment for election frauds;"* for- bidding the establishment of a cemetery within one mile of the city limits, the drainage of which is into a stream from 81 Burlington v. Penn. R R. Co., *' Philadelphia v. Haddington, 56 N. J. Eq. 259, 38 Atl. 849; S. C, 115 Pa. St. 291, 8 Atl. 241 ; Philadel- affirmed, Pennsylvania E. E. Co. v. phia v. Pepper, 18 Phila. 419. Burlington, 58 N. J. Eq. 547, 43 Atl. 88 state v. Trenton, 61 N. J. L. 700. 484, 40 Atl. 443; S. C, affirmed, 63 82 McClay v. Lincoln, 83 Neb. 412, N. J. L. 795, 44 Atl. 755. 49 N. W. 282. 89 Van Loon v. Engle, 171 Pa. St. 83Mintzer v. Schilling, 117 Cal. 157, 33 Atl. 77. 361, 49 Pac. 209. "" Gaylor v. Hubbard, 56 Ohio 8* Betz V. Philadelphia, 19 Phila. St. 25, 46 N. E. 66. But see In re 453. Sewer Assessment for Passaic, 54 85 Gorley v. Louisville, 104 Ky. N. J. L. 156, 23 Atl. 517. 373, 47 S. W. 263; Louisville v. si Rauer v. Williams, 118 Cal. 401, Kuntz, 104 Ky. 584, 47 S. W. 592; 50 Pac. 691. Louisville v. Hegan, 20 Ky. L. E. ^^ State v. Hermann, 75 Mo. 34a 1532, 49 S. W. 532. "3 Canfield v. Da vies, 61 N. J. L. 86 Cincinnati v. Steinkamp, 54 26, 39 Atl. 357. Ohio St. 284, 43 N. E. 490. Contra, "^ State v. Anslinger, 171 Mo. 600, Cincinnati v. Steinkamp, 9 Ohio C. 71 S. W. 1041. C. 178. 392 GENEKAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. which a water supply is obtained ; ^ providing for the pro- tection of life and property.^* § 218. Municipalities under special charters. — An act providing in substance that all cities and towns theretofore incorporated under special acts and charters, and which did not then possess the power to sell personal and real prop- erty for taxes, should thereafter have and possess such power, was held general and constitutional. Though it did not apply to all cities and towns in the state, it was not therefore unconstitutional; other cities and towns possessed that power, and the act in question brought the class to which it applied into harmony with them. As the act ap- plied to all cities and towns in the state falling within the class specified, not to make an exceptional rule, but to re- move an exception, it was not local or special, but of uni- form operation." Whether municipalities under special charters may constitute a class for legislative purposes is a question upon which there seems to be a difference of opin- ion. In New Jerse}' it is held that a classification of cities based upon previous local legislation is vicious.^' The court says: "The recognition of such local legislation by relying upon it as a foundation for new legislation which only changes, perpetuates or perhaps increases the previous local or special features created by special charters, is as inimical to the constitutional provision as if the last legislation cre- ated the diversity which it perpetuates." ^' The contrary has been held in Wisconsin.' A statute permitting any city or- '5 Philadelphia v. Westminster land, 56 N. J. L. 364, 28 Atl. 599; Cam. Co., 163 Pa. St. 105, 29 Atl. 349. State v. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 83, 30 9"! State V. Ketler, 65 Ohio St. 558, Atl. 186; Grey v. Union, 67 N. J. L. 63 N. E. 1135. 368, 51 Atl. 482. 97 Haskel v. Burlington, 80 Iowa, ^^ State v. New Brunswick, 47 N. 233; Iowa Land Co. v. Soper, 39 id. J. L. 479, 484, 485, 1 Atl. 496. 112; Bunisted v. Govern, 47 N. J. L. i Johnson v. Milwaukee, 88 Wis. 868, 1 Atl. 835; affirmed, 48 id. 612, 883, 60 N. W. 370; Appleton W. W. 9 Atl. 577. See also State v. Sulli- Co. v. Appleton, 116 Wis. 363, 93 N. van, 63 Minn. 383, 64 N. W. 813. W. 262; Schintgen v. La Crosse, 117 98 State V. New Brunswick, 47 N. Wis. 15a J. L. 479, 1 Atl. 496; State v. Dor- GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 393 ganized under a special charter to adopt and be governed by any section or part of the general law was held valid.^ An act which in effect adopts and perpetuates the provision of special charters, and which is dependent upon them for its meaning and effect, is special and void.' In one of the cases cited an act, applicable to cities of over 100,000 and not exceeding 165,000 population, authorized the common council to fix the salaries of all city oflBcers and employees, but provided that it should not fix a greater sum than was then paid for such purposes. The only city embraced by the act was under a special charter and the cities that might come into the class were also under special charters. The act was held special because the maximum could only be ascertained by reference to the charter, and, if other cities came into the class, each might have a different maximum.* An act which permitted municipalities orgajiized under special charters to adopt the general law and retain certain provisions of their charters relating to liquor licenses was held void as an attempt to create a class of municipalities not founded on any valid distinctions.' § 213. Other classification of municipalities or for mu- nicipal purposes. — Cities abutting on the ocean may con- stitute a class for certain purposes.^ An act legalizing the 2 Adams v. Beloit, 105 Wis. 363, speoial laws. A general law can- 81 N. W. 869, 47 L. E. A. 441. not be based on special laws, even 3 Alexander v. Duluth, 57 Minn, though its operation is general 47, 58 N. W. 866; Bowe v. St. Paul, when passed, if the legislature by 70 Minn. 341, 73 N. W. 184; State v. the future repeal of any or all of Johnson, 77 Minn. 453, 80 N. W. the special laws may render the 620. Compare State v. Minor, 79 so-called general law special in its Minn. 301, 81 N. W. 913. operation and effect. The act can- * Bowe V. St, Paul, 70 Minn. 341, not be constitutional to-day and 73 N. W. 184. The court says: "It unconstitutional to-morrow. If it must appear that the act will al- may in the future become uncon- ways, by the force of its own terms, stitutional it is so when passed." continue to be a general law. * People v. Normal, 170 111. 468, 48 Again, this act might become spe- N. E. 901. cial in its operation and effect by * State v. Wright, 54 N. J. L. 130 the future repeal of some of these 23 Atl. 116. 394 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. incorporation of towns or cities whicli have attempted to organize under an invalid law is valid. Such communities constitute a class for such purposes.' An act dividing town- ships into two classes according to density of population^ those having three hundred or more to the square mile form- ing one class and all others a second class, was held valid.'' Townships containing unincorporated villages of a certaia population were held to constitute a distinct class for re- ceiving additional powers.' An act provided that, in town- ships which contained a city of eight hundred or more pop- ulation, the part outside the city might organize as a school district. The act was held special because it excluded town- ships containing an incorporated town or village having the same population.'" An act that in cities where the of- fice of treasurer was for an indefinite term the council should have power to fix a definite term, not exceeding five years, was held special and void." An act in regard to local improvements was held special and void because it applied only to municipalities governed by commissioners.*^ Bor- oughs may not be classified according to the manner in which licenses are granted therein." An act fixing the term of office of city physician at three years in all cities. 'State V. Thief River Falls, 76 See Denver v. Spokane Falls, 7 Minn. 15, 78 N. W. 867; Winne- Wash. 326, 34 Pao. 926. conne v. Winneconne, 111 Wis. 13, ^ Commonwealth v. Blackley, 198 86 N. W. 590; Pullman v. Hungate, Pa. St. 372, 47 Atl. 1104; Philadel- 8 Wash. 519, 36 Pao. 483. In the phia & E. Coal & I. Co.'s Petition, latter case the court says: "The 200 Pa. St. 352, 49 Atl. 797. fact that the inhabitants of a cer- ^ Laad, Log & Lumber Co. v.. tain locality, by their own action. Brown, 73 Wis. 39 i, 40 N. W. 483. have assumed to act in a particular '"Plummer v. Borsheim, 8 N. D. capacity distinguished from that 565, 80 N. W. 690. of the people at large, so separates i' UfCert v. Vogt, 65 N. J. L. 377, them as a class from the rest of the 47 Atl. 325; S. C. affirmed, 65 N. J. people of the state that the legis- L. 621, 48 Atl. 574. lature may properly deal therewith i^ State v. Long Branch Com'rs, in a different manner than with 59 N. J. L. 146, 36 Atl. 483. the rest of the people without its i' State v. Hoover, 58 N. J. L. 884, action being special legislation." 33 Atl. 217. GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS.. 395' in which it was not previously fixed by law, and which thus excluded five cities from its operation, was held spe- cial and void." An act approved and in effect April 13,. 1889, provided that any city which contained more than two assembly districts wholly within the city should be re- divided into wards to correspond with the assembly dis- tricts. An act approved March 27 and in effect July 4 of the same year so arranged the assembly districts that this condition would exist only in ISTewark. It was held that the effect of the two was to make the former act special _ and void.'* Townships situated in counties of the first class do not constitute a class for legislation.'^ So of cities situated in counties of 60,000 population or more.'^ An Illinois reve- nue act provided that in counties having a population in excess of 125,000, of which there was only one, the aggre- gate rate of taxation should not exceed five per cent., and that the county, school and municipal tax rates should be scaled j^T-o rata, if necessary, to bring the aggregate within that limit. The provision was held void as special legisla- tion, because it made a class of cities, towns and school districts situated in that county without any reasonable- foundation therefor. "By this act," says the court, "re- strictions are put upon cities, townships, school districts- and other municipal corporations simply because they are within Cook county, which is the only county in the state with a population of more than 125,000. There can be na reason, in the nature of things, why a city, village or school district or other public corporation in that county should be deprived of powers that a similar corporation situated in some other county is permitted to exercise. It is an ar- bitrary and unnatural classification of municipalities not "Tetrault v. Orange, 55 N. J. L. isCrootall v. Matthews, 61 N. J. 99, 25 Atl. 268. L. 349, 39 AtL 659. '•5 State V. Newark, 53 N. J. L. 4, " Scowden's Appeal, 96 Pa. St. 20 Atl. 886, 10 L. R. A. 700. 422. •396 GBNEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. different in population, needs or requirements, and exercis- ing the same general powers in other respects." " An act permitted an area not exceeding two square miles and having taxable property of at least $100,000 to become incorporated as a borough, provided that during any portion of the year a population of not less than 200 resided thereon. It was held special and void by reason of the condition in the proviso.'' An act which permitted the organization of a township from part of an incorporated town, while a similar area with the same population not so situated was not given the privilege, was held to be special legislation and void.^" An act providing for the incorporation of any township, or part of a township, containing not more than four square miles and not more than 5,000 inhabitants, into a borough, was held to be a general law and valid. While such laws usually fix a minimum of population, it was held valid to fix a maximum.^'' An act in regard to the con- struction of sidewalks applied to villages which had not constructed walks under a certain act. This was held an illusory classification.^ Municipalities organized under the general law may be legislated for as a olass.'^' 18 People V. Knopf, 183 111. 410, the provision submitting the pro- M N. E. 155. posed organization to a vote, have '9 Attorney-General v. Anglesea, used population as fixing a limit 58 N. J. L. 372, 33 At). 971. beyond which municipal powers 20 People V. Martin, 178 IlL 611, 53 of the limited extent provided for N. E. 309. in this act should not be acquired. 21 State V. Clayton, 53 N. J. L. This requires the inference that •377, 21 Atl. 1026. After referring the legislature determined that to the principles of classification such a borough organization, ap- by population, the court says: propriate and sufficient for a pop- " But the act has been made to ulation not exceeding five thou- operate upon a population within sand, would not be appropriate or a fixed number. Hence a different sufficient for a greater number, question arises, but to be settled by Can we pronounce this erroneous, an application of the same princi- or such classification illusive ? pie. The legislature, probably con- I think not." p. 382. ceiving that the imposition of the 22Costello v. Wyoming, 49 Ohio .. burden of such a corporation on a St. 202, 30 N. E. 618. too limited population without ^spiynn v. Little Falls Elec. & -necessity was guarded against by Water Co., 74 Minn. 180, 77 N. W. GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 397 § 214:. Classification based on existing or past condi- tions only. — A classification based upon existing or past conditions or facts, and whicii would exclude the persons,, places, things or objects thereafter coming into the same situation or condition, is special and void.^* Thus a classifi- cation of cities or counties based upon existing population or upon the population shown by specified census is of this- character.^' An act applicable to all counties having by the last census a population of 150,000 or upwards was held not to fix the last census before the passage of the act as the criterion for all time, but to mean the last census from time to time.^ The following were held within the principle stated : An act providing for the changing of county seats,, with a proviso that it should not apply to any county' "wherein the court-house and jail now erected exceed in value the sum of $35,000;"^^ an act granting certain privi- leges for the planting and raising of oysters in lands under tidewaters to those who now use and have used such lands since January 1, 1880;^' an act providing for licensing- race tracks, but providing that no license should be granted to any race course not in use prior to a given date, unless 180; Butler v, Montclair, 67 N. J. Trenton, 56 N. J. L. 469, 39 AtL 183; L. 426, 51 Atl. 494. Lougher v. Soto, 139 Cal. 610, 63- ^« Thomas v. Austin, 103 Ga. 701, Pac 184; Hetland v. County Com- 30 S. E. 627; Murnane v. St. Louis, missioners, 89 Minn. 493, 95 N. W. 123 Mo. 479, 37 S. W. 711; State v. 305; Commonwealth v. Patton, 88 O'Connor, 54 N. J. L. 36, 23 Atl. Pa. St. 258; Scowden's Appeal, 96^ 1091; State v. Trenton, 55 N. J. L. 73, Pa. St. 432. 35 Atl. 113; Burlington V. Pennsyl- ^^ Campbell v. Indianapolis, 155 vania R. R Co.; 56 N. J. Eq. 359, 38 Ind. 186, 57 N. E. 920; State v. I)es Atl. 849; Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Moines, 96 Iowa, 531, 65 N. W. 818; Burlington, 58 N. J. Eq. 547, 43 Atl. General Trust Co. v. Citizens' St.- 700; State v. Newark, 57 N. J. L. 83, Ry. Co., 80 Fed. 318. 30 Atl. 186; Cincinnati v. Eosohe 26 Verges v. Milwaukee County,- Bros., 50 Ohio St 103, 33 N. E. 408, 116 Wis. 191, 93 N. W. 44, 40 Am. St. Rep. 653; Silberman v. 2' Edmonds v. Herbrandson, 3 N. Hay, 59 Ohio St 582, 53 N. E. 358: D. 370, 50 N. W. 970, 14 L R. A. 725. Johnson v. Milwaukee, 88 Wis. 383, 28 state v. Post, 55 N. J. L. 364, 26- 60 N. W. 370; State v. Trenton, 54 Atl. 68a N. J. L. 444, 34 AtL 478; State v. 398 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. the board of chosen freeholders of the county should declare that it was a public necessity.''^ An act in regard to the removal of county seats required a three-fifths vote in favor of the proposition, but provided that where the county seat of any county had been relocated by a special act of the legislature since a given time, a majority vote should be sufficient. It was held to be a local and special law. The ■court said : " This is classification run mad." ^^ An act appli- cable to all counties in which were cast at the general elec- tion of 1882 more than 1,150 votes was held to be special and void." But in another case an act which excepted from its operation counties in which the vote at the last election for president was less than 3,000 was held not to be local or special.'^ A remedial act is held not to be local or spe- cial because applying only to present emergencies and not to like emergencies in the future.^' § 215. Validity of class not dependent upon number — Classes of one or a few. — The number of persons affected by a law does not control or determine the question of its validity; it is enough that the law relates to a subject of a general nature, and is general and uniform in its operation upon every person who is brought within the relation and circumstances provided for by it.'* A class of cities or counties, based upon population, may be valid, though it embraces but one city or county, if others may come into the class on attaining the specified population.'* 29 State V. Elizabeth, 56 N. J. L. 71, mann v. Guttenberg, 63 N. J. L. 616, 38 Atl. 51. 44 Atl. 758; Alexander v. Duluth, 3» Fitzgerald v. Phelps & B. Wind- 77 Minn. 445, 80 N. W. 623. See mill Co., 42 W. Va. 570, 26 S. E. 315. ante, § 201. ■■ee Commonwealth v. Patton, 88 ^ McAnnich v. Miss. & M. R. R. Pa. St. 258, for the origin of this, Co., 30 Iowa, 338; Thomason v. Ash- «xpression. worth, 73 Cal. 73, 14 Pao. 615. 31 State V. Boyd, 19 Nev. 43, 5 Pac. '* Indianapolis v. Navin, 151 Ind. Vao. 139, 47 N. K 525, 41 L. R A. 337; 82 Clark V. Finley, 93 Tex. 171, 54 Campbell v. Indianapolis, 155 Ind. S. W. 343. 186, 57 N. E. 920; Smith v. Indian- 33 State V. Guttenberg, 63 N. J. L. apolis St. By. Co., 158 Ind. 425, 63 «05,43 Atl. 703; S. C. aflBrmed, Her- N. E. 849; People v. Onahan, 170 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 399 An act which prohibited the deposit of material in the waters of New York harbor was held to be a general and not a local or special law."^ In the case first cited the court says: "The fact that an act operates only upon a limited area or upon persons within a specified locality and not generally throughout the state is, in most cases, a reason- ably accurate test by which to determine whether the act is general or local. But it is not decisive in all cases. The entire state may be interested in the enactment and execution of a law operating territorially upon a particular section of the state only." " The citizens of JSTew York city may pos- sibly have a greater stake in the matter than citizens in other localities, but the destruction or serious impairment of the harbor of !New York would directly affect the pros- perity of the state. It would impair its revenues, imperil its system of river, canal, and railroad transportation, and it is not too much to say that every industrial interest, agricultural or mechanical, would feel its blighting influ- ence." On the same reasoning an act providing for the sale and lease of school lands in a particular part of the state was held not to be a local law.'' So of an act regulating the taking, planting and cultivating of oysters in particular tide waters but not in all.'' A statute of New Jersey gave the 111. 449, 48 N. E. 1003; Winston v. personsliable to its penalties wher- Stone, 103 Ky. 423, 43 S. W. 397; ever they reside, it is to be consid- State V. Wilson, 19 Ky. L. E. 136, ered a general, as contradistin- 39 S. W. 49; State v. Frank, 60 guished from a local, act." p. 209. Neb. 337, 83 N. W. 74; People v. So of an act relating to the port of Squire, 14 Daly, 154. New Orleans. Duffy v. New Or- 36 Ferguson v. Eoss, 136 N. Y. 459, leans, 49 La. Ann. 114, 31 So. 179. 87 N. E. 954; Ferguson v. Sandford, Says the court: "The fertile valley ■59 Hun, 207, 13 N. Y. S. 398. In the is interested; the traffic and com- latter case the court says: "We merce on seas and oceans are con- think that, inasmuch as the act in cerned." ciuestion operates upon a subject in s' Reed v. Eogan, 94 Tex. 177, 59 which the whole people are inter- S. W. 255. ested, and prescribes a rule of con- 38 state v. Carson, 67 N. J. L. 178, duct for all persons and renders all 50 At!. 780. The court says of the 4:00 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. state commissioner of public roads a fixed salary instead of a per diem, and limited the expense connected with his office. It was held to be a general law because there was no other office with like characteristics and it formed a class by itself. "The case turns, therefore," says the court, " upon the classifiability, for the purposes of legislation, of the object of the present law. This is a question of fact. The law is entirely clear that if an object be susceptible of classification it cannot be legislated for separately. Correl- atively, it is equally clear that an object that is not suscep- tible of classification is not, on that account, placed beyond the pale of legislative control." " An Illinois act author- ized any board of park commissioners, upon certain condi- tions, to take control of any city street for the purpose of connecting any park under its control with any part of any city, town or village. There was but a single city having parks under the control of park commissioners, and conse- quently only one city where it could operate. It was held not local or special." Additional cases of the same purport are referred to in the margin.^^ An act which designates a particular city or county by name, or by a description so qualified that a particular city or county is plainly intended, and that no other can reasonably be expected to have the distinguishing characteristics, and whose operation is limited to such city or county, is held to- be local or special.^^ act: "Although it deals with the a single city had such parks, an lands of the state under tide water act general in its application to all only in certain localities, the mat- cities would he local or special leg- ters which it regulates are of gen- islation, no valid act could be- eral, not local, concern. The lands passed affecting such existing^ themselves belong to the people of parks." p. 176. the state, not to the citizens of the ^'Trausch v. Cook County, 147 counties where they are located." 111. 534, 35 N. E. 477; State v. Strat- p. 189. ton, 136 Mo. 423, 38 S. W. 83; Trea- ts Budd V. Hancock, 66 N. J. I* nor v. Eichhorn, 74 Hun, 58, a6 N. 133, 48 Atl. 1033. Y. S. 314; Condon v. Maloney, 108 " West Chicago Park Com'rs v, Tenn. 82, 65 S. W, 871. McMullen, 134 111. 170, 25 N. E. 676, « People v. Common Council, 85- 10 L. E. A. 215. "If because only Cal. 369, 24 Pao. 727; Burnham v. GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 401 A unique condition of things, existing in a single city and arising out of prior valid special laws, enacted when the constitution did not forbid such legislation, and which can- not arise again under existing constitutional provisions, may make a case constituting a class by itself and be dealt with by appropriate legislation applicable expressly to such condition." § 2i6 (120). Evasive classification — Examples. — In re- spect to the enumerated subjects as to which legislation is required to be general, and special acts prohibited, though such subjects may be divided into classes distinguished by substantial differences for the purpose of legislation appro- priate to such conditions as spring from these differences, there must nevertheless be a limit to such division, even founded on substantial differences. "Within certain limits subjects may be grouped on the basis of such differences for general legislation; beyond those limits such differences would not be the basis of classification, but the ground of segregation by which each individual would be distinguished for special enactments.''* The prohibition is in the way of Milwaukee, 98 Wis. 128. 73 N. W. Commonwealth, 91 Pa. St. 135;. 1018; State v. Smith, 48 Ohio St. Davis y. Clark, 106 Pa. St. 377; 311, 31 N. E. 743; Mottv. Hubbard, Westerfield, Ex parte, 55 Cal. 550; 59 Ohio St. 199, 53 N. E. 47; Piatt' Koser, Ex parte, 60 id. 177, 191; T. Craig, 66 Ohio St. 75, 63 N. E. Commonwealth v. Patten, 88 Pa» 594: State v. Cowles, 64 Ohio St. St. 258; State v. Herrmann, 75 Mo. 162, 59 N. E. 895; Blankenburg; v. 340; Rutherford v. Heddens, 83 id. Block, 200 Pa, St. 639, 50 Atl. 198. 388; Mason v. Spencer, 35 Kan. 512;. 43 State V. Cooley, 56 Minn. 540, State v. Squires, 26 Iowa, 340f 58 N. W. 150. The facts of this Stange v. Dubuque, 63 Iowa, 303, case are stated ante, § 196. A 17 N. W. 518; State ex reL v. parallel case existed in Philadel- Mitchell, 31 Ohio St. 593; Frye v. phia and was decided differently, Partridge, 83 111. 267; Pritz, Ex but the decision was also put parte, 9 Iowa. 30: Davis v. Wool- upon other grounds. Perkins v. nougli, id. 104: State v. Graham, 16 Philadelphia, 156 Pa, St. 539, 27 AtL Neb 74: Phillips v. Schumacher, 10 356; Perkins v. Philadelphia, 156 Hun, 405; Healey v. Dudley, 5 Pa. St. 554, 27 Atl. 356. Lans. 115; Hodges v. Baltimore "Devine v. Board of Commis- Pass. Ry. Co., 58 Md. 603; Central siouers, 84 IlL 590; Montgomery v. Iowa R. E. Co. v. Board of Super- 26 402 ■ GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. legislation for individual cases.^' It is equally fatal to such legislation though it be general in form. If a statute is plainly intended for a particular case, and looks to no broader application in the future, it is special or local, and, if such laws are prohibited on the subject to which it re- lates, is unconstitutional.*^ The lineaments by Avhich such cases are to be distinguished are usually so special that a law confined thereto would be anticipated to have no effect from the antecedent improbability of such a case arising. When, therefore, it is found to fit such a special case, it is deemed to have been enacted solelj' for it.*^ An act came in question which gave the right to file a mechanic's lien in certain cases, but contained a proviso ex- cluding from its operation counties having a population of over two hundred thousand inhabitants. It was held void as a local and special law, and therefore within the consti- tutional inhibition of such laws " authorizing the creation, extension or impairing of liens." *^ The classification of counties by population and the passage of laws applicable to a certain class only have within reasonable limits and for some purposes been admitted upon the assumption that counties having a small population may ultimately have one visors, 67 Iowa, 199, 25 N. W. 128, Hammer v. State, 44 N. J. L. 667; B3 Am. & Eng. K. R. Cas. 223; Devine v. Board of Commissioners, Kimball v. Rosendale, 42 Wis. 407, 84 111. 590; Davis v. Clark, 106 Pa. 84 Am. Rep. 421; Kerrigan v. Force, St. 877; Commonwealth v. Patten, «8 N. Y. 881. See Desmond v. Dunn, 88 Pa. St. 258; Frye v. Partridge, 88 55 Cal. 243; Earle v. Board of Edu- 111. 267; Hallock v. HoUingshead, cation, id. 489. 49 N. J. L. 64; Hudson Co. Free- hs Nevil v. Clifford, 63 Wis. 435, 84 holders v. Buck, id. 228, 7 AtL 860; N. W. 65; Williams v. Bidleman, 7 State v. Boyd, 19 Nev. 43, 5 Pac. Ney. 68; Montgomery v. Common- 735; Adams v. Smith, 6 Dak. 94, 50 wealth, 91 Pa. St. 125; Frye V. Part- N. W. 720; Topeka v. Gillett, 33 ridge, 83 111. 267. Kan. 431, 4 Pac. 800; State v. ^f! State ex rel. v. Mitchell, 31 Downs, 60 Kan. 788, 57 Pao. 962; Ohio St. 592; State v. Herrmann, 75 Sutton v. State, 96 Tenn. 696, 36 S. Mo. 340; McCarthy v. Common- W. 697, 33 L. B. A. 589. wealth, 110 Pa. St. 343, 3 Atl. 423, « Id. 14 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 271; <8 Davis v. Clark, 106 Pa. St 377. GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 403 much larger.*' In the case under consideration, however, two counties had, at the time the law in question was passed, a greater population than two hundred thousand. As it could not be assumed that their population would ever fall below that limit they were permanently excluded from the operation of the act. The court say: "It was not then a general act. It did apply to a great number of counties; but there is no dividing line between a local and a general statute. It must be either one or the other. If it apply to the whole state, it is general. If to a part, it is local. As a legal principle it is as effectually local when it applies to sixty-five counties out of sixty-seven as if it applied to one county only. The exclusion of a single county from the operation of the act makes it local." *" Where an act pro- vided exceptionally for the holding of courts in all counties of more than sixty thousand inhabitants, adding restrictively, "in which there shall be any city incorporated, at the time of the passage of this act, with a population exceeding three thousand inhabitants, situate at a distance from the county seat of more than twenty-seven miles by the usually traveled road," the court held the act local; that it applied and was intended to apply to only one county.^' A law to authorize the taking of public burial places for school purposes, which was so hedged about and qualified by conditions as to evi- dently be intended to fit one particular place and which could in any event apply to but few, was held special and void.^^ An act of Wisconsin to authorize the building of viaducts across gullies, running streams or railroad tracks by the counties of the state, and the issuing of county bonds therefor, conferred the authority upon all counties, but pro- i^ Post, % 217. 61 Commonwealth v. Patten, 88 51 Montgomery v. Common- Pa. St. 358; State v. Herrmann, 75 wealth, 91 Pa. St. 135; Devine v. Mo. 340; Weinman v. Wilklnsburg, Board of Commissioners. 8i 111. etc. Ry. Co., 118 Pa St. 193, 13 AtL 590; McCarthy v. Commonwealth, 288. 110 Pa. St. 243; Matter of Henne- 62 York School District's Appeal, -berger, 155 N. Y. 430, 50 N. E. 61, 43 169 Pa. St. 70, 32 AtL 93. L. R. A. 132. 404 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. vided that the viaduct should not be less than one thousand feet long, sixty feet wide and eighteen feet high, and should cost not less than $80,000, and the bonds should not exceed one-fifth of one per cent, of the taxable property of the county. By reason of these limitations the act could only apply in Milwaukee county and was held void.'' So of an act authorizing counties, which had entered into a contract for building a court-house, incurred obligations thereunder prior to the passage of the act and had expended at least $7,000 thereunder, to issue bonds to an amount not exceed- ing $35,000, to meet such obligations.'* § 217. Classification of counties and legislation in re- spect thereto. — Counties may be classified according to population on the same principles as apply to municipalities for the purpose of legislation having a necessary relation to population.*^ The supreme coui;t of Pennsylvania, after referring to the principles applicable to the classification of cities, says: "The same principle must make classification constitutional as to the other political and municipal divis- 53 Warner v Milwaukee County, S. W. 774; State v. Slover, 134 Mo. 112 Wis. 601, 88 N. W. 577. 607, 86 S. W. 50; State v. Frank, s^Hetland v. County Commis- 60 Neb. 327,83 N. W. 74; State v. sioners, 89 Minn. 492, 95 N. W. 305. Frank, 61 Neb. 679, 85 N. W. 956; 55 People V. Onahan, 170 IlL 449, Mortland v. State, 52 N. J. L. 531, 48 N. E. 1003; Burton Stock Car 20 Atl. 673; State v. Taylor, 68 N. Co. V. Traeger, 187 111. 10.58 N. E. J. L. 276, 53 Atl. 392; People v. 418; Koester V. Board of Com'rs, 44 Dunn, 157 N. Y. 528, 52 N. E. 572, Kan. 141, 24 Pao. 65; Stone v. Wil- 43 L. R A. 247; Lloyd v. Smith, son, 19 Ky. L. R. 126, 39 S. W. 49; 176 Pa. St. 213, 35 Atl. 199; Corn- State v. Sullivan, 72 Minn. 126,75 mon wealth v. Anderson, 178 Pa. St. N. W. 8; Murray v. Board of County 171, 35 Atl. 632; Commonwealth v, Com'rs, 81 Minn. 359, 84 N. W. 103, McCarthy, 18 Phila. 646; Morrison 83 Am. St. Eep. 379, 51 L. E. A. 828; v. Bachert, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 153; State State V. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437, 89 v. Berkeley, 64 S. C. 194, 41 S. E. N. W. 175, 89 Am. St. Eep. 571; 961; Minnehaha County v. Thorne, Dunne v. Kansas City Cable Ey. 6 S. D. 449, 61 N. W. 688; Peterson Co., 131 Mo. 1, 32 S. W. 641 ; Coombs v. State, 104 Tenn. 137, 56 S. W. 834; Commission Co. v. Block, 130 Mo. Condon v. Maloney, 108 Tenn, 83^ 668, 32 & W. 1139; Sherwood v. 65 S. W. 871. Grand Ave. Ey Co., 132 Mo, 339, S3 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 405 ions of the state when considered in their governmental capacity. Classification of counties is therefore as permis- sible as classification of cities, and the legislature may de- termine what differences in situation, circumstances and needs call for a difference of class, subject to the super- vision of the courts as the final interpreters of the constitu- tion to see that it is actual classification, and not special legislation under that guise." "* If the classification is founded on correct principles, it is no objection that a class may contain but one county at the time the act is passed.'*' An act relating to the fees of county ofiicers applied to counties of over 100,000 popula- tion and not more than 185,000, of which there was only one. The act was assailed on the ground particularly that it did not include all counties over 100,000. But the court held it could not say that there was no ground for a dis- tinction and sustained the act.'^^ An act regulating fees of county officers except in counties containing more than 5« Lloyd V. Smith, 176 Pa. St. 213, 318, 35 Atl. 199. 6' People V. Onahan, 170 III. 449, 48 N. E. 1008; Stone v. Wilson, 19 Ky. L. R 126, 39 a W. 49; State v. Sullivan, 73 Minn. 126, 75 N. W. 8; State V. Berkeley, 64 S. C. 194, 41 S. E. 961; Condon v. Maloney, 108 Tenn. 83, 65 N. W. 871. 66 State V. Sullivan, 73 Minn. 126, 75 N. W. 8. The court says: "The only thing that could cast any possible doubt on the propriety of the basis adopted in this act is the fact that it excludes from the class counties having more than 185,000 inhabitants. It is urged that this is an arbitrary classification, not founded upon any apparent natural reason sug- gested by a difiFerence between the situation and circumstances of the counties included and those ex- cluded from the class, or which suggests the necessity or propriety of different legislation with respect to them. The subject of classifica- tion by population is so largely a matter of policy, and the consider- ations -which enter into it are so numerous and complex, that the legislature must necessarily be al- lowed a large discretion in the matter; and the courts ought not to hold a statute invalid or special legislation unless it appears, very clearly, that the basis of classifica- tion adopted is purely arbitrary. We cannot say that there may not be some natural reason, founded on a difference in situation and cir- cumstances, why counties having over 185,000 inhabitants should be excluded from the class, as well as those having less than 100,000, or why counties having a population 406 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 150,000 inhabitants or less than 10,000 was held to be not classification but a mere exclusion of certain counties and void.^' An act applicable to counties having a population of from 35,190 to 35,200 was held evasive and special.*" Classification by population has been held proper for the purpose of regulating the fees and compensation of county- officers,^' for regulating the manner of selecting jurors,*^for preventing stock from running at large,*' for regulating the manner of assessing property for taxation,** providing for laying out and regulating the public roads,'* and for the administration of county affairs.*' An act providing for the Torrens system of registering land titles, applicable only to counties having over 75,000 inhabitants, was held valid.*^ between those limits should not have different legislation in respect to salaries of county officers." 69 Morrison v. Bacliert, 112 Pa. St. 388, 5 Atl. 739. soHixon V. Burson, 54 Ohio St. 470, 43 N. E. 1000. To same effect, Owen County Com'rs v. Spangler, 159 Ind. 575, 65 N. E. 748. M Stone V. Wilson, 19 Ky. L. R. 126, 39 S. W. 49; State v. Sullivan, 7i Minn. 126, 75 N. W. 8; State v. Frank, 60 Neb. 327, 83 N. W. 74; State V. Frank, 61 Neb. 679, 85 N. W. 956; Hudson County v. Clarke, 65 N. J. L. 271, 47 Atl. 478; Com- monwealth V. McCarthy, 18 Phila, 646; Morrison v. Bachert, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 153; Minnehaha County v. Thome, 6 S. D. 449, 61 N. W. 688. «■' People V. Onahan, 170 111. 449, 48 N. E. 1003; Dunne v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 131 Mo. 1, 38 S. W. 641; Coombs Commission Co. v. Block, 130 Mo. 668, 38 S. W. 1139; Sherwood v. Grand Ave. Ry. Co., 133 Mo. 339, 33 S. W. 774; State v. Slover, 134 Mo. 607, 36 S. W. 50; State V. Berkeley, 64 S. C. 194, 41 S. E. 961. In the last case the act was applicable to counties having a city of 40,000 inhabitants. 63 Peterson v. State, 104 Tenn. 127, 56 S. W. 834. " Burton Stock Car Co. v. Trae- ger, 187 111. 10. 58 N. E. 418. "5 Condon v. Maloney, 108 Tenn. 82, 65 S. W. 871. fiSMortland v. State, 53 N. J. L. 581, 30 Atl. 678; Lloyd v. Smith, 176 Pa. St. 213, 35 Atl. 199. «7 State V. Westfall, 85 Minn. 437, 89 N. W. 175, 89 Am. St. Rep. 571. The court says: "We are of the opinion that the facts that the larg- est cities of the state are within the limits of the classified counties, that the platted portions thereof embrace a greater number of sub- divisions and parcels of land than the less densely populated portions of the state, that the individual owners of the land are more nu- merous, the value thereof much greater, and that the records of the evidence of the titles thereto rap- idly increase in volume and be- come more complex with the in- GKNEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 407 An act to provide for the treatment of indigent inebriates at the public expense in counties of 50,000 population or more was held special and void.'^ Counties may be classi- fied according to assessed valuation for the purpose of regu- lating the fees^of county officers.*' An act on a subject of a general nature which applies to one county only, or which excludes one or more counties from its operation, is local and special and void." The fees and compensation of county officers is held to be a subject of a general nature,'' and so is the erection of county build- ings.'^ It is held that an act is not rendered special or crease of population, whereby the risks of defective titles, and ex- penses for abstracts thereof, and the delays and difficulties in trans- ferring real estate, are proportion- ately increased, were proper for the consideration of the legislature in determining whether there was a practical necessity or propriety for the classification in question and justify it." p. 440. *i8 Murray v. County Com'rs, 81 Minn. 359, 84 N. W. 103, 83 Am. St. Rep. 379, 51 L. E. A. 828. 69 Harwood v. Wentworth, 162 U. S. 547, 16 S. C. Eep. 890, 40 L. Ed. 1069. Such classification is ex- pressly authorized by the constitu- tion of Wyoming. Guthrie v. Con- verse County, 7 Wyo. 95, 50 Pac. 229. In this case it was held that when a county changed its class during an oflScial's incumbency hiii salary did not change. '» Henderson v, Koeinig, 168 Mo. 356, 68 S. W. 72; Singleton v. Eureka County, 23 Nev. 91, 35 Pac. 833; State V. Bergen County, 52 N. J. L. 303, 19 Atl. 718; Matter of Henne- berger, 155 N. Y. 420, 50 N. E. 61, 43 L. E. A. 132; Mott y. Hubbard, 59 Ohio St. 199, 53 N. E. 47; State v. Brown, 60 Ohio St. 462, 54 N. E. 525; Commonwealth v. Carey, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 293; Nance V. Anderson County, 60 S. C. 501, 39 S. E. 5; Sutton v. State, 96 Tenn. 696, 36 S. W. 697, 33 L. R. A. 589; Chicago & N. W. R. R. Co. v. Forest County, 95 Wis. 80, 70 N. W.77; Adams V.Smith, 6 Dak. 94, 50 N. W. 720; State v. Otis, 68 N. J. L. 64, 52 Atl. 305 ; State v. Ellet, 47 Ohio St." 90, 23 N. E. 931, 21 Am. St. Eep. 772; Commissioners v. Rosoh Bros., 50 Ohio St. 103, 33 N. E. 408, 40 Am. St. Rep. 653; Silberman v. Hay, 59 Ohio St. 582, 53 N. E. 358; Matter of Roberg, 18 Ohio C.C. 367; U. S. Mort. & T. Co. V. Wood, 19 Ohio C. C. 358. '1 State V. Krost, 140 Ind. 41, 39 N. E. 46; State v. Board of Com'rs, 140 Ind. 506, 40 N. E. 113; State v. Yates, 66 Ohio St. 546, 64 N. E. 570 (overruling Pearson v. Stephens, 56 Ohio St. 136, 46 N. E 511); State v. Garver, 60 Ohio St. 555, 64 N. E. 573; Milwaukee County v. Isenring, 109 Wis. 9, 85 N. W. 131, 53 L. R. A. 635. See State v. Garver, 13 Ohio C. D. 140. 72 State V. Brown, 60 Ohio St. 463, 54 N. E. 525, 408 GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. local because it provides that it shall not apply to counties where the subject-matter is regulated by prior special acts." The following acts were held not local or special : An act permitting a higher rate of taxation for road purposes in counties having an assessed valuation of $15,000,000 or over and also having more than one hundred and fifty miles of macadamized and graveled roads ; '* an act in regard to the construction of highways and bridges and limited to coun- ties adjoining a city of 1,000,000 or more inhabitants; '^ an act to provide for the acquisition of certain rights in fresh- water lakes and in adjoining lands for public use and limited to counties containing a lake of one hundred acres area or over ; "° an act relating to poor relief by counties which ex- cepted cities from its operation and thereby excepted a county co-extensive with a city; "an act organizing certain new- counties and giving the first county commissioners a longer term than was provided by the general law.'^ But in case of the act last referred to, a provision limiting the rate of taxation as to such new counties was held special and void.'" The constitution of California provides for a division of counties into classes, according to population, for the purpose of fixing the fees and compensation of county offi- cers.™ It is held, construing the provision, that it is man- datory, that such classification must be made as a condi- tion to valid legislation on the subject,^' that it rests with 78 Mattox V. Knox, 96 Ga. 403, 23 '' Rose v. Beaver County, 204 Pa. S. E. 307; Cheltenham Township St. 872, 54 Atl. 268. Eoad, 140 Pa. St. 136, 21 Atl. 238. '8 Spencer v. Griffith, 74 Minn. See Stewart v. Collier, 91 Ga. 117, 55, 76 N. W. 1018. See Sohweiss v. 17 S. E. 279. District Court, 23 Nev. 226, 45 Pac. 7* State V. Arnold, 136 Mo. 446, 38 289, 34 L. R. A. 602. S. W. 79. '9 State v. Walker, 83 Minn. 295, " Treanor v. Eiohhorn, 74 Hun, 86 N. W. 104. 58, 26 N. Y. S. 314. so Art. XI, sec. 5; Cody v. Murphy, "8 Albright v. Sussex Co. Lake & 89 Cal. 522, 26 Pac. 1081. Park Commission, 68 JN. J. L. 523, si Dwyer v. Parker, 115 Cal. 544. 53 Atl. 613, 47 Pac. 373; Knight v. Martin, 128 Cal. 345, 60 Pac. 849. GBNEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 409 the legislature to say how many classes there shall be,*^ and that legislation upon other subjects for the classes so estab- lished is unauthorized and void." Some officers may be compensated by -fees and others by a salary, without violat- ing the rule of uniformity.^* The legislature must fix the salary and not delegate it to the county boards.^ An act provided that hospitals established in cities of 30,000 inhabitants or more should receive from the county a certain sum for the support of poor patients under treat- ment in such hospitals. The act was held to make an arbi- trary «lassification of counties for the purpose of imposing such liability and to be void.^^ Where an act was so framed as to require administration, to be granted under certain conditions in counties of 200,000 population to the public administrator and in all other counties under the same con- ditions to the widow or next of kin, it was held that the classification had no reasonable relation to the purpose of the act and that it was special legislation and void.'' The administration of estates is a subject of a general nature and laws in relation thereto must be of uniform operation.^' Hence a law providing for the appointment of certain cor- porations as administrators, executors, etc., and applicable only to certain counties, is unconstitutional. '' § 218. Schools, school districts and school affairs. — In Ohio it is held that the creation of school districts is a sub- 82 Summerland v. Eioknell, 111 ^ Vail v. San Diego County, 136 Cal. 567. 44 Pao. 233, Cal. 35, 58 Pac. 393. 83 San Luis Obispo Co. v. Graves, 85 People v. Johnson, 95 Cal. 471, 84 Cal. 71, S3 Pac. 1033; Welsh v. 31 Pao. 611; Dougherty v. Austin, Bramlett, 98 Cal. 319, 83 Pao. 66; 94 Cal. 601, 38 Pac. 834, 29 Pao. 1092, Walser v. Austin, 104 Cal. 128, 37 16 L. R. A. 161. Pac. 869; BIoss v. Lewis, 109 Cal. 86 York Hospital & Dispensary 493, 41 Pac. 1081; Marsh v. Hanley, Ass'n v. York County, 12 Pa. Dist. Ill Cal. 368, 43 Pac. 975; Hale v. Ct. 539. McGettigan, 114 Cal. 112, 45 Pac. 87 strong v. Dignan, 207 111. 385. 1049; San Francisco v. Broderick, 88 Schumacher v. McCallip, 69 135 Cal. 188, 57 Pac. 887; Pratt v. Ohio St. 500. Brown, 135 CaL 649, 67 Pac. 1083. 89 id. 410 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. jeot of a general nature which must be regulated by general laws of uniform operation, and that a special act creating^ a particular school district is local and void.^" The same ruling has been made in Oklahoma."' The constitution of Pennsylvania forbids local or special laws " regulating the management of public schools, the building or repairing of school houses, and the raising of money for such purposes.'"^ It is held that school districts may be classified as well as municipalities, and that districts coterminous with cities of the third class may constitute a class for legislation con- cerning their government and affairs.'' There would seem to be no reason why school districts may not be classified according to population for purposes of their administration and government, as well as municipalities."* An act providing a method for the government of schools in municipalities divided into wards, different from that in other localities was held not to be a legitimate classification."' School districts whose territory has been changed by a change of ipunicipal boundaries may consti- tute a class for legislation with reference to the conse- 9» State V. Spellmire, 67 Ohio St. , Eichholtz v. Martin, 53 Kan. 486,. 77, 65 N. E. 619, overruling State v. 36 Pac. 1064. Shearer, 46 Ohio St. 375, 20 N. E. »2 Art. 3, seo. 52. 335, and confirming State v. Pow- 9' Commonwealth v. Gilligan, 195- ers, 38 Ohio St. 54. The following Pa. St. 504, 46 Atl. 124; Common- are earlier cases following State wealth v. Shires, 195 Pa. St. 515, V. Powers: State v. Board of Edu- 46 Atl. 1102; Commonwealth v. cation, 7 Ohio C. C. 153; State v. Howell, 195 Pa. St. 519, 46 Atl. 1102; Board of Education, 3 Ohio C. D. Commonwealth v. Hitchens, 200 703. Pa. St. 508, 50 Atl. 91; Common- si Territory v. School District, 10 wealth v. Guthrie, 203 Pa. St. 209, Okl. 556, 64 Pac. 241. But where 52 AtL 254; School District v. there is no constitutional provision Smith, 195 Pa. St. 515, 46 Atl. 127. applicable except that requiring Compare Chalfant v. Edwards, 173 general laws of uniform operation. Pa. St. 346, 33 Atl. 1048. other states have held that a law '* Lewis v. Jersey City, 66 N. J.. creating a particular school dis- L. 583, 50 Atl. 346. trict, or applicable' to only one, is '' State v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439, 13. valid. Chicago, R. t & P. Ry. Co. S. W. 677; State v. Long, 21 Mont, v. A voca, 99 Iowa, 556, 68 N. W. 881 ; 26, 53 Pac. 645. GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 411 quences of such change.'^ An act to pension teachers is of a general nature, and its operation cannot be limited.*" A law annexing school districts under the general law to school districts under special charters was held special and void.^' § 819 (126). Kailroads.— Eailroad companies have for some purposes constituted a class for general legislation ; for other purposes such companies may be divided into sub- classes, and legislation in regard to one of sijch classes made to differ from that applied to another. An Iowa act di- vided the railroads of the state into classes according ta business in regulating rates of freight. It was held not in conflict with the constitution, requiring laws of a general nature to have a uniform operation throughout the state.'-'' Waite, C. J., said: "It operates uniformly on each class,, and this is all the constitution requires. . . . It is very clear that a uniform rate of charges for all railroad compa- nies in the state might operate unjustly upon some. It was proper, therefore, to provide in some way for an adaptation of the rates to the circumstances of the different roads ; and the general assembly, in the exercise of its legislative discre- tion, has seen fit to do this by a system of classification." An act provided that "Every railroad company shall be liable for all damages sustained by any person, including employees of the company, in consequence of any neglect- of the agents, or by any mismanagement of the engineers^ or other employees of the corporation, to any person sus- taining such damage." It was objected to this law that it was limited in its operation to railroad companies, and sub- jected them to a rule or liability from which other persons, both natural and artificial, were exempt. The objection was held untenable. The court said : " These laws are gen- eral and uniform, not because they operate upon every per- se Sugar Notch Borough, 193 Pa. 98 in re School Districts, 26 Colo. St. 349, 43 Atl. 985. 136, 56 Pao. 173. 97 State V. Kuntz, 21 Ohio C. C. 99 C, B. & Q. R. E. Co. v. Iowa, 94 261. U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94 412 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. son in the state, for thej'^ do not, but because every person who is brought into the relation and circumstances provided for is affected by it. They are general and uniform in their operation upon all persons in the like situation; and the fact of their being general and uniform is not affected by the number of persons within the scope of their operation." ' A Missouri statute gave an exceptional measure of damages against railroad companies for injury to animals. It was objected that the act was partial in regard to the rule of damages, because if any private person, or any other person ■than a railroad corporation, caused a like damage, the act •did not apply, and the most that could be recovered would be the value of the animal. The objection was overruled. The court said: "This right of action is given to all per- sons who may be thus injured. It is given as well to any association of people, and to railroad corporations whose stock may be injured by a railroad." ^ Another act put all owners and operators of railroads, whether natural persons, companies or corporations, on an equal footing, by making the term " railroad corporation " to include them. Though directed against railroads alone, while no other common carriers are brought within its operation, it was not partial for that reason. And the court thus remarks upon it: " Had the legislature deemed it essential to the protection of human life and private property they would doubt- less have extended the statute to carriers by coach and water; but as the class of property and human life pro- tected by this provision of the statute is not exposed to like perils incident to coach and water travel, the occasion and •necessity for so extending the statute did not exist. Class legislation is not necessarily obnoxious to the constitution. iMcAnnich v. Miss. & M. R. R. State v. Spaude, 37 Minn. 332, 34 N. Co., 20 Iowa, 338; United States W.164; Bannon v.State,49 Ark.167, Express Co. v. Ellyson, 28 Iowa, 4 S. W. 635; Dow v. Beidelman, 49 370; Thomason v. Asli worth, 73 Cal. Ark. 325. 73; Phillips v. Missouri Pac. R. R. 2 Humes v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 82 Co., 86 Mo. 540, 24 Am. & E. R. Cas. Ma 231. -368; State v. Wilcox, 45 Mo. 458; GENEKAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 41S- It is a settled construction of similar constitutional provis- ions that a legislative act which applies to and embraces all persons who are or who ma}'^ come into like situation and circumstances is not partial." ' And a like conclusion was arrived at in respect to an act which gave a justice an ex- ceptional jurisdiction in the particular class of actions just mentioned.* The following acts relating to railroads were held not to be special or class legislation: An act authorizing the ap- pointment of a receiver of any railroad which has neglected for ten days to run trains over any part of its road, and which excepted roads at seaside resorts, not exceeding four miles in length, intended merely for the transportation of summer travelers and tourists;' exempting railroad em- ployees from working on the public roads; 'an act requir- ing railroads at all stations where there are telegraph offices to post information as to whether trains are on time or not;' an act giving an action against railroad companies for negligently causing the death of any one not an em- ployee of the company;* making a class of railroads ex- tending into two or more counties for the purpose of col- lecting delinquent taxes;' an act which provides for assess- ing railroads by a state board and all other property by county assessors;" an act providing for the assessment of railroads omitted in specified years;" an act imposing a< ' Humes v. Missouri, etc. Ey. Co., ' Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. State, 82 Mo. 221; Snyder v. Warford, 11 142 Ind. 438, 41 N. E. 937. Mo. 513; Merritt v. Knife Falls B. ssohooloraft v. Louisville &N. E. Corp., 34 Minn. 245; Central Trust R. Co., 93 Ky. 333, 17 S. W. 567. Co. V. Sloan, 65 Iowa, 655: Peoria, 'People v. Central Pao. R. R, Co., etc. R. E. Co. V. Duggan, 109 IlL 105 Cal. 576, 38 Pac. 905. Compare 537, 50 Am. Rep. 619. People v. Central Paa E E Co., 83 ■1 Phillips V. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 86 Cal. 393, 83 Pac. 303. Mo. 540. "Sawyer v. Dooley, 21 Nev. 390,. 6 Delaware Bay & Cape May R. R. 32 Pac. 437. Co. V. Markley, 45 N. J. Eq. 139, 16 " Bloxham v. Florida, etc. R. E.. Atl. 436. Co., 35 Fla. 635, 17 So. 903. « State V. Womble, 113 N. C. 863, 17 S. E. 491, 19 L. R A. 837. -414 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. privilege tax upon all railroads not paying sm ad valorem tax;'^ an act authorizing passenger railways in cities of the first class to use other power than horse power, with the consent of the city; '' acts requiring persons or corporations operating electric cars," or cars propelled by steam, cable or electricity,'* to protect the motorman from the weather. An act imposing upon railroads a double liability for dam- ages by fire was held valid and not class legislation.'* So of acts imposing upon railroads a special liability for inju- ries to stock by reason of a failure to fence their tracks." But an act making railroad companies absolutely liable for stock killed was held to be class legislation.*' An act pro- vided for the presentation of certain claims against railroad companies by filing the same with a station agent and enacted that, if the same were not paid within thirty days and suit was brought thereon and sustained, the plaintiff should recover an attorney's fee. This was held to be -class legislation and void.'' § 220. Particular acts — Courts and judicial procedure. An act permitting plaintifif to expedite a cause was held not local or special because the same privilege was not ac- corded the defendant.^" So of an act requiring the plaintifif to give bond for costs in actions for slander and libel.^' An i^Knoxville & Ohio R. E. Co. v. Schimmele v. Chicago, etc. R. R. Harris. 99 Tenn. 684, 43 S. W. 115. Co., 34 Minn. 216, 35 N. W. 347; 13 Reeves v. Phila. Traction Co., Missouri Pac. Ry. Go. v. Humes, 115 152 Pa. St 153, 35 Atl. 516. U. S. 513, 5 S. C. Rep. 110, 29 L. Ed. Instate V. Nelson, 53 Ohio St. 88, 463; Minneapolis & St. L. R. R Co. ;i9 N. E. 22, 26 L. R. A. 317; State v. Beokwith, 139 U. S. 26, 9 S. C. V. VPhitaker, 160 Mo. 59, 60 S. W. Rep. 207, 33 L. Ed. 585. 1 068. 18 Catril v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 3 1'* State V. Smith, 58 Minn. 35, 59 Idaho, 576, 31 Pac. 416. N. W. 545. 19 Gulf, Colo. & S. K Ry. Co. v. "* Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. a 150, 17 S. C. Rep. 355, Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 19 S. C. 41 L. Ed. 666. Rep. 6U9, 43 L. Ed. 909; Atchison, 2« Louisville & N. A. & C.R. R. Co. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 58 v. Wallace, 136 III 87. 26 N. E. 493, Kan, 447, 49 Paa 603. 11 L. R. A. 787. 1' Johnson v. Chicago, etc. Ry. 21 Smith v. McDermott, 93 Cal. Atl. 782. «8 Robinson v. Perry, 17 Kan. 248; Utsey V. Hiott, 30 a 0. 360, 9 S. E. 338. •"S Allen V. Pioneer Press, 40 Minn. 117, 41 N. W. 936, 12 Am. St. Rep. 707, 3 L. R. A. 532. See Cobb v. Bord, 40 Minn. 479, 48 N. W. 396. '"State V. Cumberland & Penn. ■ R. R Co., 40 Md. 22; State v. Ster- GENBEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 423 of taxes provided that it should not apply to any taxes the collection of which was regulated by a local law. This was held not to make the act local or special, as such would be the effect of the act without such provision." A statute re- quiring the assessor to collect the tax on personal property at the rate of the preceding year at the time of making the assessment in cases where the same were not secured by real estate was held not to be a special law, as such un- secured taxes made a proper class.'^ An act to enforce the payment of delinquent taxes applied only to counties wherein the amount delinquent on a certain date exceeded three mills on the dollar of the assessed valuation of the real property of the county. This was held to be an arbi- trary classification and the act was held void." A law im- posing a tax on estates of over $3,000 in counties of over 150,000 inhabitants was held special and void.'* Local option laws are not special legislation," nor are laws which make different regulations regarding the liquor traflSc for municipalities of different population.™ A statute which forbade the sale of liquor within one and one-half miles of a national soldiers' home and within one mile of ling, SO Md. 503; Tyson v. State, 28 « Rode v. Siebe, 119 Cal. 518, 51 id. 587; State Board of Assessors v, Pao. 869, 39 L. R. A. 342; Pacific Central R K. Co., 48 N. J. L. 146, 4 Postal TeL Cable Co. v. Dalton, 119 Atl. 578; Hammer v. State, 44 N. J. Cal. 604, 51 Pao. 1073, L. 667; State v. California Min. '^Duluth Banking Co. v. Koon, Co., 15 Nev. 834; Bright v. McCul- 81 Minn. 486, 84 N. W. 6. lough, Treasurer, 27 Ind. 223. See '« State v. Mann, 76 Wis. 469, 45 Central Iowa R R Co. v. Board of N. W. 51. Supervisors, 22 Am. & Eng. R E. '« State v. Forkner, 94 Iowa, 1, 63 Cas. 223, 67 Iowa, 199, 35 N. W. 128; N.W. 683; Lloyd v. Dollison, 13 Ohio People ex rel. v. Wallace, 70 111. 660; C. D. 571; ante, § 163. Chancellor v. Elizabeth, 64 N. J. L. '6 state t. Pond, 93 Mo. 606, 6 S. 503,45 Atl. 795; Kniseley v. Cotterel, W. 469; Ex parte Swan, 96 Mo. 44, 196Pa.St.614,46Atl.861,50L.RA.86. 9 S. W. 10; State v. Moore, 107 Ma '1 Evans v. Phillippi, 117 Pa. St. 78, 16 S. W.'937; State v. Wingfield, 226, 11 Atl. 630; Commonwealth v. 115 Mo. 488, 23 S. W. 363; State Lyter, 162 Pa. St. 50, 29 Atl. 352. v. Staats, 54 N. J. L. 286, 23 Atl. See Evans v. Witmer, 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 667. 612. 424 GENERAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. a state soldiers' home was held not to be class legislation." So of a statute which forbade the granting of licenses to sell liquor by county boards within two miles of any city or village, but excepted counties of 150,000 population.™ The laying out, construction and repair of public roads and bridges is held to be a subject of a general nature, which must be provided for by general laws of uniform operation throughout the state, and laws applicable to a par- ticular road or county are local and special and void." Dif- ferent provisions may be made for working the roads in cities and towns than is applied to the rural districts.'" Acts giving special privileges to union soldiers and sailors or exempting them from burdens or conditions which apply to others are class legislation and void." An act to protect "Driggs V. State, 53 Ohio St 37, 38 N. E. 883. ™ Henzinger v. State, 39 Neb. 653, 58 N. W. 194; Shannon v. State, 39 Neb. 658, 58 N. W. 196; Soehl v. State, 39 Neb. 659, 58 N. W. 196; Rowels V. State, 39 Neb. 659, 58 N. W. 197. ™ Commissioners v. State, 50 Ohio St. 653, 35 N. E. 887; State v. Com- missioners, 54 Ohio St. 333, 43 N. E. 587; Hixon v. Burson, 54 Ohio St. 470, 43 N. E. 1000; State v. Davis, 55 Ohio St. 15, 44 N. E. 511; Piatt V. Craig, 66 Ohio St. 75, 63 N. E. 594; Grove v. Leidy, 9 Ohio C. C. 372; Commissioners v. State, 18 Ohio C. C. 200; Maxwell v. Tillamook County, 20 Ore. 495, 26 Pao. 803. In Hixon v. Burson, 54 Ohio St. 470, 483, 43 N. B. 1000, the court says: "That the subject of roads ■ and highways is capable of being legislated upon by general laws hav- ing a uniform operation through- out the state is conclusively shown by the fact that such laws were passed at the second session of the general assembly after the adoption of the constitution, and remain in force in substantially the same form to this day, and no local or special act on the subject of roads was passed for many years thereafter." See Condon v. Maloney, 108 Tenn. 82, 65 S. W. 871, 80 McGinnis v. Kagsdale, 116 Ga. 245, 42 S. E. 493. 81 State V. Garbroski, 111 Iowa, 496, 88 N. W. 959, 83 Am. St. Rep. 524; Brown v. Russell, 166 Mass. 14, 43 N. E. 1007, 32 L. E. A. 253; Mat- ter of Keyner, 148 N. Y. 219, 42 N. E. 667, 35 L. R A. 447. See State V. Miller, 66 Minn. 90, 68 N. W. 732; State V. O'Connor, 54 N. J. L. 36, 33 Atl. 1091; State v. Shedroi, 75 Vt. 277. In the case first cited the courtsays: " The classification here attempted rests solely on a past and completed transaction, having no relation to the particular legisla- tion enacted. All citizens are di- vided into two classes, — those who GENEEAL AND SPECIAL LAWS. 425 manufacturers, bottlers and dealers in ale, porter, lager beer, soda, mineral water and other beverages from the loss of their casks, barrels, kegs, bottles and boxes, and which gave to such manufacturers and dealers special and peculiar privileges for the protection and recovery of their barrels, bottles, etc., was held to be special legislation and void.'' The following were held to be void as being special or class legislation: An act to provide for free employment agencies, which denied the benefit of the agencies to em- ployers whose men were out on a strike or lockout ; '' an act relating to obstructions in streams and applying only to specified counties;** an act forbidding the peddling of cer- tain merchandise without a license, but permitting any resi- dent of a town having a place of business therein and pay- ing taxes to the amount of $ 25 on his stock in trade, to peddle such goods in his own town without a license.** But it is held proper to make a distinction between those ped- alling goods of their own production and those peddling goods produced by others.'* The following were held not to be special or class legis- lation: An act giving a preference to depositors who are not stockholders, in case of insolvency of bank ; '' an act to regu- late commission merchants who receive § 238 (134). Repeal and re-enactment — Construction und effect. — Where there is an express repeal of an exist- ing statute, and a re-enactment of it at the same time, or a repeal and a re-enactment of a portion of it, the re-enact- ment neutralizes the repeal so far as the old law is contin- ued in force. It operates without interruption where the re-enactment takes effect at the same time.*^ The intention manifested is the same as in an amendment enacted in the form noticed in the preceding section. Offices are not lost;'^ corporate existence is not ended;'* inchoate statutory rights are not defeated;^' a statutory power is not taken awa3','° nor pending proceedings" or criminal charges af- fected ^^ by such repeal and re-enactment of the law on which they respectively depend. This rule was applied in "Walker v. State,'' though after a conviction for murder and a sentence of death pronounced, and, pending an appeal therefrom, the revised penal code took effect and changed the previous penalty for the offense from "death" to "death State Trust Co. v. Kansas City, etc. R. R Co., 115 Fed. 363; Fisher v. Simon, 95 Tex. 334, 66 S. W. 447; State V. Mason, 153 Mo. 23, 54 8. W. 534; Julien v. Model B. L. & I. Ass'n, 116 Wis. 79, 93 N. W. 561. 53 State V. Baldwin, 45 Conn. 184.. M United Hebrew B. Ass'n v. Ben- shimol, 130 Mass. 325; Wright v. Oakley, 5 Met. 400, 406; Steamship Co. V. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450, 17 L. Ed. 805. 52 FuUerton v. Spring, 3 Wis. 667; Laude v. Chicago, etc. E. R. Co., 33 id. 640; Scheftels v. Tabert, 46 id. 439; Middleton v. N. J. & C. Ry. Co., 86 N. J.Eq. 269; Glentz v. State, 38 Wis. 549; Moore v. Kenockee, 75 Mich. 333, 43 N. W. 944, 4 L. E. A. 555; Junction City v. Webb, 44 Kan. 71, 23 Pac. 1073; Swamp Land Dis- trict V. Glide, 113 Cal. 85, 44 Pao. 451; Santa Cruz Rock Pavement Co. V. Lyons, 133 Cal. 114, 65 Pao. 329; Callahan v. Jennings, 16 Colo. 471, 27 Pac. 1055; People v. Board of Equalization, 20 Colo. 320, 37 Pao. 964; Hancock v. District Tp., 78 Iowa, 550, 43 Pao. 637; Butte & Boston Con. Min. Co. v. Mont. Ore Purchasing Co., 24 Mont. 185, 60 Pao. 1039; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb. 724, 64 N. W. 348; Matter of Prine's Estate, 136 N. Y. 347, 88 N. E. 1091, 18 L. R, A. 713; Baines v. Janes- ville, 100 Wis. 369. 75 N. W. 404; 55 Caperon v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304;. Skyrme v. Occidental, etc. Co., 8 id.. 219; Moore v. Kenockee, 75 Mich. 333. 5" Middleton v. New Jersey, etc. Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 269. 57 Dennison v. Allen, 106 Mich. 295, 64 N. W. 38. 58 State V. Gumber, 37 Wis. 298; State V. Wish, 15 Neb. 448, 19 N. W. 686. 69 7 Tex. App. 345. 446 AMENDATORY ACTS. or confinement in the penitentiary for life." If a greater penalty is imposed for an offense defined in the re-enacted law, the previous law is deemed repealed; and after such repeal takes effect there can be no punishment inflicted for an3'^ offense committed contrary to its provisions while they were in force.*" A repeal is not rendered inoperative by a re-enactment where they are not simultaneous, where there is an interval of time after the repeal takes effect before the re-enactment goes into operation;^' or where, instead of the old law ceasing to operate by repeal, it has served its pur- pose — is exhausted and spent before the re-enactment.*^ Where in a revision the sections of an act are separated but Te-enacted, they are to be construed the same as when part of one act.*' § 239 (135). Amendments by implication not witliln the constitutional requirement — Acts complete in them- selves. — Where an act does not purport to be amendatory, -but is enacted as original and independent legislation, and is complete in itself, it is not within the constitutional re- quirement as to amendments, though it may, by implica- tion, modify or repeal prior acts or parts thereof.** "The 60 state V. Van Stralen, 45 Wis. 83, 40 S. W. 705, 62 Am. St. Rep. 437; State v. Campbell, 44 id. 529. 154, 37 L. E. A. 504; Nations v. «i Kane V. New York, etc. Ry. Co., State, 64 Ark. 467, 43 S. W. 396; -49 Conn. 139. Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136, 62Emporiav. Norton. 16 Kan. 236. 45 Pac. 1068; Denver Circle R R. es Tise v. Shaw, 68 Md. 1, 11 Atl. Co. v. Nestor, 10 Colo. 403; Lake v. 363. State, 18 Fla. 501; Smith v. State, People V. Raymond, 186 111. 407, 57 N. E. 1066. ^« The following are some of the more important oases: City Coun- cil V. National B. & L. Ass'n, 108 Ala. 336, 18 So. 816; People v. Pa- .oifio Imp. Co., 180 Cal. 443, 62 Pac. 739; Lovelace v. Tabor Mines & Mills Co., 29 Colo. 62, 66 Pac. 893; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195; Jensen v. Fricke, 138 111. 171, 24 N. E. 515; Cook •County V. Gilbert, 146 111. 268, 33 N. E. 761; Trausoh V. Cook County, 147 111. 534, 35 N. E. 477; Rich v. Chicago, 153 111. 18, 38 N. E. 855; People V. Thornton, 186 111. 162, 57 N. E. 841; Kern v. People, 44 111. App. 181; People v. Mount. 87 111. App. 194; S. C. affirmed, 186 III. 560; Reese v. Western Union Tel. Co., 123 Ind. 294, 24 N. E. 163, 7 L. R. A. 583; Shea v. Muncie, 148 Ind. 14, 46 N. E. 138; State v. VanVliet, 93 Iowa, 476, 61 N. W. 241; Lambe v. McCormick, 116 Iowa, 169,89N.W. 241; Kansas City v. Kimball, 60 Kan. 234, 56 Pac. 78; Randall v. Butler County, 65 Kan. 20, 68 Pac. 1083; State v. Casimere, 48 La, Ann. 443, 9 So. 438; Moore v. Minneapo- lis, 43 Minn. 418, 45 N.W. 719; State V. McCurdy, 63 Minn. 509, 64 N. W. 1133; State v. Stratton, 136 Mo. 483, 38 S. W. 83; Reinhardt v. Fritz- oohe, 6^ Hun, 565, 33 N. Y. S. 958; Aokerson v. Supervisors, 72 Hun, 616, 25 N. Y. S. 196; People v. House of Refuge, 33 App. Div. 354, 47 N. Y. S. 767; Winslow v. Morton, 118 N. C. 486, 34 S. E. 417; Pease v. Ryan, 7 Ohio C. C. 44; Winters v. George, 31 Ore. 251, 27 Pac. 1041; 468 EEPEAL8 AND REPEALING ACTS. One statute is not repugnant to another unless they relate to the same subject and are enacted for the same purpose." "It is not enough that there is a discrepancy between differ- ent parts of a system of legislation on the same general sub- Co-operative S. & L. Co. V. Fawiok, 11 S. B. 589, 79 N. W. 847; Matter of Gannett, 11 Utah, 283, 39 Pac. 496; University of Utah v. Rioh- ards, 20 Utah, 457, 59 Pac. 96, 77 Am. St Eep. 938; Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46, 15 S. a Eep. 533, 39 L. Ed. 614 In the following cases the ques- tion was a less important factor, but in each one the statutes in question were reconciled and there was held to be no repeal by im- plication: State V. Styles, 131 Ala. 863, 25 So. 1015; Johnson v. State, 132 Ala. 43, 31 So. 493; Capron v. Hitchcock, 98 Cal. 427, 33 Pac. 431; Malone v. Bosch, 104 Cal. 680, 38 Pac. 516; Nickey v. Stearns Ranches Co., 136 CaL 150, 58 Pac. 459; Santa Cruz Rock Pa v. Co. v. Lyons, 133 Cal. 114, 65 Pac. 329; Rathvon v. White, 16 Colo. 41, 26 Pac. 323; Canfield v. Leadville, 7 Colo. App. 453, 43 Pac. 910; Win- dom County Sav. Bank v. Himes, 55 Conn. 433, 13 Atl. 517; Bissell v. Dickerson, 64 Conn. 61, 29 Atl. 236; Gilbert v. Morgan, 18 D. C. Eep. (7 Mackey), 296; Hope v. Johnston, 28 Fla. 55, 9 So. 830; Ex parte Pells, 28 Fla. 67, 9 So. 833; Tampa v. Solo- monson, 35 Fla. 446, 482, 17 So. 581; Georgia Southern & Fla. R. 'R. Co. V. George, 92 Ga. 760, 19 S. E. 813; Wilder's Sons Co. v. Walker, 98 Ga. 508, 25 S. E. 571; National Bank of Augusta V. Augusta Cotton Comp. Co., 104 Ga. 403, 30 S. E. 888; Hart- ford Fire tns. Co. v. Peoria, 156 111. 430, 40 N. E. 967; Canal Com'rs. V. Sanitary Dist., 191 111. 336, 61 N. E. 71; Johnson v. People, 303 111. 53, 66 N. E. 877; Neatherly v. Peo- ple, 24 111. App. 273; Svvigart v. People, 50 111. App. 181; S. C. affirmed, 154 111. 384; McGillen v. Wolff, 83 111. App. 327; White v. Wagar, 88 111. App. 592; S. C. af- firmed, 185 111. 195; Bridge & Structural Iron Works Union v. Sigmund, 88 111. App. 344; Leeschke V. Miller, 100 111. App. 137; Allen V. Salem, 10 Ind. App. 650, 38 N. E. 425; Indianapolis V. Morris, 35 Ind. App. 409, 58 N. E. 510; Cedar Ra- pids, L F. & N. W. Ry. Co. V. Elseffer, 84 Iowa, 510, 51 N. W. 27; Sherman v. Des Moines, 100 Iowa, 88, 69 N. W. 410; Kansas Breeze Co. V. Edwards, 55 Kan. 630, 40 Pac. 1004; Adam v. Stephens, 88 Ky. 443, 11 S. W. 427; Commonwealth V. Pulaski County, 93 Ky. 197, 17 S. W. 442; Farson v. Board of Com'rs, 97 Ky. 119, 80 S. W. 17; O'Mahoney v. Bullock, 97 Ky. 774, 81 S. W. 878; Commonwealth v. Ba- sham, 101 Ky. 170, 40 S. W. 253; Fidel- ity & Dep. Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 579, 49 S. W. 467; Raubold v. Commonwealth, 21 Ky. L. R. 1135, 54 S. W. 17; Murphy v. Louisville, 24 Ky. L. R. 1574, 71 S. W. 934; Kirk V. Eobison, 25 Ky. L. R. 1633; State V. Police Jury, 45 La. Ann. « People V. Burtleson, 14 Utah, 258, 47 Pac. 87. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 469 ject; there must be a conflict between different acts on the same specific subject." *^ When there is a difference in the whole purview of two statutes apparently relating to the same subject, the former is not repealed.*' Such is the gen- 249, 11 So. 948; Portland E. R Ex- tension Co., Appellants, 94 Me. 565, 48 Atl. 119; Gans v. Carter, 77 Md. 1, 25 Atl. 663; Frostburg Min. Co. ■V. Cumberland, etc. E. R. Co., 81 Md. 28, 31 Atl. 698; Lake Superior Ship Canal, Ry. & 1 Co. v. Aplin, 79 Mich. 851, 44 N. W. 616; Bowl- ing V. Salliotte, 83 Mich. 131, 47 N. "W. 225; Merriman v. Peck, 96 Mich. 603, 53 N. W. 1031; People v. Kinney, 110 Mich. 97, 67 N. W. 1089; Wayne County Sup'rs v. Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 33, 69 N. W. 83; Crane v. Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 496, 69 N. W. 731; People v. Huntley, 112 Mich. 569, 71 N. W. 178; In re Bushey, 105 Mich. 64,63 N. W.. 1030; State v. Eieger, 59 Minn. 151, 60 N. W. 1087; State v. Anderson, 63 Minn. 308, 65 N. W. 265; Brown v. Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146, 69 N. W. 710; State v. Holt, 69 Minn. 423, 73 N. W. 700; Kretzsohmar v. Meehan, 74 Minn. 211, 74 N. W. 41; Louisville, N. O. & Tex. Ry; Co. v. State, 66 Miss. 662, 6 So. 203, 14 Am. St. Eep. 599, 5 L. R A. 132; Jones v. Melchior, 71 Miss. 115, 13 So. 857; Kansas ■City V. Smart, 128 Mo. 272, 30 S. W. "773; State v. Summers, 142 Mo. 586, 44 S. W. 797; Albany v. Gilbert, 144 Mo. 224, 46 S. W. 157; Boone Co. Home Mut. Ins. Ca v. Anthony, 68 Mo. App. 434; Kirkpatriok v. Mo., K & T. Ry. Co., 71 Mo. App. 363 ; Springfield v. Hubbel, 89 Mo. App. 379; Lamar v. Adams, 90 Mo. App. 35; Chadwiok v. Tatem, 9 Mont. 354, 368, 23 Pac. 739; In re Board of Pub. Lands & Buildings, 37 Neb. 425, 55 N. W. 1092; Hopkins v. Scott, 88 Neb. 661, 57 N. W. 391; Holt Co. Bank v. Holt County, 53 Neb. 827, 74 N. W. 259; State v. Cobb, 44 Neb. 434, 63 N. W. 867; Beatrice Paper Co. v. Beloit Iron Works, 46 Neb. 900, 65 N. W. 1059; Ehea v. State, 63 Neb. 461, 88 N. W. 789; State v. Donnelly, 20Nev.2i4, 19 Pac. 680; State v. Tyrrell, 33 Nev. 431, 41 Pac. 145; School Dis- trict V. Prentiss, 66 N. H. 145, 30 Atl. 931; Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cem. Co., 58 N. J. li. 168, 38 Atl. 396; Busli v. Del., L. & W. R R Co., 166 N. Y. 310, 59 N. E. 838; Quinn V. New York, 68 App. Div. 175, 74 N. Y. S. 89 ; People v. Pugh, 57 Hun, 181, 10 N. Y. S. 684; People v. Vos- burgh, 76 Hun, 562, 38 N. Y. S. 308; State V. Columbia George, 39 Ore. 127, 65 Pac. 604; Wm. Wilson & Son's Silversmith Co.'s Estate, 150 Pa. St. 285, 24 Atl. 636; Ferguson V. Pittsburgh, 159 Pa. St. 435, 28 Atl. 118; Hampe v. Traction Co., 165 48 Commonwealth v. De Camp, 177 Pa. St. 112, 116, 35 Atl. 601. « The King v. Downs, 3 T. R 569; Bowen v. Lease, 5 Hill, 221. 325; United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546, 34 L. Ed. 1083; United States V. Gear, 3 How. 120, 11 L. Ed. 523, 838; Miller y. Edwards, 8 Colo. 528, 9 Pac. G33. 470 REPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. eral doctrine, in which all the cases concur. In its practical administration other rules obtain suggested by the nature of the cases which occur, and the forms of legislation rais- ing the question of repeal. There is an obvious difference in repealing effect between negative and affirmative stat- utes. We will endeavor to elucidate this distinction. § 248 (139). Negative and affirmative statutes. — A neg- ative statute is one expressed in negative words ; as, for ex- ample: "N^o person who is charged with an offense against the law shall be punished for such offense unless he shall have been duly and legally convicted," etc, "iV^o indict- ment for any offense shall be held insufBcient for want of Pa. St. 468, 30 Atl. 931; Plymouth Borough, 167 Pa. St. 613, 31 Atl. 933; Kuhlman v. Sraeltz, 171 Pa. St. 440, 33 Atl. 358; Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 178 Pa. St. 308, 35 Atl. 816; SohQol District v, Pittsburgh, 184 Pa. St. 156, 39 Atl. 64; Clarion Bor- ough's Appeal, 189 Pa. St. 79, 41 Atl. 995; Uhler v. Moses, 200 Pa. St. 498, 50 Atl. 231; Mellor v. Pittsburgh, 201 Pa. St. 397, 50 Atl. 1011; Com- monwealth V. Huffman, 6 Pa. Supr. Ct. 211; MoHenry's- Petition, 6 Pa. Supr. Ct. 464; Denniston's Appeal, 8 Pa. Supr. Ct. 213; Marshall v. Am. Tel. &Tel. Co., 16 Pa. Supr. Ct. 615; Kulp V. Luzerne County, 20 Pa. Supr. Ct. 7; Road in Green & G. Tps., 21 Pa. Supr. Ct. 418; Com- monwealth V. Vetterlein, 21 Pa. Supr. Ct. 587; Blake v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. E. Co., 11 Pa. Dist. Ct. 151; McDonald v. New York, etc. R. E. Co., 33 R. I. 558, 51 Atl. 578; State V. Beaufort, 39 S. C. 5, 17 S. E. 355; Heston v. Mayhew, 9 S. D. 501, 70 N. "W. 635; Durham v. State, 89Tenn. 723, 18 S. W. 74; Taylor v. Badoux, 93 Tenn. 249, 21 S. W. 522; Har- rington V. Galveston, 1 Tex. Ct. App. 437; Aaron v. State, 34 Tex. Crim. App. 103,39 S. W. 367; Braun V. State, 40 Tex. Crim. App, 236, 49 S. W. 620; State v. Forest, 7 Wash. 54, 33 Pac. 1079; State v. Wilson, 9 Wash. 218, 37 Pac. 434; State v. Fawcett, 17 Wash. 188, 49 Pac. 346; State V. Moyer, 17 Wash. 643, 50 Pac. 492; State v. Richards, 76 Wis. 354, 44 N. W. 1104; Haley v. Jump River L. Co., 81 Wis. 413, 51 N. W. 321 ; State v. Common Coun- cil, 96 Wis. 73, 71 N. W. 86: Vorous v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 103 Wis. 76, 78 N. W. 163; State v. Owen, 7 Wyo; 84, 50 Pac. 193; Syndicate Imp. Co. v. Bradley, 7 Wyo. 328, 51 Pac. 242, 53 Pac. 533; Standard Cattle Co.. V. Baird, 8 Wyo. 144, 56 Pac. 598; Fisk V, Henarie, 143 U. S. 459, 12 S. C. Rep. 307, 35 L Ed. 1080; North Am. Trading & Trans. Co. v. Smith, 93 Fed. 7, 35 C. C. A. 183; Wetzel V. Paducah, 117 Fed. 647; Oldham v. Mayor, 102 Ala. 357, 14 So. 793; First Nat Bank v. Cooke, 3 Pa. Supr. 278; Debenture Corpo- ration V. Warren, 9 Wash. 813, 37 Pac. 451. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 471 the averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved," etc. An affirmative statute is one enacted in affirmative terms. Alderson, B., observed in Mayor of London v. The Queen,'" that " the words ' negative ' and ' affirmative ' statutes mean nothing. The question is whether they are repugnant or not to that which before existed. That may be more easily shown when the statute is negative than when it is affirm- ative, but the question is the same." If a statute contrary to a former one be expressed in negative words it operates to repeal the former ; so expressed it takes away any differ- ent common-law right or remedy.'^ In that form it is pro- hibitory and generally mandatory.'^ An act providing that " no corporation " shall interpose the defense of usury re- peals the laws against usury as to corporations.^' An act that "wo beer" shall be sold without a license abrogates any previous exemptions from licensing regulations.^^ An act which absolutely forbids prize fighting repeals a prior act which permitted a prize fight on the payment of a tax of five hundred dollars." The repugnance of any previous statute contrary to an enactment in negative words is very readily seen. Ifot so in the case of affirmative statutes. It is upon such enact- ments that debatable questions of repeal more frequently arise. The repeal in either case results from repugnancy, 50 13 Q. B. 33. Clarke, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 814. " Neg- 61 Bac. Abr., tit. Statute, G. ative statutes are mandatory, and 52Hurford v. Omaha, 4 Neb. 386; must be presumed to have been in- Bladen v. Philadelphia, 60 Pa. St. tended as a repeal of all conflicting 464; State v. Smith, 67 Me. 338; provisions, unless the contrary can People V. Allen, 6 Wend. 486; Koch be clearly seen." State v. Washoe V. Bridges, 45 Miss. 247; Rex v, Co. Com'rs, 33 Nev. 303, 37 Pac. 486. Newcomb, 4 T. R 368; Eex v. Lei- "Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine cester, 9 D. & R 773, 7 B. & C. 13; Bank, 16 Wis. 120; Curtiss v. Lea- Eeg. V. Fordham, 11 A. & El. 73; -vitt, 15 N. Y. 1, 85. Bowman v. Blyth, 7 El. & Bl. 47; MRead v. Storey, 6 H. & N. 433. Williams v. Swansea C. Nav. Co., See Strauss v. Heiss, 48 Md. 393. L. R. 3 Ex. 158; Liverpool Borough ssguHiyan v. State, 33 Tex. Crim. Bank v. Turner, SDe G., F. & J. App. 50, 34 S. W. 181. 603; Great Central Gas C. Co. v. 472 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. but this is not so easily perceived when the repealing stat- ute is affirmative in form. When it prescribes an exclusive rule it implies a negative, and repeals whatever of existing law stands in the way of its operation.'^ The intention to make the enactment exclusive may be deduced from the nature of the subject, and its necessary operation in com- parison with the necessary effect of prior laws. A statute in derogation of an existing statute will be strictly con- strued in consequence of implied repeals being regarded wifrh disfavor." § 249 (140). Repealing eflfect of aflSrmative statutes conferring power and regulating its exercise. — In organ- izing the powers of government there is a definite and pre- cise scheme or plan, and a unity and singleness of means employed to carry it into effect. There is but one chief magistrate, one legislature, one judiciary. There is but one revenue system, one police system. Public duties are de- fined and imposed on officers designated with certainty, without duplication or confusion, except by inadvertence. The exercise of power by one over another must be author- ized by law; its possession and scope will be such as is granted; when granted, if the mode of its exercise be also prescribed, it must be followed. In the grants, and in the regulation of the mode of exercise, there is an implied neg- ative; an implication that no other than the expressly granted power passes bj' the grant; that it is to be exer- cised only in the prescribed mode.*^ While an affirmative 56 Ex parte Joflfee, 46 Mo. App. 357, 67 Am. Dec. 246; Schuyler v. 360; Gassenheimer v. Dist. of Co- Mercer, 4 Gilra. 20; Look v. Miller, lumbia, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 108. 3 Stew. & Port. 13; White v. John- " Commonwealth v. Knapp, 9 son, 33 Miss. 68; Clarke v. State, id. Pick. 496; State v. Norton, 33 N. J. 361; Williams v. Potter, 2 Barb. L. 33; Melody v. Reab, 4 Mass. 471; 316; Peyton v. Moseley, 8 T. B. Dwelly V. D welly, 46 Me. 377; Mon. 77, 80; Street v. Common- Burnaide v. Whitney, 31 N. Y. wealth, 6 Watts & S. 209; Morlot v. 148; Gibson v. Jenney, 15 Mass. 205; Lawrence, 1 Blatch. 608, Fed. Cas. Wilbur V. Crane, 13 Pick. 384; No. 9815. Bailey v. Bryan, 8 Jones (N. C), sspeople v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., EBPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 473 provision in one statute does not necessarily negative affirm- ative provisions on the same subject in the same or other statutes,'' yet affirmative words may and often do imply a negative, not only of what is not affirmed, but of what has been previously affirmed, and as strongly as if expressed. An affirmative enactment of a new rule implies, a negative of whatever is not included, or is different; and if by the language used a thing is limited to be done in a particular form or manner, it includes a negative that it shall not be done otherwise.*" An intention will not be ascribed to the law-making power to establish conflicting and hostile sys- tems upon the same subject, or to leave in force provisions of law by which the later will of the legislature may be thwarted and overthrown. Such a result would render leg- islation a useless and idle ceremony, and subject the law to the reproach of uncertainty and unintelligibility.^^ An act which required trustees to collect debts due to banks whose charters were forfeited will be repealed by a later act which requires the trustees to sell all such debts.*- If there are two acts for the assessment and collection of a tax, and by one a notice of the election to vote it must be posted ten days, and published two weeks, and the tax is not to ex- ceed one dollar and fifty cents on the hundred dollars, and by the other the notice is posted twenty days, and pub- 33 Barb. 103, 131; State, the United Watts, 351, 86 Am. Dec. 185; New R. & Can. Co. pros., v. Commis- Haven v. Whitney, 36 Conn. 378; sioner, 37 N.J. L. 340; Rex V. North- Greensboro v. McAdoo, 113 N. C. leach & W. Road, 5 B. & Ad. 978; 359, 17 8. E. 178. Janney V. Buell, 55 Ala. 408; Lessee 'spiattsburg v. People's Tele- of Moore v, Vance, 1 Ohio, 1-10; phone Co., 88 Mo. App. 306. Phillips V. Ashi 63 Ala. 414; Ex- 60 Wells v. Supervisors, 103 U. S. celsior Petroleum Co. v. Embury, 635, 36 L. Ed. 133; Chandler v. •67 Barb. 361; Rochester v. Barnes, Hanna, 73 Ala. 390; Exparte JoflFee, 36 Barb. 657; Johnston's Estate, 33 46 Mo. App. 360; Webb v. Midway Pa. St. 511 ; Townsend's Case, Lumber Co., 68 Mo. App. 546. Plowd. 113; State, N. Hudson Co. siLyddy v. Long Island City, 104 E. R. Co. proa, V. Kelley, 34N. J.L. N. Y. 318, 10 N. E. 155. 75; Evansville v. Bayard, 39 Ind. 62 Commercial Bank of Natchez 450; North Canal St. Road Case, 10 v. Chambers, 8 Sm. & M. 9. -iT-i EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. lished three weeks, and the rate of taxation is not to exceed seventy cents on the hundred dollars, the two acts are re- pugnant, and the later repeals the former.'' An act pro- vided that in case of land damages for laying out roads, the county court should institute and prosecute in their names, in the circuit court, proceedings to ascertain the just com- pensation to be paid. It was held to be inconsistent with and to repeal a prior statute which, in such cases, required that the county" court award a writ of ad quod damnum re- turnable to itself.** Two acts related to the same subject- matter, the ferries of New York; the former to the ferries to Long Island, and the latter to all the New York ferries. They provided different and inconsistent modes of leasing or licensing the same. The last prevailed, displacing the other."' An act granting the exclusive right to construct and use street railroads in all the streets of a city will re- peal a prior act of the same tenor.** If two independent officers or public boards have each power to number and alter the numbers of houses in a city, for the purpose of dis- tinguishing them, the purpose would be frustrated by the duplication if both could act; therefore the power last granted was held exclusive." A statute creating a board of public works for cities of the first class and conferring powers on such boards im- pliedly repeals so much of former statutes as confers the same powers upon the city councils.''' And generally an act vesting the control of a thing in one body or board is repealed by a subsequent act vesting the same control in another body or board.'^ An act vesting in a court the power to change the name of any corporation was held to «3 People V. Burt, 43 Cal. 560 : State " Daw v. Metropolitan Board, 13 V. Newark, 28 N. J. L. 491; Bowen C. B. (N. S.) 161. V. Lease, 5 Hill, 221. " Nelden v. Clark, 20 Utah, 383, M Herron v. Carson, 26 W. Va. 62. 59 Pac. 524, 77 Am. St. Rep. 917. "s People V. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., "^ Hawkins v. Roberts, 123 Ala. 32 Barb. 102, 121. 130, 27 So. 337; Sinking Fund 66 West End, etc. R. R. Co. v. At- Com'i-s v. George, 104 Ky. 260, 47 lanta St. R. R. Co., 49 Ga. 151. S. W. 779, 84 Am. St. Rep. 454. EEPKALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 475' be repealed by a subsequent law authorizing the governor to improve, amend or alter the articles or conditions of any charter." Two acts providing for the drainage of swamp and low lands by different methods may co-exist;'^ so of two laws providing for different modes of service of process.'* A statute conferring upon the governor the power to revoke a commission in the militia whenever in- his judgment such action was necessary or expedient for the public good or good of the service was held not to be repealed by a law that a commissioned officer might be honorably discharged in certain specified cases and dis- missed for specified causes.'* Where a statute provides for a writ of error to a specified court, it operates as a repeal of any previous statute giving a writ of error to another and different court." § 250 (141). New grant of part of power already pos- sessed. — Where a later act grants to an officer or tribunal a part of a larger power already possessed, and in terms which interpreted by themselves import a grant of all the power the grantee is intended to exercise, it repeals the prior act from which the larger power had been derived. By a stat- ute of Kentucky of 1799 the county courts had power tO' appoint county jailers to serve during their pleasure. In 1802 a provision was inserted in an act to amend the penal laws, "that the several county courts respectively shall have full power to remove the keepers of the county jails whenever it shall appear to them that such jailers have been guilty of neglect of duty." This was held to repeal the prior statute.'* Ti Fort Pitt B. & L. Ass'n v. 76 winslow v. Morton, 118 N. C. Model Plan B. & L. Ass'n, 159 Pa. 486, 24 S. E. 417. St. 808, 28 Atl. 215. To same effect, " Brown v. United States, 171 U. McGivney v. Pierce, 87 Cal. 124, 25 S. 631, 19 S. C. Eep. 56, 42 L. Ed. 312. Pac. 269. 'SGrorham v. Luokett, 6 B. Mon. 7< Duke V. O'Bryan, 100 Ky. 710, 146. Marshall, J., said in this case: 39 S. W. 444, 824. "As it is unquestionable that the- T> Baldinger v. Eockford Ins. Co., power of the legislature to pre- 80 Minn. 147, 82 N. W. 1083. scribe the tenure of the oflflce of. 476 BEPBALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. While a statute existed giving appeals to the county- court from judgments of justices of the peace in all cases without regard to the amount, other than upon the verdict jailer, and to regulate the power of the county court in vacating that office, continued the same after the act of 1799 as it had been before; and as the subsequent legislative will upon a subject thus completely within its control must, if suffi- ciently indicated, prevail over that vpill as previously expressed, the inquiry is whether there is in the twentieth section of the act of 1803 any sufficient indication of the leg- islative will or intention that thenceforth the office of jailer shall not be held at the mere pleasure of the county court, but should only be subject to forfeiture by neglect of duty, and be thus placed on a footing with the great mass of other offices in this commonwealth. Bid the legislature intend to ex- press in this twentieth section the whole power of removal as it should thenceforth, exist in the county <;ourt? If they did, then as the power previously existing is incon- sistent with this intention, and as the proviso conferring the previous power is therefore inconsistent with the twentieth section of the act of 1803, intended to restrict that power, the proviso comes clearly within the purview of this twen- tieth section, and is embraced by the repealing clause of the statute, if indeed it would not be repealed by implication without it. " If it were allowable to suppose thatthelegislature whoframedand enacted thistwentieth section were ignorant of the proviso in the act of 1799, and of the power thereby vested in the county court, of re- moving the jailer at pleasure, the inference would seem to be irre- sistible, that as the twentieth sec- tion of the act of 1802 was intended to confer a new power on the county court, so it was intended to express, and did express, the whole power which it was intended that they should have over the subject. This would necessarily be the construc- tion of the section considered as conferring a new power. And as every person ignorant of the pre- existing law would, upon reading this section, understand it as con- ferring a new power, so every such person would understand it as con- ferring all the power which the court was intended to have. But supposing, as one must do, that the legislature of 1802 understood well the pi'e-existing law on the subject to which this twentieth section re- lates, that they knew that the county court had already the power of removing the jailer, not only for breach of duty, but for any other cause, and without cause and with- out question, then the inquiry comes, for what purpose and with what intent do these legislators in- troduce into this act for amending the penal laws, a section which professes to make a formal and substantial grant of power, which, construed by its terms, would be universally understood as granting a new power, and therefore as ex- pressing the whole power which EEPEALS AND REPEALING ACTS. 47'i of a jury, a new statute was passed which allowed appeals from such judgments when they exceeded $5. It was held a repeal of the former statute; for otherwise there would it was intended that the grantee should have? Why make an ex- press grant of a part of the power, if understanding that the whole BQwer, including this part, was al- rpady vested in the court, it was intended that the whole power, including this part, should still re- main? If the proviso of the act of 1799 remained in force after the enactment of the twentieth section of the act of 1803, then it is abso- lutely certain that so much of that section as relates to the removal of county jailers was utterly without efifect, and might just as well have been out of the section. And the same is true, if any part of the pre-existing power beyond that which is expressed in this twen- tieth section continued to exist after its enactment. For to the extent that the power is expressed in this section, it already existed and would have continued to exist without any new grant, and the new grant can have no effect what- ever, unless it have the effect of restricting the pre-existing power, by bringing it down to the meas- ure of the new grant. Can we then say that the legislature did not in- tend this section to have any effect and virtually expunge it from the statute ? Or must we allow to it the only effect which it can possibly have, by understanding it to be, what if construed exclusively with reference to its own terms it must be understood to be, a substantial grant of power expressing all the power the grantee was intended to have, and withholding or resuming whatever beyond this had been for- merly granted ? This question does not arise upon a single expression or clause of a sentence, making casual reference to. a subject for- eign to the context, and which may have been inadvertently intro- duced. Here is an entire section, which relates to no other subject but the power of removing the offi- cers therein named, and of which the principal subject is the powej of removing county jailers, and the principal object (apparently the least) to confer or regulate that power. The section must have beer introduced deliberately, designedlj and to effect some particular pur- pose. Are we at liberty to say that it should have no effect whatever 1 "It is not a case of the re-enact- ment of a former law in the same words, or with additional provis ions, nor of a regrant of a pre- existing power to the same or a greater extent. It is not a case ol cumulative or additional power or right or remedy. Nor does it come within the rule that a subsequent affirmative statute does not repeal a previous one, which can only apply where both can have effect. This is a formal and express grant of limited power to a deposi- tory which already had unlimited power. And it can have no effect, nor be ascribed to any other pur- pose, but that of limiting the ex- tent of the existing power. If oer- 478 EBPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 'be imputed to the legislature the folly of enacting a statute without purpose, and which leaves the law precisely as it itain provisions of two statutes are identical, the last need not be con- strued as repealing, but merely as continuing or re-affirming, tlie first, for which there might be various reasons. So if a statute give a remedy, or provide that certain acts shall be sufficient for the at- tainment or security of certain ob- jects, and a subsequent statute declare that a part of the same -remedy or some of the same acts, or other acts entirely different, shall suffice for the accomplish- ment of the same object, here the latter act does not necessarily re- peal the former, except so far as it may be expressed or implied in the former that the end shall be at- tained by no other mode but that which it prescribes. If there be no such restriction in the first, there is no conflict between them. Both may stand together with full effect, and the provisions of either may be pursued. " But if a subsequent statute re- quires the same, and also more than a former statute had made sufficient, this is in effect a repeal of so much of the former statute as declares the sufficiency of what it prescribes. And if the last act professes, or manifestly intends, to regulate the whole subject to which it relates, it necessarily supersedes and repeals all former acts, so far as it differs from them in its pre- scriptions. The great object, then, is to ascertain the true interpreta- tion of the last act. That being ascertained, the necessary conse- quence is, that the legislative in- tention thus deduced from it must prevail over any prior inconsistent intention to be deduced from a previous act. "Since, then, the twentieth sec- tion of the act of 1808, interpreted according to its own terms, imports a substantial grant of power, and of all the power that the county courts were intended to have on the subject, and since it would be useless and without effect, unless thus understood as regulating the whole subject of the removal of jailers by the county courts, we feel bound to give to it this inter- pretation; and, therefore, to con- clude that, after that act took ef- fect, the county courts had no other power of removing jailers but that which the twentieth section con- fei-s, of removing them whenever it shall appear to the court that such jailers have been guilty of a neglect of duty. If this twentieth section had been the first and only enactment on the subject, all must have concurred in the conclusion that it was intended to regulate the whole subject, and that it granted all the power which the court was intended to have. The difficulty, or rather the embarrass- ment^ in the case, arises from the fact that a previous law had given to the same grantee unlimited power on the same subject, and that this twentieth section makes no reference to the previous law, and contains no express words of re- striction or change, but, granting EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 4:7& stood before.'" By an act of 1776, adopted by Kentucky from Virginia, it was provided that " a person residing in any other country, for passing any lands and tenements in this commonwealth by deed, shall acknowledge or prove the same before " the mayor or chief magistrate of the city or corporation wherein or near to which he resides. But where there was no mayor or other chief magistrate within the county, then a certificate under the hands and seals of two justices or magistrates of the county, that the proof or acknowledgment has been made before them, should be sufHcient. And " where any person making such convey- ance shall be a feme covert, her interest in any lands or tene- ments should not pass thereby unless she personallj' ac- knowledge the same before such mayor or chief magistrate. an express and limited power, is framed as if it were the first and only act on the subject. But do not these circumstances indicate that it is to be construed as if it were the only act on the subject? Or shall the first act, which is inferior in authority so far as they conflict, so far affect the construction of the last as to deprive it of all effect? We say the last act must have ef- fect according to its terms and its obvious intent. And as both can- not have full operation according to their terms and intent, the first and not the last act must yield. If it could be supposed to have been a matter of doubt whether, under the act of 1799, the county court had power to remove the jailers for neglect of duty, or if any motive could be assigned for introducing a separate section expressly grant- ing this power, except the purpose of expressing the whole power which the courts were to have, then the basis of the construction which we have assumed would be greatly weakened, if not destroyed. But we do not perceive that any other plausible motive can be assigned. And as, notwithstanding the act of 1799, it was entirely within the leg- islative power to withdraw, retract or modify the power of removal thereby given to the county courts, and the courts had no right of re- sistance or refusal, we regard the subsequent grant of a more limited power, advisedly and formally made, as implying the resumption of the old grant, and a restriction of the power according to the terms of the new one, as, by the accept- ance of a new lease during a sub- sisting term, the rights of the ten- ant are governed by the terms of the new grant." 79 Curtis V. Gill, 34 Conn. 49; Par- rott V. Stevens, 37 Conn. 93. See United States v. Ten Thousand Ci- gars, 1 Woolw. 133, Fed. Gas. No. 16.451. 4:80 EBPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. or before two justices or magistrates as aforesaid." By an act passed in 1785, entitled "An act for, regulating convey- ances," it was provided that " when husband and wife shall have sealed and delivered a writing purporting to be a con- veyance of any estate or interest, if she appear in court and being examined privily and apart from her husband, by one of the judges thereof, etc., or if before two justices of the peace of that county in which she dwells, who may be empowered by commission, to be issued by the clerk of the court wherein the writing ought to be recorded," etc., it shall be sufficient to convey her estate. The court by McLean, J., said: "By the act of 1776 the acknowledgment and privy examination of a feme covert were required to be made be- fore the mayor or other chief magistrate, or before two justices or magistrates of the town or place where she shall reside. The acknowledgment before two justices is retained in the act of 1785 with this additional requisite, that the justices shall be commissioned, as provided, to perform this duty. This necessarilj'^ repeals that part of the prior act which authorized the acknowledgment to be taken before two justices without being commissioned. The latter act is in this regard repugnant to the former. The provisions cannot stand together, as the latter act superadds an essen- tial qualification of the justices not required by the former. "But the important question is whether, as the act of 1785 made no provision authorizing a mayor of a city to take the acknowledgment of a feme covert, that provision in the act of 1776 is repealed by it. In this respect it is clear there is no repugnancy between the two acts. The two provisions may well stand together; the latter is cumulative to the former." ^ % 251 (143). Repealing effect of new statutes changing criminal laws. — Penal statutes include the definition of offenses, and of punishments, not necessarily in the same act; but the definition of the offense and the prescription of 80 Daviess v. Fairbairn, 8 How. tenum, 56 Miss. 332. See Swan n v. 636, 11 L. Ed. 760; Gibbons v. Brit- Buck, 40 Miss. 268-307. EEPEALS AND REPEALING ACTS 481 the pepalty are so allied that legislation affecting one may affect the other. ^^ Where a statute prescribes a new pun- ishment for a common-law offense, it is still a common-law offense,^ and only the punishment is changed.*' But where a common-law offense is defined and enacted by statute, which also prescribes the penalty, the common law is re- pealed and the offense is thus made a statutory offense." A change in the elements of the offense or in the elements or amount of the penalty will destroy the identity of the of- fense and effect a repeal to the extent of the repugnance.*' When the new law uses the same words as the old, the sec- ond is declaratory and not repugnant, and there is no re- peal.*^ A re-enactment has been held a continuation though the punishment by imprisonment is reduced.*' A statute 81 Commonwealth v. Kimball, 21 Pick. 373; Commonwealth v. Mo- Donough, 13 Allen, 581 ; Flaherty V. Thomas, 13 Allen, 438. 82 Williams V. Reg., 7 Q. B. 250; McCann v. State, 13 Sm. & M. 471; State V. Daley, 29 Conn. 272, 276. 83 King V. Bridges, 8 East, 58. 84 Commonwealth v. Marshall, 11 Pick. 350, 22 Am. Dec. 377; Com- monwealth V. Cooley, 10 Pick. 87; State V. Boogher, 71 Mo. 631. 85Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429, 14 L. Ed. 210; Dowdell v. State, 58 Ind. 333 ; State v. Smith, 44 Tex. 443 ; State V. Whitworth, 8 Port. (Ala.) 434; Rex V. Cator, 4Burr. 2026; King V. Davis, 1 Leach's Cas. 371; United States V. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 20 L.- Ed. 153; Gorman v. Hammond, 28 Ga. 85; Mullen v. People, 31 111. 444; Miohell V. Brown, 1 K & E. 367; United States v. Case of Pencils, 1 Paine, 400, Fed. Cas. No. 15,924; People V. Bussell, 59 Mich. 104, 26 N. W. 306; State v. Horsey, 14 Ind. 185; State v. Pierce, id. 303; Leigh- 31 ton V. Walker, 9 N. H. 59; Nichols V. Squire, 5 Pick. 168; State v. Grady, 84 Conn. 118; State v. Daley, 39id.272; Commonwealth v. Gard- ner, 11 Gray, 438; State v. Massey. 103 N. C. 356, 9 S. E. 633; Turner v. State, 40 Ala. 31; Lindzey v. State.. 65 Miss. 543, 5 So. 99, 7 Am. St. Rep.- 674; Miles v. State, 40 Ala. 39; Buckallew v. Ackerman, 8 N. J. L, 48; People v. Tisdale, 57 Cal. 104; Reg. V. Youle, 6 H. & N. 753; State V. Hamblin, 4 Rich. (N. S.) 1; Sher- man V. State, 17 Fla. 888; Pitman V. Commonwealth, 3 Rob. (Va.) 813; Magruder v. State, 40 Ala. 347; Smith V. State, 1 Stew. 506; Wall V. State, 23 Ind. 150; State v. Craig, id. 185; Drew County v. Bennett, 43 Ark. 364; Hodnett v. State, 66 Miss. 36, 5 So. 518. 86 Commonwealth v. Gardner, 11 Gray, 438; State v. Gum bier, 37 Wis. 298. See Hirschburg v. Peo- ple, 6 Colo. 145. 87 State V. Wish, 15 Neb. 448, 19 N. W. 686. See Nichols v. Squire, 482 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. fixing the penalty for a wilful and malicious trespass wil'i not repeal an existing law fixing a different penalty for a wilful trespass. The elements of the offense defined in one section are not the same as those which constitute the of- fense in the other; the last act is cumulative; the two can stand together.*' A statute establishing and defining two degrees of murder to be found by the jury, one punishable according to the existing law by death, and the other by a milder punishment, imprisonment for life, will not have the effect to repeal the law against murder w^hich was punish- able by death without distinction of degrees.*' § 252 (143). Where a later statute contains no reference to the former statute, and defines an offense containing some of the elements constituting the offense defined in such former statute and other elements, it is a new and substan- tive offense. The two statutes can stand together and there is no repeal.'" So if the latet" statute prescribe a punishment for acts with only a part of the ingredients or incidents es- sential to constitute the offense defined in a former statute.'* But if the same offense, identified by name or otherwise, is altered in degrees or incidents, or if a felony is changed to a misdemeanor, or vice versa,^ the statute making such 5 Pick. 168; Gorman v. Hammond, 9 App. Div. 436, 41 N. T. S. 283; 38 Ga. 85; State v. Whitworth, 8 Golonbieski v. State, 101 Wis. 338, Port. 434; Smith v. State, 1 Stew. 77 N. W. 189. 506; Carter v. Hawley, Wright siCoghill v. State, 37 Ind. 111. A (Ohio), 74; Leighton v. Walker, 9 statute imposing a penalty on the N. H. 59; Flaherty v. Thomas, 13 sale of fireworks without special Allen, 428; Blackwell v. State, 45 license is not repugnant to and Ark. 90. therefore not repealed by a subse- ts State V. Alexander, 14 Eioh. quent act imposing taxes for rev- 247; Blackwell v. State, 45 Ark. 90. enue purposes on the manufactur- See Coghill v. State, 37 Ind. 111. ers and venders of fireworks. 89 Commonwealth v. Gardner, 11 Homer v. Commonwealth, 106 Pa. Gray, 438. St.321,5l Am. Rep.521; Youngblood 00 State V. Alexander, 14 Rich. v. Sexton, 33 Mich. 406, 425, 20 Am. 247 ; State v. Benjamin, 3 Ora Eep. 654. See State v. Duncan, 16 135; Bennett v. State, 2 Yerg. 472; Lea, 79. Eex V. Downs, 3 T. B. 569 ; Pons v. 92 Rex v. Davis, 1 Leach, 371 ; Peo- State, 49 Miss. 1 ; People v. Koenig, pie v. Tisdale, 57 Cal. 104; Mon- KEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 483 changes has the effect to repeal the former statute. Two penal provisions, passed in one act or at different times, may co-exist though covering in part the same acts, and ap- plicable in part to the same persons, and prescribing differ- ent penalties. One will not render the other nugatory con- trary to the legislative intent.^' Where a new law covers the whole subject-matter of an old one, adds new offenses, and prescribes different penalties for those enumerated in the old law, then such former law is. repealed by implication."' The effect would probably be that of revision and repeal, though no new offenses were added; it is enough that the new statute embraces.all the provisions of previous statutes on the same subject which are intended to have force.'^ The revision of criminal laws or new legislation which manifestly is intended to furnish the only rule that shall govern has the same effect as like legislation has on other subjects.^^ In each case it is a ques- ' tion of legislative intent. The question ever is. Did the leg- islature intend to repeal the former law, or was the new law intended to be merely cumulative?"'' In Ke Baker/' Bramwell, B., said: "When a statute directs something to be done in a certain event, and another law is made which geon V. People, 55 N. Y. 613; Hayes tain privilege and a penalty for ex- V. State, 55 Ind. 99; Michell v. ercising it without a license; a sub- Brown, 1 E. & E. 267; Sherman sequent act changed the tax and V. State, 17 Fla. 888; State V. Young, provided a remedy for its colleo- 49 La. Ann. 70, 31 So. 143; State v. tion, but was silent as to the pen- Brown, 48 La. Ann. 1569, 21 So. 143. alty; held, that there was no such 93 Davies v. Harvey, L. R. 9 Q. B. incompatibility as to cause a re- 438; The Industry, 1 GalL 114, Fed. peal. Gate v. State, 3 Sneed, 120. Gas. No. 7038. 96 United States v. Tynen, 11 91 Norris v. Crocker, 18 How. 439, Wall. 88, 20 L. Ed. 153; State v. 14 L. Ed. 310; Dowdell v. State, 58 Watts, 33 Ark. 304. Ind. 333; Johns v. State, 78 id. 383, 9'Sifred v. Gommonwealth, 104 41 Am. Rep. 577; Michell v. Brown, Pa. St. 179; United States v. Case 1 E. & E. 267. of Pencils, 1 Paine, 400, Fed. Gas. 95 Commonwealth v. Kelliher, 13 No. 15,934; Osborn, Ex parte, 34 Allen, 480. See Nusser v. Common- Ark. 479; Coats v. Hill, 41 id. 149. wealth, 35 Pa. St. 126. A statute 98 g H. & N. 319. fixed a tax on the exercise of a cer- 484 KEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. appoints something else to be done, not contradictory but more comprehensive, and including the former, I cannot help thinking that the flrst act is gone." Where, however, the new statute contains no reference for repeal or otherwise 'to existing statutes, and defines an offense made punishable by a prior law, and imposes a new punishment, it will not repeal such prior law as to existing cases; for, as the new law will only operate prospectively, there is as to offenses already committed no conflict. The prior law will operate as to all offenses against it com- mitted up to the time that the new law goes into effect, and the trial may be had and judgment pronounced afterwards." The same rule would govern where a cumulative penalty is prescribed.' A statute providing for or defining an offense created by a previous statute, and providing a materially different pun- ishment, repeals the former aot.'^ If the punishment pre- scribed by statute for larceny of any sum above $50 be imprisonment in the state's prison not exceeding five years, and subsequently the legislature enact a severer punishment for larceny of an amount exceeding $2,000, the law is not thereby changed as to larcenies of amounts below the latter sum.' The repugnance extends no further, and is the limit of repeal by implication.'' So where a statute imposed a 991\Tongeon v. People, 55 N. T. v. Horsey, 14 Ind. 185; State v. 613; People v. Hobson, 48 Mich. 27, Pierce, 14 Ind. 303; Mullen v. Peo- 11 N. W. 771; Pitman v. Common- pie, 31 III. 444; Michell v. Brown, wealth, 2 Rob. (Va.) 813; Mitchell 1 E. & E. 267; Robinson v. Emer- V. Duncan, 7 Fla. 13; Miles v. State, son, 4 H. & C. 355; Cole v. Coulton, 40 Ala. 39; Commonwealth v. Pe- 3 E. & E. 695; Henderson v. Sher- gram,l Leigh, 569; Commonwealth borne, 2 M. & W. 236; Attorney- V. Wyatt, 6 Rand. 694; State v. General v. Lockwood, 9 M. & W. Young, 49 La. Ann. 70, 31 So. 143. 391; Frazier v. Alexander, 75 Cal. See Rex v. McKenzie, R. & R. C. C. 147, 16 Pac. 757; In re Ambrosewf, 439. 109 Cal. 264, 41 Pao. 1101. > Shoemaker v. State, 20 N. J. L. 'State v. Grady, 34 Conn. 118; 153. State v. Miller, 58 Ind. 899. 2Statev. Smith, 41 Tex. 443: Oor- ^ By a statute the punishment man v. Hammond, 38 Ga. So; State for stealing a cow was a fine of EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. . 485 certain fine and a minimum term of imprisonment, it was held not repealed by a subsequent statute which gave the court a discretion on proof to mitigate this punishment. The court say: "It does not change any previously pre- scribed penalty, nor does it substitute a new or different kind of punishment in the place of that which the former statutes had affixed to certain classes of offenses. The effect of the statute was merely to vest in the court a discretion by the exercise of which they were authorized to mitigate the sentence to which the offender was liable, by dispensing with a portion of the prescribed punishment. The extent of the repeal of previous statutes is then only this: That, in a certain class of cases, instead of a fixed or inflexible rule of punishment which could not be modified or varied, the court has authority to substitute a milder sentence. Clearly such a statute is not a violation of any right or privilege of an accused party, nor does it render the class of offenses to which it relates, and which were committed prior to its en- actment, dispunishable. It does not infiict any greater punishment than was before prescribed; it is not, therefore, ■ex post facto; it only authorizes a mitigation of a penalty ; it is therefore an act of clemency which violates no right, but grants a privilege to a convicted party." * § 253 (144). It has been held that a subsequent act may provide an alternative punishment in mitigation of that previously prescribed without being ex postfacto.^ A stat- ute imposing for an offense the penalty of imprisonment in the house of correction in the county where the offense was committed was held not repealed by a subsequent stat- ute providing that the court in its discretion may commit ten pounds, or, if the defendant is Cush. 337; Commonwealth v. Gard- iinable to pay, then whipping; ner, II Gray, 445; Commonwealth held, that the punishment, after v. MoKenney, 14 id. 1; Calder v. whipping was abolished, was the Bull, 3 Ball. 386; Walker v. State, fine. State v. Hamblin, 4 Rich. 7 Tex. App. 245. (N. S.) 1. « Turner v. State, 40 Ala. 31; 5 Uolan V. Thomas, 13 Allen, 431 ; Greer v. State, 33 Tex. 588. But see Commonwealth v. Wyman, 13 post, % 671. 48tl EEPEAES AND EBPEALING ACTS. the person under sentence to the house of correction in any county in the state in the same manner as he might be to the countj^ where the court is holden, and that all inconsist- ent statutes are repealed.' The court said : " The change is not in the nature of the penalty or its degree, but only in the locality where it may be inflicted. The essential rights of a person convicted are not materially affected, nor is the punishment aggravated, by an imprisonment in one county rather than another. There would be great force in the argument [that there is an implied repeal] if the new statute had authorized the imprisonment to be inflicted in a penal institution designed or appropriated for the punish- ment of offenses of a higher or more aggravated nature than those punishable in the house of correction, although the term of imprisonment had remained unchanged. . . . But under the statutes of this commonwealth the several houses of correction in the different cotinties of the com- monwealth are places designated and used for the punish- ment of offenses of the same grade and degree; they are all subject to the same rule of government; the persons committed to them are under substantially the same disci- pline, and are entitled to the same rights and privileges. In legal contemplation, a commitment to a house of correc- tion in one county for a specific term cannot be regarded as a higher or lesser punishment than a commitment to a house of correction in another county for the same period of time. The essential elements of the penalty are the same in either case." A change of procedure sometimes has been emphasized as aiding the inference of repeal.' Where a statute prohibited an act under a penalty to be enforced hy indictment, and a subsequent statute gave a qui tarn action for such penalty, the latter was held merely cumulative, and did not repeal the remedy given by the former act.' A statute authorizing the prosecution of all misdemeanors by ' Carter v. Burt, 12 Allen, 434. Nusser v. Commonwealth, S5 Pa. 8 Michell V. Brown, 1 E. & E 367; St. 126. 1 Bush V. Republic, 1 Tex. 455. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 487 information was held to repeal a prior statute which pro- vided that the violation of certain sections against gam- bling should be prosecuted by indictment.'" A statute made it a misdemeanor to injure or remove any fence or wall sur- rounding any yard, garden, field, or pasture. A later stat- ute, making it a misdemeanor to injure or destroy any part of a wire fence situated on the land of another, was held not to repeal the former.^' A law making it unlawful to keep open on Sunday any store, shop, or place for the pur- pose of trade was held not to repeal a prior law to punish any one who should keep open a saloon on Sunday.'^ An act providing for the deposit in banks of public funds does not repeal or affect the criminal code as to the embezzlement of public money." An indeterminate sentence act was held not to repeal prior provisions of the code requiring the jury to fix the penalty, but merely to suspend such provisions, and when crimes were excepted from the former act the provisions of the code at once applied." A statute provid- ing that no person indicted for an offense shall be convicted thereof unless by confession of his guilt in open court or by the verdict of a jury accepted and recorded in open court was held not to repeal, by implication, a former statute that judgment may be rendered against the defendant in a criminal case if he fails to plead on the overruling of a de- murrer to the indictment or information.^' § 254 (145). Statutes granting larger or diiferent power or right, — A new statute which affirmatively grants a larger jurisdiction or power, or right, repeals any prior stat- ute by which a power, jurisdiction or right less ample or absolute had been granted.'^ If the exercise of a power 10 Territory v. Cutinola, 4 it. M. " People v. Murphy, 203 111. 493, 305, 14 Pac. 809. 67 N. E. 226. 11 State V. Biggers, 108 N. C. 760, i^ State v. Harding, 20 Wash. 556, 13 S. E. 1024. 56 Pac. 399, 939. Instate V. Binnard, 21 Wash, 349, 's Farley v. De Waters, 3 Daly, 53 Pac. 210. 193; Regina v. Harden, 3 Ellis & B. 13 Whitney v. State, 53 Neb. 287, 188; Schneider v. Staples, 66 Wis. 73 N. W. 270. 167, 28 N. W. 145; Board of Com- 488 EEPEALS AND EEPKALING ACTS. granted by a legislative act may include going beyond lim- its fixed by a prior statute, such limitation is impliedly re- moved, at least so far as it conflicts with the doing of that which is subsequently authorized. Thus, a power given to a municipal corporation to create a debt and provide for its payment empowered it to provide for the payment by tax- ation according to the exigency of the contract, though tax- ation for that purpose would exceed a limitation in the general law in force as to the annual rate of taxation." An English statute authorized the removal of poor persons likely to become chargeable. The power was given to two justices, one to be of the quorum. A later statute recited that act and repealed the provision for removal on the prob- ability of their becoming chargeable, and enacted that a re-' moval might be made of such persons after they had become chargeable to the parish, by two justices of the peace, with- out mention of the quorum. It was held that the require- ment that one of the justices be of the quorum, contained in the previous act, was repealed by implication.'' Where the later statute merely extends the power or right to new subjects, though without mentioning the limitations appli- cable to the subjects to which the early law referred, they may, by construction, be held to attach to the new subjects, when found consonant to the manifest intention of the leg- islature, or when such construction accords with its uni- form policy." By the Eevised Statutes of New Tork,^'' an incorporated academy could take and hold by gift, grant or devise real and personal property, the clear yearly in- come or revenue of which did not exceed the value of |4,000. missioners v. Potts, Sheriff, 10 Ind. n Commonwealth v. Commission- 286; Mayor, etc. of Jersey City v. ersof Allegheny Co., 40 Pa. St. 348. Jersey City, etc. R. R. Co., 20 N. J. is Regina v. Llangian, 4 B. & S. Eq. 360; Commissioners of Knox 249. Co. V. McComb, 19 Ohio St. 320; w Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, MoRoberts v. Washburne, 10 Minn. 43 N. T. 424; State v. Tolly, 37 S. 23; State v. Burton, 33 Neb. 823, 51 C. 551, 16 S. E. 195; Frazier v. Rail- ^- W. 140, way Co., 88 Tenn. 138, 12 S. W. 537. 2« 1 R S. 462, § 42. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 4.89 By subsequent acts trusts were authorized to be created by grants, devises and bequests of property to any incorporated college or other literary incorporated institution for specific purposes of support of liberal education. By the terms of these acts no limit in amount or value of property which can thus be given in trust is prescribed. The court say: "But these statutes are in no sense repugnant to the gen- eral law of the state, limiting, and restricting the amount and value of property which can be taken and held by lit- erary and educational corporations, and the general laws are in harmony with the general policy of the state, which has been uniform and consistent so far as such policy is in- dicated by legislation in relation to gifts in mortmain and the power of corporations to take and hold property. Spe- cial trusts were authorized to be created by the acts of 1840 and 1841, in furtherance of the general objects of the insti- tutions named; but such trusts can be created and full ef- fect given to the acts within the limits imposed by the general laws upon the power of the corporations to acquire and hold property. The general laws of restraint and those particular acts permitting special trusts may stand together. . . . There being no express repeal of the general pro- vision of the law, or repudiation of the uniform policy of the state, the intent of the legislature to do either cannot be implied. Unlimited trusts of this character might be- come an unmitigated evil, and no contingent good could compensate for the actual evil attendant upon withdrawing property from general use and placing it in dead hands. Judges have given the widest possible scope to ctatutes in restraint of the disposal of property in mortmain, and have been astute in their arguments for the application of such statutes to cases as they arose.'' The courts ought not to impute an intent to the legislature not clearly expressed, in direct hostility to the traditions and policy of the past. The institute can 'take and hold' property within the lim- its prescribed, but can neither take nor hold in excess of 21 Per Gibson, Ch. J., Hillyard v. Miller, 10 Pa. St. 326. 490 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. that limit; effect will not be given to a transgressive be- quest in excess of the amount authorized." ^^^ A local act directed the trustees of a turnpike to keep their accounts and proceedings in books to which all per- sons should have access. A subsequent general turnpike act recites the importance of a uniform system to be adhered to in the laws relating to turnpikes, and enacted that for- mer laws should continue in force, except as they were thereby varied or repealed; that the trustees should keep their accounts'in a book to be open to the inspection of the trustees and creditors of the tolls, and that the book of their proceedings should be open to the inspection of the trustees. It was held that the provision in the local act giving aright of access to all persons was repealed.''^ Thus it will be seen that the grant by the legislature of a power or right which is inconsistent with one already possessed will repeal or modify it.^' It is different and inconsistent when its exer- cise is made to depend on different conditions, or it is con- ditioned on different things.^* So, conferring a new right will displace and repeal one previously granted, where their co-existence would be inconvenient, or it otherwise is justlj' inferable that the legislature intended a repeal.^' It will, however, be deemed cumulative if there are no negative words and no positive repugnance.^* § 255 (146). Repeal by radical change of leading part or system. — An intention to repeal certain statutory pro- visions may be inferred from radical changes or abolition of the leading parts of the statute to which they were con- ditions or ancillary.^' The Y Geo. I., chapter 21, prohibited 21° Qhamberlain v. Chamberlain, 25 gte\vard v. Greaves, 10 M. & 43 N. Y. 424, 438, 439. W. 711; O'Flaherty v. McDowell, 6 22 Rex V. Northleach & Witney H. L. Cas. 143; Davison v. Farmer, Road, 5 B. & Ad. 978. 6 Ex. 243, 256; Chapman v. Mil- 23 Korah v. Ottawa, 33 III. 131, 83 vian, 5 Ex. 61. Am. Deo. 355; Gibbons v. Brit- 26(johen v. Texas Pac. R. R. Co., tenum, 56 Miss. 333; Farley v. De 2 Woods, 846. Waters, 3 Daly, 193. 27 Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Park, a^Gwinner v. Lehigh, etc. R. R. 66 Kan. 248, 71 Pao. 586; State v. Co., 55 Pa. St. 136. Estep, 66 Kan. 416, 71 Pac. 857. REPEALS AND EEPBALING ACTS. 491 bottomry loans by Englishmen to foreigners on foreign ships engaged in the Indian trade. This restriction wa& held silently repealed by the subsequent enactments which put an end to the monopoly of the East India Company and threw its trade open to foreign as well as to British ships.-^ An act providing an entirely new system for the compen- sation of county officers repeals all prior laws on the sub- ject.2' In the case cited the court says: "But if a statute embrace the essential provisions of an antecedent one on the same subject, and formulate a new system, the inten- tion that the new shall be a substitute for the old is manifest, although there be no expressed intention to that effect." § 256 (147). Effect of clause repealing all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with new law. — Affirmative statutes which contain no reference to existing statutes, either to amend or repeal them, import that the law-maker has no conscious purpose to affect them, unless by congruous addi- tion. On the other hand, when there is inserted in a stat- ute a provision declaring a repeal of all inconsistent acts and parts of acts, there is an assumption that the new rule to some extent is repugnant to some law enacted before. There is a repeal to the extent of any repugnancy in either case, but no farther. The insertion, therefore, of such a general repealing clause adds nothing to the repealing effect of the act.'" But some cases hold that the insertion of such a clause has a restraining effect on the repealing force of the new statute," and that a new statute intended as a 28 The India, Brown & L. 321. So. 824; Birmingham B. & L. Ass'n 29 Commonwealth v. Mann, 168 v. May & T. Hardware Co., 99 Ala. Pa. St. 390, 81 Atl. 1003; Common- 276, 13 So. Q12; Bank of British wealth V. Allegheny County, 168 North Am. v. Cahn, 79 Cal. 463, 21 Pa. St. 303, 81 Atl. 1061. Pac. 863; De Gravelle v. Iberia, 30 Beading v. Shepp, 3 Pa. Dist. etc. Dr. Dist., 104 La. 703, 29 So. Ct. 137; North Towanda v. Brad- 303; People v. McAllister, 10 Utah, ford County, 3 Pa. Dist. Ct. 517; 357, 37 Pac. 578; Pierce v. Corn- State V. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546, 33 mercial Invest. Co., 30 Wash. 27-\ S. W. 481, 34 L. R A. 656. 70 Pao. 496. 31 Maxwell v. State, 89 Ala. 150, 7 492 EEPEALS AND EEPKALING ACTS. substitute or revision of a former one, if it has this general repealing clause, will not repeal the provisions of the for- mer law which are not inconsistent with the new.''' The clause repealing all inconsistent acts and parts of acts has sometimes been classed with express repeals,'^ but it has been held not to be an express repeal within the meaning of a constitutional provision as to repeals.'* It is to be sup- posed that courts will be less inclined against recognizing repugnancy in applying such statutes, while, in dealing with those of the other class, they will, as principle and authority requires, be astute to find some reasonable mode of reconciling them with prior statutes, so as to avoid a repeal by implication.'^ An act in general terms repeal- ing all conflicting provisions of previous acts, it is said, will have the effect to repeal all acts identical with any of those S2 Johnson v. Southern Mut. B. & L. Ass'n, 97 Ga. 623, 25 S. E. 358; People V. Van Pelt, 130 Mich. 621, 90 N. W. 424; Barden v. Wells, 14 Mont. 462, 36 Pao. 1046; Jobb v. Meagher County, 20 Mont. 424, 51 Pao. 1034; State v. Craig, 22 Ohio C. C. 441; Hurst v. Samuels, 29 S. C. 470, 7 S. E. 823; Cooperative S. & L. Ass'n V. Fawick, 11 S. D. 89, 79 N. W. 847; Cosh-Murray Co. v- Tuttioh, 10 Wash. 449, 38 Pac. 1134: Holden v. Minnesota, 137 U. S. 483, 11 S. C. Rep. 143, 34 L. Ed. 734. But see State v. Welbers, 11 S. D. 86, 75 N. W. 820; State v. Carron Hill Coal Co., 4 Wash. 422, 30 Pac. 728; post, §§ 269-271. 33 Bish. W. Laws, § 112a; State V. Kelley, 34 N. J. L. 75, 77; Com- monwealth V. Churchill, 3 Met. 118. 34 State V. Yardley, 95 Tenn. 540, 33 S. W. 481, 34 L. R A. 656. In this case the court says: "The words of the fourth section, ' that all laws and parts of laws in con- flict with this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed,' do not make it an expressly repealing act Eeally that section adds nothing of virtue or meaning to the act, and takes nothing from it. All prior conflicting laws and parts of laws were impliedly repealed by the former sections of the act, and, as a consequence, no such laws or parts of laws ■ were left for the fourth section to operate upon. That section was, therefore, use- less, and of no force or effect what- ever. It had no oflice to perform and performed none. Its presence 'in the bill did not make the act a repealing law or a non-repealing law, and it will not be regarded for the purpose of vitiating the law, nor will it be permitted to have that effect." 35 Eex v. Northleaoh & Witney Eoad, 5 B. & Ad. 978. KEPEALS AND KEPEALING ACTS. 493- expressly repealed.^' But such a clause will not repeal what is merely inconsistent with the void part of the new law." The insertion of this clause will not give a general act any additional efficacy to repeal local or special laws.'* A statute providing a remedy for an illegal tax should not be deemed embraced in a general repeal of all laws relating to assessments in an act prescribing and regulating the method of assessing taxes.'' A general clause in an act otherwise unconstitutional, repealing all acts and parts of acts contravening its provisions, will have no effect; for, being void, no acts or parts of acts could contravene its provisions." Nor will an unconstitutional amendment im- pliedly repeal the original act by reason of conflict." § 257. Effect of repeal of statute adopted by refer- ence. — A statute which refers to and adopts the provisions- of another statute is not repealed by the subsequent repeal of the original statute adopted, but the provisions adopted continue in force so far as the new statute is concerned, the same as before the repeal.^^ A statute providing for sub- mitting the question of the removal of a county seat to a popular vote at the April election was held not affected by a statute which discontinued such elections or postponed S6 State V. Barrow, 30 La. Ann. State v. Carson, 6 Wash. 250, 33- Pt. I, 657. In Mahoney v. Wright, Pao. 428. 8eepost, §§ 274-278. 10 Irish C. L. (N. S.) 420, Lefroy, 39 Shear v. Commissioners, 14 Fla.. 0. J., said: "It is settled by author- 146. ity that the recital of an intention *" Ante, § 246. merely, in a subsequent statute, to *^ Ex parte Davis, 81 Fed. 396. repeal a former specific statute, *^ Phoenix Ass. Co. v. Fire De- will not operate by implication to partment, 117 Ala. 631, 28 So. 843, repeal the former statute, and that, 42 L. R. A. 468; Shull v. Barton, 58 in order to effect such a repeal. Neb. 741, 79 N. W. 732; Wicls v. Ft. there must be a clause of repeal in Plain, etc. R. E, Co., 37 App. Div, the repealing statute." 577, 50 N. Y. S. 479; People v. Web- 37 Board of County Com'rs v, ster, 8 Misc. 133, 28 N.Y. 8. 646; First Nat. Bank, 6 Colo. App. 423, Sika v. Chicago, eta R. R. Ca, 21 40 Pac. 894. Wis. 370; Schwenke v. Union 38 Town School Dist. v. School Depot & R. R. Ca, 7 Colo. 513, 5- District, 73 Vt. 451, 48 AtL 697; Pac. 816; Regina v. Stock, 3 Nev. & Perry, 430. 494 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. them until October. These statutes are not laws on the same subject. The former should be construed as fixing the time for taking the vote, and would not be changed if the April elections for election of officers were abolished.^' The re-enactment of some of the sections of one act, in a subsequent one providing for a different scheme, is not a repeal by implication of these sections in the first act; nor does a provision in the second act suspending the operation of the similar sections in that act have the effect to suspend the operation of those in the first act." § 258 (148). Reconcilement of affirmative statutes — Illustrations. — The cases are very numerous in which an important question is decided upon the general principle that a statute without negative words will not repeal exist- ing statutes, unless there is an unavoidable repugnancy. A reference to a multitude of such cases has been given in a note to another section.^' It is not an exhaustive list, but is full enough for practical purposes. It is now proposed to analyze a few well-considered cases to illustrate the practical operation of the principle requiring the reconcile- ment, if possible, of statutes, where there is a question of inconsistency between them. In McCool V. Smith ^^ a plaintiff claiming title by descent from an illegitimate child brought ejectment, having, as the law then stood, no title. Pending the action a retro- spective amendatory act was passed giving effect to an ex- isting act from an earlier date and thereby covering the date of the descent in question, conferring the right to in- herit on such children " the -same as if such act had been in force at the time of such death." This amendatory statute was held not to repeal, as to such oases, the common-law rule, and a state statute declaratory of it, requiring a plaintiff to have title at the commencement of his action. The general rule being that repeals by implication are not favored, there will be no such repeal if it be possible to « Cole V. Supervisors, 11 Iowa, 553. « Ante, § 2.39. " Powers V. Shepard, 48 N. Y. 540. « 1 Black, 459, 17 L. Ed. 218. EEPEALS AND KEPEALIN& ACTS. 495 reoonpile the two acts. The court, by Swayne, J., said: " It is possible to reconcile the two acts. It may well be that the legislature intended to vest the title retrospectively for the purpose of giving effect to mesne conveyances and preventing frauds, without intending also to throw the burden of the costs of an action of ejectment, then pending, upon a defendant who, as the law and facts were at the commencement of the action, must have been the successful party. A stronger case than this must be presented to in- duce us to sanction such a result by our judgment. If the plaintiff can recover, it must be in an action brought after the 16th of February, 1857. He cannot recover upon a title acquired since the commencement of the suit." In a curative act it was provided that when an instrument made in good faith and on a valuable consideration, and intended to operate as a conveyance, is placed on record in the county where the lands lie, and the paper has a defect in some statutory requisites in the acknowledgment or cer- tificate of acknowledgment, the record shall operate as legal notice of all the rights secured by the instrument. Six years afterwards the legislature enacted an amendment to the statutes relative to deeds by adding a section prohibiting the recording of such defective conveyances. This was held not a repeal of the curative act. "Eepeals by implication," say the court, " are not favored, and there is certainly much room for both of these statutes to operate without conflict. Both are designed to guard and secure rights; not to impair or destroy them. And the grounds of policy for the [cura- tive statute], as one to operate in future, were as evident [when the other was subsequently passed] ; and when the legislature required registers to abstain from recording de- fective papers, they were well aware that such papers after all would sometimes get on record, and that important in- terests might be sacrificed unless some effect should be given to such records. Accepting this as a true and practical view of the matter, they allowed the [curative act] to remain and endeavored by [the other act] to lessen the occasions for its 496 EEPEALS AND BEPEALING ACTS. application." ^' A Mississippi act passed in 1852 appropriated a fund derived from a certain source, then in the state treasury, to the several counties to be expended for a speci- fied purpose. A portion of this appropriated fund was still in the treasury in 1857, and was largely increased by accre- tions subsequently to the appropriation. The legislature, by an amendment passed the last mentioned year, not referring to the other nor specially to the money appropriated by it, directed a different use of the moneys then in the treasury. It was held possible to reconcile these acts. The portion of the fund which was in the treasury in 1852 was held still appropriated and subject to the act of that year, and that act not repealed ; that the subsequent act related only to the residue; that thus the acts could stand together.*^ § 259. Repeal by implication — Particular acts con- strued — Acts relating to the liquor traffic. — Two acts were passed at one session of the legislature;, the first one taking effect imposed a license tax, for the state $300, and for the county $400, upon every vendor of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, doing business for one year or less, and pro- vided that any person who should engage in the sale thereof without having paid this tax should, on conviction, be fined in double the amount of the license. The other act was to regulate for police purposes the same trafiic ; it prescribed a penalty of not less than two hundred nor more than five hundred dollars for clandestine sales. It was held that there was no repeal. The last act was intended to punish for occa- sional sales of liquor by unauthorized persons having no bar- rooms or regular places of business, and whose sales would be no particular detriment to the revenue; the other act applied to those who engaged in selling as a business.*' An act prohibited the sale of liquor in four counties, one of which contained a city of the fourth class. A later law au- thorized cities of the fourth class to prohibit, license and *' Brown v. MoCormiok, 28 Midi. <8 McAfee v. Southern R. R. Co., 36 215. Miss. 669. "Blaoliwell v. State, 45 Ark. 90. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 4:97 regulate the liquor traffic. This was held to repeal the for- mer law as to such city.^" A local-option law applicable to part of a county was held to be repealed by a subsequent license law applicable to the whole county.'' An act pro- hibiting the sale of liquor within five miles of specified churches was held not to repeal an act granting to a city within the five-mile limit the power to regulate the sale of liquor.'^ An act similar to the former was held not to be repealed, as to a town within the prescribed limits, by the mere passage of a later act giving such town the power to license such sale; but it was held the prohibitory act would continue in force until the town acted under the power given.^' A statute of Kentucky authorized Hardin county by vote to prohibit the sale of liquor therein. The vote was taken and prohibition adopted. A later act provided that the question should be again submitted to the voters of the county and the vote taken by districts. The old act was held to remain in force until a vote was taken, and after that in such districts as voted for prohibition." An act which provides for the inspection of liquors is not repealed by an act to regulate their sale.*' A law against selling liquor without a license was held not to be repealed by a subse- quent act which prohibited the keeping a place where liq- uors were received or kept for unlawful sale or use, and which also made the sale of such liquors a crime.'^ A gen- eral law imposing a penalty for selling without a license is not repealed or affected by a later act authorizing cities of the third class to license and regulate such sale and to im- pose a penalty for violating the ordinances passed under 50 Brown v. Commonwealth, 98 Tabor v. Lander, 94 Ky. 337, 21 S. Ky. 653, 34 S. W. 12. W. 1056; State v. Witter, 107 N. C. 51 Yunger v. State, 78 Md. 574, 28 792, 13 S. E. 328. Atl. 404. 54 Kirkpatrickv. Commonwealth, 62 Hart V. State, 88 Ga. 635, 15 S. 95 Ky. 336, 25 S. W. 113. E. 684. ^ State v. Meek, 26 Wash. 405, 67 53 Gilmore v. State, 125 Ala. 59, 38 Pac. 76. So. 383. To same effect, State v. 56 state v. McCoy, 86 Minn. 149, Snow, 117 N. C. 774j 23 S, E. 833; 90 N. W. 805. 33 498 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. such power." A statute making it unlawful for any maker, brewer or distiller of beer or other intoxicating liquor, or other person or corporation, to sell or deliver any beer or other intoxicating liquor in the District of Columbia on Sun- day, was held not to repeal a prior act which permitted hotel keepers to sell to their guests at their meals or in their rooms on Sunday.'' An act imposing a penalty on any minor over sixteen years of age, who, for the purpose of in- ducing any person to sell or give him liquor, represents to such person that he is twenty-one, was held not to repeal a prior act making it a misdemeanor to sell liquor to minors.'' § 260. Same — Acts relating to courts, jurisdiction, practice, procedure, etc. — A subsequent statute which institutes new methods of proceeding does not, without negative words, repeal a former statute relative to proced- ure.*" The statute authorizing a proceeding to contest the validity of a will " by petition to the court of common pleas" does not repeal the provisions of the former statute author- izing a proceeding by bill in chancery.*' A statute which authorizes a certain oath to be taken before a particular oiHcer is not repealed by a statute which extends the power to administer oaths to a class of oificers.*^ A statute giv- ing a new remedy does not take away a remedy previously existing.*' A statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction of certain cases upon a particular court repeals a law giving the same jurisdiction to another court.** An act requiring motions for new trials to be filed within two days after the 67 State V. HoefEner, 9 Wash. 680, 62 Ruckman v. Ransom, 35 N. J. 38 Pac. 157. To same effect, State L. 565. V. Carter, 28 S. C. 1, 4 S. E. 790. «' Racho v. Detroit, 90 Mich. 92, 58 District of Columbia v. Reut- 51 N. W. 360; Brandon v. Carter, ter, 15 App. Cas. (D. 0.) 237. 119 Mo. 572, 24 S. W. 1085, 41 Am. 69 State V. Gulley, 41 Ore. 318,70 St. Rep. 673; State V. Martin, 68 Pac. 385. Vt. 98, 34 AtL 40; Fisher v. Bald- eo Sharp v. Warren, 6 Price, 131; ridge, 91 Tenn. 418, 19 S. W. 227; Mitchell V. Duncan, 7 Fla. 13. Watts v. Wilson, 93 Ky. 495, 20 S. 61 Raudebaugh v. Shelley, 6 Ohio W. 505. St. 307, ** Gassenheimer v. District of Columbia, 6 App. Cas. (D. C.) 10& EEPiSALS AND BEPEALING ACTS. 499 verdict was held not to repeal a prior statute authorizing the court for good cause shown to enlarge the time fixed by statute for doing any act, even after the time has ex- pired.^' A statute giving a mode of serving process on corporations does not repeal a prior statute providing a different mode.^^ A law requiring appeals from county commissioners to be taiien within twenty days is repealed by a later law allowing three months for such appeals." An act that the presiding judge, when interested, may grant a change of venue on his own motion is not repealed by an act providing for a change of venue on petition.'' A stat- ute making parties competent witnesses was held not to re- peal statutory provisions giving the chancery court power to compel a discovery in suits by judgment creditors.^' A provision that violations of the gambling act should be prosecuted by indictment was held to be repealed by a later statute, which authorized all misdemeanors to be prose- cuted by information.™ A statute authorizing the chancel- lor to require the complainant to give a bond before ap- pointing a receiver was held to repeal a prior statute which expressly made the requiring of such bond discretionary." An act provided for holding two additional terms of the circuit court of Cedar County, at El Dorado Springs, which was other than the regular place of holding the court, and provided for selecting a court-room, keeping the records, etc. A subsequent general act in regard to the holding of circuit courts provided for two terms in Cedar county at different times than those fixed for the terms at El Dorado Springs. This was held not to repeal the former act.'^ «5 Leavenworth v. Billings, 26 *» McCreery v. Cobb, 93 Mich. 463, Wash. 1, 66 Pao. 107. 53 N. W. 613. 66 Lesser Cotton Co. v. Yates, 69 "' Territory v. Cutinola, 4 N. M. Ark. 396, 63 S. W. 997; Congdon v. 305, 14 I^ao. 809. Butte Consol. Ry. Co., 17 Mont. 481, 'i David v. Levy, 119 Ala. 241, 24 43 Pao. 639. So. 589. 67Baum V. Sweeny, 5 Wash. -"\ 72 state v. Stratton, 136 Mo. 433, 32 Pac. 778. 38 S. W. 83. 68 Wallace v. Jameson, 179 Pa. St. •98, 36 Atl. 143. 500 EEPBALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. § 261. Same — Acts relating to oflRcers, their election, appointment, removal, fees, compensation, etc. — A stat- ute providing a new mode of filling an office by election or appointment repeals by implication prior laws fixing a dif- ferent mode.'' A statute provided for the election by the people of U. of "a street commissioner to superintend the streets, roads and bridges of said city." This was held to repeal prior laws authorizing the city council to elect ten street commissioners.'^* An act authorizing the city council by a two-thirds vote to remove any city officer for any of- fense against the character or duty of his office is not repealed by a subsequent act providing for the removal of public officers by the circuit court because of drunkenness, on complaint of any citizen, nor by an act providing for their impeachment and removal on an accusation by the grand jury.'" The acts all being affirmative may be con- strued together as providing cumulative remedies. A later act fixing the salary or fees of an officer repeals a prior act fixing a different salary or fees.™ A statute fixing the annual salary of a public oflBce at a sum certain, without limitation as to time, is not abrogated or suspended by sub- sequent enactments which merely appropriate a less amount for the services of that office for particular fiscal years, and which contain no words that expressly or by clear implica- tion modify or repeal the previous law." A law fixing the fees of an officer for certain services does not repeal a prior ™ Pavey v. Utter, 133 111. 489, 34_ ™ Pierpont v. Crouch, 10 Cal. 315; N. E. 77; State v. Howe, 28 Neb. Humer v. Cumberland County, 4 618, 44 N. W. 874; Browne v. Cum- Pa. Dist Ct. 588; Eckerd v. Perry ing County, 81 Neb. 362, 47 N. W. County, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 284; Price v. 1050; Hendrix's Account, 146 Pa. Blair County, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 313; St. 285, 23 Atl. 435; Commonwealth McAllister v. Armstrong County, 6 V. Taylor, 159 Pa. St. 451, 28 Atl. Pa. Dist. Ct. 766. See Leitzel v. 348. Centre County, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 208. 7* Eaton V. Burke, 66 N. B. 306, "United States v. Langston, 118 22 Atl. 452. U. S. 389, 6 S. 0. Repi 1185, 80 L. Ed. 76 State V. Noblesville, 157 Ind. 164 31, 60 N. E. 704. KEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 501 law fixing his fees for other services.'^ An act fixed the salary of the supreme court reporter at $600 a year. A later act of 1891 fixed the salary of the secretary of state at $2,400 a year and an act of 1893 made the secretary of state ex officio supreme court reporter. The later acts were held not to repeal the earlier, and the secretary of state was beld entitled to both salaries.™ Prior acts gave to county com- missioners a per diem and mileage. An act of 1890 provided that they should receive five dollars a day for each day em- ployed in the discharge of their duties. It was held that the provision for mileage was repealed.^" An act gave to a judge of the supreme court, holding court in any county, *' mileage at the rate of twenty cents per mile, in going from his residence to the place where said court is held, and returning therefrom, as his expenses incurred for and on account of travel incurred for the benefit of said county." A later act provided that county officers, jurors, witnesses and all qther parties that may be entitled to mileage from the several counties should be entitled to collect mileage at the rate of fifteen cents per mile for the distance actually traveled and no more. This was held not to repeal the former act, as the mileage allowed the judges was intended to cover other expenses than travel.^' A provision that the compensation of an officer shall not be increased or dimin- ished during the term for which he was elected or appointed is not repealed by an act authorizing an increase in the compensation of aldermen and an ordinance making such increase.^^ A statute provided that the state should be deemed a party defendant in every suit for divorce, and that the district attorney should be allowed a fee of ten dollars for defending for the state, to be paid by the plaintiff on '8 Randall v. Butler County, 65 *1 Power v. County Com'rs, 7 Kan. 20, 68 Pao. 1083. Mont. 83, 16 Pac. 658. 79 State V. La Grave, 23 Nev. 873, 82 Council Blufifs v. Waterman, 48 Pac. 674. 86 Iowa, 688, 53 N. W. 289. 80 State V. Beman, 15 Wash. 24j 45 Pao. 653. 502 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. commencing the suit. A later act relating to court fees and the fees of other oflBcers provided that the fees specified should be in lieu of all fees which parties had theretofore been required to pay clerks, sheriffs, and all other officials, and that " no other fees than those hereinbefore recited shall hereafter be exacted." District attorneys were not referred to in the act, and it was held not to repeal the provision for his fee in divorce suits.^' § 263. Same — Acts relating to municipal corpora- tions. — An act to incorporate the city of Pineville repeals by implication the charter of the town of Pineville.^ An act which incorporates the territory of four municipalities into one as a city repeals the charters of the separate mu- nicipalities.^ An act providing for the construction of local improvements by one mode of procedure is not repealed b}'^ a later and more comprehensive act providing for their construction by a different mode of procedure.'^* Two acts Avere passed at the same session, and by their terms to take effect on the same day; one provided for the organization of towns whenever a majority of the legal voters of any congressional township containing twenty-five legal voters should petition; the other was a provision that no town shall be vacated, nor any town with an area of thirty-six sections or less be divided or have any part stricken there- from, without first submitting the question to the electors of the town. It was held that they could stand together; the former conferring a power in general terms and the latter imposing a limitation.^' An act which gave a remedy for damages by a change of grade was held not to be repealed 83 state V. Moore, 37 Ore. 536, 63 1136; Hanover Borough's Appeal, Pao. 36. 150 Pa. St. 203, 24 Atl. 669; West 84 Smith V. Crjtcher, 93 Ky. 586, 18 Chester Alley, 160 Pa. St. 89, 28 Atl. S. W. 521. 506; Palo Alto Road, 160 Pa. St. 104, 85 South Morgan town v. Morgan- 28 Atl. 649; Bel tzhoover Borough v. town, 49 W. Va. 739. 40 S. E. 15. Beltzhoover's Heirs, 173 Pa. St 313, 86 Job V. Alton, 189 111. 356, 59 N. 33 Atl. 1047. E. 623, 83 Am. St. Rep. 448; Hand »' Supervisors v. Board of Com- V. Fellows, 148 Pa. St. 456, 23 Atl. missioners, 13 Minn. 403. EEPBALS AND EEPEALING ACTS 503 by a later act which provided for local improvements in general and for the assessment of the damages and benefits resulting therefrom.^' An act authorizing cities to construct and maintain water-works does not repeal a prior act au- thorizing the organization of companies to supply munici- palities with water.^' " An act to revise and amend the tax laws of the citj'' of Louisville," related to the revenue to meet the ordinary expenses of the city. This was held not to repeal provisions of the charter which provided how the city might contract debts beyond the ordinary revenues.'" A grant to a city of the power to build bridges was held not to take away the power of the county to build bridges within the city for county purposes." § 263. Same — Acts relating to taxation, revenue, bonds, assessments, etc. — An act providing a new mode of levying special assessments was held not to repeal a former law on the subject, but to afford a cumulative rem- edy.*^ An act exempting school and church property from any and all taxes and assessments is not repealed by a sub- sequent act providing in a general way for special assess- ments for local improvements.^' A law imposing a limit of indebtedness upon counties and municipalities is not re- pealed by a later law which authorizes the incurring of a debt for certain purposes.^* A law authorizing counties to issue bonds to the amount of two per cent, of the assessed valuation for various purposes, including the construction and repair of roads and bridges, was held to be repealed as 88 Seaman v. Washington, 178 Pa. '^ West Chicago Park Com'rs v. St. 467, 33 Atl. 759; Bowers v. Brad- Farber, 171 111. 146, 49 N. E. 427; dock, 173 Pa. St. 596, 33 Atl. 759; Greensboro v. MoAdoo, 113 N. C. Hopkins v. Braddock, 173 Pa. St. 359, 17 S. E. 178. 605, 34 Atl. 580. 93 District of Columbia v. Sisters 89 White V. Meadville, 177 Pa. St. of Visitation, 15 App. Gas. (D. C.) 643, 35 Atl. 695, 34 L. R. A. 567. 300. 90Frantz v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 535, 11 94 Beck v. St. Paul, 87 Minn. 381, S. W. 654 93 N. W. 338. 91 Skinner v. Henderson, 26 Fla. 121, 7 So. 464, 8 L. R. A. 55 504 REPEALS AND REPEALING ACTS. to the latter purpose by an act authorizing the issue of bonds for such purpose to the amount of one per cenf An act imposing a privilege tax for state revenue purposes does not repeal a prior act imposing such tax for municipal pur- poses.'^ But the contrary is true where an act of the former nature declares that the tax imposed by it shall be in lieu of all other taxes except ad valorem taxes.'' A law im- posed a privilege tax of $200 a year for each company rep- resented upon the privilege of opening and establishing an insurance oflBce or agency for foreign insurance companies. This was held not to be repealed by a later law imposing a tax of two and one-half per cent, on the gross premium re- ceipts of foreign insurance companies "in lieu of all other taxes." '' An act of 1897 forbade the sale of cigarettes. A revenue act of 1899 imposed a privilege tax on the sale of cigarettes, not sold in violation of the criminal law. The latter was held not to repeal the former so as to make the sale of cigarettes legitimate.'' A law authorizing counties to levy a tax for the support of the poor was held to be re- pealed by a subsequent law authorizing counties to levy not exceeding three mills on the dollar for county purposes, the support of the poor being a county purpose.^ A law pro- viding a new mode of apportioning the state tax repeals the former law on the subject.^ A city charter authorized the issue of $125,000 of bonds for the construction of three cer- tain bridges. A later act authorized the city to issue $75,000 of bonds for three certain bridges, two of which were the same as two of those specified in the charter. The later act was held not to repeal the former, but to be cumulative, and it was held the city could issue $200,000 of bonds for 95 Murphy v. County Com'rs, 73 ff^Blaufield v. State, 103 Tenn. Minn. 38, 76 N. W. 951. 593, 53 S. W. 1090. 96 Burke V. Memphis, 94 Tenn. i Oregon Short Line v. Standing, 693, 30 S. W. 743. 10 Utah, 453, 37 Pac. 687. 97 Memphis v. Am. Express Co., ^ state v. Linn County, 35 Ore. 103 Tenn. 336, 53 S. W. 172. 503, 36 Pao. 297. 98 Memphis v. Carrington, 91 Tena 511, 19 S. W. 67a EEPEALS AND REPEALING ACTS. 505 the purposes specified.' A later law providing for the same tax as a former law repeals the latter.* An act requiring county auditors to publish a list of lands sold for taxes, and unredeemed, was held to be repealed by a later law requir- ing notice of the expiration of the period of redemption to be given to the party in whose name the land was assessed.' § 264. Same — Acts relating to married women. — The statutes giving married women capacity of suing and being sued without the husband being joined repeal by implica- tion the statutes which suspend the statute of limitations for coverture as a disability.* In Emerson v. Clayton' the court say: "By this statute a married woman must, since its enactment, be considered a/eme sole in regard to her estate of every sort owned by her before marriage, or which she may acquire during cov- erture, in good faith, from any person not her husband, by descent, devise or otherwise, together with the rents, issues, increase and profits thereof. . . . They designed to make and did make a radical and thorough change in the condition of a feme covert. She is unmarried, so far as her property is concerned, and can deal with it as she pleases." Though such acts do not purport to repeal the exemption of married women from the operation of limitation laws, they manifestly produce* that result by a reasonable con- 'Tillotson V. Saginaw, 94 Mich. Smith, 60 Cal. 303; Ong v. Sumner, 240, 54 N. W. 163. 1 Cincin. Sup. Ct. 434; Ball v. Bul- 4 Commissioner of Sinking Fund " lard, 52 Barb. 141; Hick's Estate, 7 V. Grainger, 98 Ky. 319, 33 S. W. Pa. Supr. Ct. 374. The exemption 954. of married women in New York sBeuiner v. Woll, 86 Minn. 394, from the operation of the statute 90 N. W. 530; Kenaston v. Great was re-enacted in the code after Northern Ry. Co., 59 Minn. 35, 60 the passage of the act enabling N. W. 813. married women to sue. See Clark sHaywardv. Gunn, 82 111. 385; v. McCann, 18 Hun, 13;Dunham v. Castner v. Walrod, 83 id. 171; Enos Sage, 53 N. Y.339; Acker v. Acker, V. Buckley, 94 id. 458; Geisen v. 81 id. 143; Clarke v. Gibbons, 83 id. Heiderich, 104" id. 537j Brown v. 107. Cousens, 51 Me. 301; Cameron v. '33 111. 493. 606 REPEALS AND EBPEALING ACTS. struction of the language used in connection with the scope, purpose and object of the statute.' By statute as well as by the common law in Indiana prior to 1881 a husband and wife, upon a deed made to both, be- came neither joint tenants nor tenants in common, but were seized of the entirety, so that on the death of either the survivor took the whole; and during their lives neither could convey without the consent of the other, nor could any part of the land be taken on execution for the separate debt of either. This doctrine was not abolished or repealed by implication by the act passed in 1881, providing that "A married woman may take, acquire and hold property, real or personal, by conveyance, gift, devise or descent, or by purchase with her separate means or money; and the same, together with the rents, issues, income and profits thereof, shall be and remain her own separate property, and under her own control, the same as if she were unmar- ried." It was held that these laws could stand together. A married woman may well have all the personal rights conferred by the act of 1881 as to her separate property, without any interference or collision with the statutes as to entireties. "When husband and wife take by entireties neither of them holds any of the property separately.' A statute of Oregon of 1853 provided that the will of an unmarried woman should be deemed to be revoked by her subsequent marriage. It was held that this was not re- pealed by a later law providing that a written will could only be revoked by another written will, or unless canceled and destroyed by the testator himself or by someone in his sCastner v. Walrod, 83 111. 171; the court so long as might be nec- Kibbe v. Ditto, 93 U. S. 674, 33 L. essary to finish the business pend- Ed. 1005. See Hershy V. Latham, ing therein; held not repealed by a 42 Ark. 305; State v. Troutman, 72 later act containing the same pro- N. C. 551; Briggs v. Smith, 83 id. vision, with some unimportant ad- 306. ditions as to matters of detail, and 9 Carver v. Smith, 90 Ind. 228, 46 a further provision authorizing Am. Rep. 310. An act provided special terms also. Cordell v. State, for extending the regular term of 22 Ind. 1. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 50T presence and by his direction, as this had reference only to a revocation by some direct, affirmative act; nor by an act- removing the disabilities of married women and vesting them with the complete control of their property, as if un- married; nor by an act repealing all laws imposing civil disabilities upon the wife which were not imposed upon the husband.*" A statute limiting the husband's liability for the ante-nuptial debts and torts of the wife to the property acquired by him from his wife, in connection with a statute making the wife ^feme sole so far as to enable her to carry on' business on her own account, with the necessary right to contract and be contracted with, to sue and be sued, was held not to repeal the common-law rule that the husband must be joined in a suit for a tort of the wife." A statute which denied to a married female the right to dispose of land by will is not impliedly repealed by a sub- sequent statute which made it lawful for her to receive by gift, grant, devise or bequest, and to hold to her sole and separate use as if she were a single female, real and personal property, and the rents, issues and profits thereof, and as- suring the same against her husband's disposal and his debts. The language of the statute gave her only the right to re- ceive, and hold — a mere^ws tenendi, not disponendi}^ The common law and statutory estate by the curtesy is held abolished by the statutes which assure to married women the. possession and control of their separate property with the rents, issues and profits, and confer power of disposition by deed or will." A statute that married women and mi- nors may, in their own right, make and draw deposits, and draw dividends, and give valid receipts therefor, was held not to be repealed by a later provision that all property ac- lOBooth's Will, 40 Ore. 154, 61 "Tongv. Marvin,15Mich. 60; Bil- Pao. 1131, 66 Pac. 710. lings v. Baker, 38 Barb. 343. And 11 Taylor v. PuUen, 153 Mo. 434, see Hurt v. Cook, 151 Mo. 416, 53 S.- 53 S. W. 1086. W. 396. 12 Naylor v. Field, 39 N. J. L. 387. 508 EBPBALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. quired after marriage by either husband or wife, with cer- tain exceptions, should be community property.'* § 265. Same — Acts relating to the limitation of ac- tions. — Three successive acts of limitation were passed; each provided a bar to an action of assumpsit if not com- menced within six years after the cause of action accrued. The second in terms repealed the first. The third was put in force without any repealing clause. A right of action run three years under the first, and three years under the second, and the action was brought after the third had been enacted; it was held that the action was barred. There was no repeal, for the acts were not inconsistent." An act ■of 1713 provided that when a judgment for the plaintiff was reversed on error or when judgment was given against the plaintiff on motion in arrest of judgment, he or his rep- resentatives might commence a new action at any time within a year from such reversal or arrest. An act of 1895 provided that an action for wrongful injury to the person :should be brought within two years from the injury, and not afterwards. This was held to repeal the earlier act so far as such actions were concerned.'^ Such a statute would repeal a prior law allowing six years for the commencing of such action.'^ § 266. Same — Miscellaneous cases. — A road law which ■only goes into effect in any county on the recommendation of the grand jury is not repealed by a later law providing a different scheme, and which only goes into effect on adop-' tion by popular vote.'' A law providing how warrants on the county treasurer should be drawn, and providing that no money should be paid out except upon warrants so drawn, was held not to be repealed by a later law, allowing jurors " Eowe V. Hibernia Sav. & L. Co., 190 Pa.' St. 358, 42 Atl. 953. To Soo., 134 Cal. 403, 66 Paa 569. same effect, Voight v. Gulf, eta Ry. i5McLaughlin v. Hoover, 1 Ore. 31. Co., 94 Tex. 357, 60 S. W. 658. 16 Speer v. Boggs, 204 Pa. St. 504, " McGinnis v. Ragsdale, 116 Ga. 54 Atl. 346. 245, 42 S. E. 49a 1' Eodenbaugh v, Phila. Traction KEPniALS AND REPEALING ACTS. 50& attending an inquest $1 a day, to be paid out of the county treasury on the certificate of the coroner, as both acts could apply.^' The repealing effect of an act cannot be enlarged by its title.^" A provision requiring the supreme court re- porter to have all decisions in the hands of the publisher, if enough for a volume, within twenty days after their rendi- tion, on penalty of removal from office, was held to be re- pealed by implication by a later law requiring all decisions to be reported, as compliance with both laws would be im- possible.^^ A primary election law was held to repeal the provisions of a general election law relating to nominations by party conventions.^ An act to provide for the organiza- tion of mutual insurance companies was held not to repeal so much of a prior act for the organization of insurance companies of various kinds as related to mutual compa- nies.'^' An act provided that every franchise or privilege to construct or operate a railroad upon any public street or highway should be granted to the highest bidder. An act going into effect one day later authorized county boards to grant franchises for all lawful purposes " upon such terms, conditions and restrictions as in their judgment may be nec- essary and proper." This was held not to repeal the for- mer act as to railroad franchises granted by county boards, as there was room for both acts to operate.^* An act granted to the defendant company certain franchises in 'New York City and required it to pay certain license fees to the city. A later act granted additional privileges and provided that, if the same were accepted, it should pay a percentage on net receipts to the city. There was held to be no repeal, the payment provided for in the later statute not being exclu- sive.^' The grant to a telephone company to use the streets 19 Kern v. People, 44 111. App. 181. ^ State v. Moore, 48 Neb. 870, 67 20 The New York, 108 Fed. 102,47 N. W. 876. C. C. A. 232. 24 Thompson v. Board of Super- 21 State Reporter's Case, 150 Pa. visors, 111 Cal. 653, 44 Pao. 230. St. 550, 24 Atl. 908. 26 New York v. Dry Dock, eta E. 22 State V. Jensen, 86 Minn. 19, 89 ' R. Co., 47 Hun, 199. N. W. 112& -610 EEPEALS AND KEPEALING ACTS. is not repealed by a later grant to an electric street railway •company to use the same streets.^' In 1884 the legisl'iture of Kentucky passed an act to encourage railroad building, which provided that all railroads thereafter built should be exempt from all taxation for five years after the commence- ment of the road. In 1886 a general revenue act was passed which provided for the taxation of all property not expressly exempted by the act and which repealed all acts, general and special, and parts of acts, inconsistent therewith. It was held to repeal the earlier act by implication as to roads there- after commenced. In 1888 the laws of the state were compiled and both the above acts were included therein and re-enacted. This was held not to change the result.^' An act gave power to the railroad and warehouse commissioners to revoke warehouse licenses, but no provision was then in existence for licensing warehouses. A later act authorized the cir- •cuit court to grant and revoke licenses to certain ware- houses. The former act was held to be repealed or sus- pended as to such licenses. '' Some additional cases are re- ferred to in the margin.^' § 287. Bepeals by implication avoided if possible. — If two statutes can be read together without contradiction, or repugnancy, or absurdity, or unreasonableness, they should 2« Cumberland Tel. & Tel. Co. v. "Wash. 450, 53 Pao. 715; Stetson- United Electric Ry. Co., 93 Tenn. Post Mill Co. v. Brown, 21 Wash. 619. 492, 29 S. W. 104, 27 L. E. A. 236. 59 Pac. 507, 75 Am. St. Rep. 862. Held 27 Commonwealth v. Railroad no repeal: Hewitt v. People, 87 IlL Companies, 95 Ky. 60, 23 S. W. 868. App. 367 ; S. C. affirmed, 186 111. 336, 57 28Cantrell v. Seaverns, 168 IlL N. E. 1077; Jarvis v. Bradford, 88 111. 165, 48 N. E. 186. App. 685; Chicago v. Hanseddy, 103 29 Held repeal by implication: IlL App. 1; Negrotts v. Monett, 49 Edwards v. D. & R. G. R R. Co., 13 Mo. App.286; WalcottTp. v. Skauge, Colo. 59, 21 Pao. 1011; Smith v. 6 N. D. 382, 71 N. W. 544: North- Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 86 Iowa, 202, western Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis 53 N. W. 128; State v. Rogers, 22 & Clark County, 38 Mont. 484; Rey- Ore. 348,30Pac. 74;Sproul V. Stand- nolds v. Board of Education, 66 ard Plate Glass Co., 201 Pa. St. 103, Kan. 673, 73 Pac. 274; Snowden v. 50 AtL 1003; Norfor v. Busby, 19 State, 69 Md. 203, 14 AtU 52& EBPEAiS AND EEPEALING- ACTS. • 511 be read together, and both will have effect.'" It is not enough to justify the inference of repeal that the later law is different; it must be contrary to the prior law." It is not sufficient that the subsequent statute covers some or even all the cases provided for by the former, for it may be merely affirmative, accumulative or auxiliary; there must be positive repugnancy; and even then the old law is re- pealed by implication only to the extent of the repugnancy.'^ If, by fair and reasonable interpretation, acts which are seemingly incompatilile or contradictory may be enforced and made to operate in harmony and without absurdity, both will be upheld, and the later one will not be regarded as repealing the others by construction or intendment." As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation and with a full knowledge of all existing ones on the same subject, it is but reasonable to conclude that the legislature, in passing a statute, did not intend to interfere with or abrogate any former law relating to the same matter, unless the repug- nancy between the two is irreconcilable." In the endeavor 30 Regina v. Mews, 6 Q. B. Div. 47; peal, 70 Pa. St. 344; Kansas City v. a C, L. E. 8 App. Cas. 339, revers- Kimball, 60 Kan. 234, 56 Pac. 78; ing the ruling below; Smith v. Conley v. Commonwealth, 98 Ky. Speed, 50 Ala. 276; Enloe v. Eeike,. 125,33 S. W. 285; Albert v. Two- 56 id. 500; Wagner v. Stoll, 2 Rich, hig, 35 Neb. 563, 53 N. W. 582; Co- (N. S.) 539; Robb v. Gurney,id. 559. Operative S. & L. Ass'n v. Fawiok, 31 Nixon V. Piffet, 16 La. Ann. 11 S. D. 589, 79 N. W. 847; Groff v. 379; Kesler v. Smith, 66 N. C. 154; Miller, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 853; Landls v. Landis, 39 N. J. L. 274. Farwell v. Des Moines Brick & 82 Wood V. United States, 16 Pet. Mfg. Co., 97 Iowa, 386, 66 N. W. 176, 342, 363, 10 L. Ed. 987; Coats v. Hill, 35 L. R A. 63; George v. Lillard, 41 Ark. 149; Connors v. Carp River 106 Ky. 820, 51 S. W. 793; Gowen v. Iron Co., 54 Mich. 168, 19 N. W. 938; Conlow, 51 Minn. 313, 53 N. W. 365; People V. Supervisors, 67 N. Y. 109, State v. Smith, 35 Neb. 13, 53 N. W. 23 Am. Rep. 94 700; State v. Hay, 45 Neb. 381, 63 33 Elizabethtown, etc. R. R. Co. v. N. W. 831 ; Williams v. McLendon, Elizabethtown, 13 Bush, 333; Hig- 44 S. C. 174, 31 S. E. 616; Appleton gins V. State, 64 Md. 419, 433, 1 Atl. W. W. Co. v. Appleton, 116 Wis. 876; McCool v. Smith, 1 Black, 459, 363, 93 N. W. 363. 17 L. Ed. 218; Cass V.Dillon, 3 Ohio 34jobb v. Meagher County 30 St 607; Howard Association's Ap- Mont. 434, 51 Pac. 1034; Ridgeway 512 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. to harmonize statutes seemingly incompatible, to avoid re- peal by implication, a court will reject absurdity as not en- acted, and accept with favorable consideration what is rea- sonable and convenient. In cases of doubt, repeal of a stat- ute or of the common law may be deemed intended in favor of convenience.'^ An argument based on inconvenience is forcible in law;'^ no less so is one to avoid what is unjust or unreasonable." Like considerations of what is conven- ient, just or reasonable, when they can be invoked against the implication of repeal, will be still more potent. The act being silent as to repeal and affirmative, it will not be held to abrogate any prior law which can reasonably and justly operate without antagonism.^' A statute which does not take av/ay any right, or impose any substantially new dutj?^, but regulates with additional requirements a duty im- posed by a previous statute, is not to be deemed inconsist- ent with the previous act." Two statutes are not repug- nant to each other unless they relate to the same subject and are passed for the same purpose.*" "It is a reasonable presumption that all laws are passed with a knowledge of those already existing, and that the legislature does not in- tend to repeal a statute without so declaring." *^ V. Gallatin County, 181 III. 531, 55 Commercial Bank v. Chambers, 8 N. E. 146; Bo wen v. Lease, 5 Hill, S. & M. 9, 46. 221, 236. 39 staats v. Hudson River R. E. 35 Steward v. Greaves, 10 M. & Co., 4 Abb. App. Dec. 387. W. 711; Davison v. Farmer, 6 Ex. ^o People v. Bartleson, 14 Utah, 242, 256. 258, 47 Pac. 87. 36 Co. Litt. 97a. « Booth's Will, 40 Ore. 154, 61 Pao. 37 Eex V. Whiteley, 3 H & N. 143; 1135, 66 Pao. 710. In Speer v. Boggs, Johnson v. Bush, 3 Barb. Ch. 207, 204 Pa. St. 504, the court says: 238. See Harris v. Jenns, 9 C. B. " When an apparent conflict is pre- (N. S.) 152. sented by different parts of the 38 ^nfe, § 248; McNeely V.Wood- same act, it is the duty of ruflf, 13 N. J. L. 352, 356, 357; Ever- courts to reconcile them, if possi- greens. Matter of, 47 N.Y. 216, 231; ble, by such construction as will Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 id. give effect to all the parts. The 424,438; State v. Stinson, 17 Me. presumption is that the legislature 154; Smith v. People, 47 N. Y. 330; did not intend any inconsistency. REPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 613 § 268 (153). Acts passed at same session — Provisions in same act. — The presumption is stronger against implied repeals where provisions supposed to conflict are in the same act or were passed at nearly the same time. In the fi.rst case it would manifestly be an inadvertence, for it is not supposable that the legislature would deliberately pass an act with conflicting intentions; in the other case the pre- sumption rests on the improbability of a change of intention, or, if such change had occurred, that the legislature would express it in a different act without an express repeal of the first.''^ " Statutes enacted at the same session of the legisla- ture should receive a construction, if possible, which will give efifect to each. They are within the reason of the rule governing the construction of statutes in pari materia. Each is supposed to speak the mind of the same legislature, , and the words used in each should be qualified and restricted, if necessary, in their construction and effect, so as to give validity and effect to every other act passed at the same session." *' The presumption is that different acts passed at the same session of the legislature are imbued by the same spirit and actuated by the same policy, and that one was not intended to repeal or destroy another, unless so ex- pressed." Where two acts are passed or go into effect on But when there is a conflict be- v, Brittenum, 56 Miss. 238; State tween a prior and a subsequent act, ex rel. Kellogg v. Treasurer, 41 Mo, the presumption is that the. latter 16; State v. Clark, 54 id. 316; Naz- repeals the former. The courts areth L. B. L v. Commonwealth, 14 are not bound, nor even authorized, B. Mon. 260; State v. Rackley, 2 to seek a construction that will Blaokf. 249; Smith v. People, 47 N. reconcile them, further than to in- Y. 330; Dawson v. Horan, 51 Barb, quire if the conflict is real and not 459; Sanders v. State, 77 Ind. 237; merely apparent. If it is real, the Beals v. Hale, 4 How. 37; Super- result is the repeal of the prior visors v. Board of Commissioners, act." p. 508. 12 Minn. 403. « Houston, etc. R. E. Co. v. Ford, "White v. Meadville, 177 Pa. St. 53 Tex. 364, 2 Am. & Eng. E. R. 643, 35 AtL 695, 34 L. E. A. 567. Cas. 514; Ecklofl v. Dist. of Co- " Banks v. Yolo County, 104 Cal. lumbia, 4 Maokay, 572; Peyton v. 258, 37 Pac. 900; Hutchinson v. Self, Moseley, 3 T. B. Mon. 77; Gibbons 153 111. 542, 39 N, E. 27; State v. 33 511 EBPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. the same day it is strong evidence that they were intended to stand together.*^ So where the later law was the first to be introduced.*^ An amendment of a law shows that the legislature did not intend to repeal it by a prior law.*^ At the same session of the legislature two acts were passed relative to the place where actions against corporations might be brought. The act first passed provided that such actions might be brought in any county where the cause of action or a part thereof accrued, or in any county where the corporation had an agency or representative or in which was its principal ofiice. The second act gave a right in terms to bring an action in any county in which the cause of action or a part thereof arose — it contained no repealing clause. It was held not to repeal the former.*^ The different sections or provisions of the same statute or code should be so construed as to harmonize and give effect to each,*' but, if there is an irreconcilable conflict, the later in position prevails.^" But where an act divided the terri- tory of Colorado into seventeen counties and defined the boundaries of each in separate sections, and there was a conflict in the descriptions, it was held that the descriptions Arr.hibald, 43 Minn. 328,' 45 IT. W. "Lien v. County Com'rs, 80 Minn. 606; Hawes v. Fliegler, 87 Minn. 58, 83 N. W. 1094. 319,93 N. W. 333; State t. Stratton, ■i? People v. Butler St. Foundry 136 Mo. 423, 38 S. W. 83; State v. & Iron Co., 201 111. 236, 66 N. E. 349. Eotwitt, 17 Mont. 41, 41 Pac. 1004; « Houston, etc. E. R Co. v. Ford, Houston & Tex. Cent. Ry. Co. v. 53 Tex. 364. State, 95 Tex. 507, 63 S. W. 114; 49Gro£f v. Miller, 20 App. Cas. (D. Matter of Gannett, 11 Utah, 283, 39 C.) 353; Smith v. School Coin'rs, 81 Pac. 496; Town School District v. Md. 513, 33 Atl. 193; "Westport v. School District, 73 Vt. 451, 48 Atl. Jackson, 69 Mo. App. 148; Cinoin- 697; In re Wilbur's Estate, 14 nati v. Connor, 55 Ohio St. 83, 44 Wash. 243, 44 Pac. 363; Walser v. N. E. 583; Bull v. Kirk, 37 S. C. 395, Jordan, 124 N. C. 683, 33 S. E. 139. 16 S. E. 151. 45 Commonwealth v. Huntley, so Ex parte Thomas, 113 Ala, 1, 31 156 Mass. 236, 30 N. E. 11C7, 15 L. R. So. 369; Hand v. Stapleton, 135 A. 839; Solomon v. Denver, 13 Colo. Ala. 156, 83 So. 689; Van Horn v. App. 179, 55 Pac. 199; Territory v. State, 46 Neb. 63, 64 N. W. 365; Wingfleld, 3 Ariz. 305, 15 Pac. 139, Omaha Real Est. & T. Co. v. Krags- cow, 47 Neb. 593, 66 N, W. 658. REPEALS XnD repealing ACTS. 515 were in the nature of grants and that the earlier sections were to be first satisfied.^^ Where a statute expresses first a general intent, and afterwards an inconsistent particular intent, the latter will be taken as an exception from the former and both will stand.'^ § 269 (154:). Repeal by revision. — Eevision of statutes implies a re-examination of them. The word is applied to a restatement of the law in a corrected or improved form. The restatement may be with or without material change. A revision is intended to take the place of the law as pre- viously formulated. By adopting it the legislature say the same thing, in effect, as when a particular section is amended by the words " so as to read as follows." The revision is a substitute; it displaces and repeals the former law as it stood relating to the subjects within its purview. What- ever of the old law is restated in the revision is continued in operation as it may operate in the connection in which it is re-enacted. In Bartlet v. King,'' Dewey, J., said : " A subsequent stat- ute revising the whole subject-matter of a former one, and evidently intended as a substitute for it, although it con- tains no express words to that effect, must on principles of law, as well as in reason and common sense, opera,te to re- peal the former." ^ Though a subsequent statute be not repugnant in all its provisions to a former, yet if it was clearly intended to pre- scribe the only rule which should govern, it repeals the for- 51 Link V. Jones, 15 Colo. App. ^3 13 Mass. 545. 281, 63 Pac. 339. " Rogers v. Watrous, 8 Tex. 62, 63 62Stoctett V. Bird, 18 Md. 484; Am. Deo. 100; King v. Cornell, 106 De Win ton v. Mayor, 36 Beav. 583; U. S. 895, 1 S. C. Eep. 818, 27 L. Ed. Dahnke v. People, 168 III. 103, 48 N. 60; Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Em- E. 137, 39 L. E. A. 197; Ex parte bury, 67 Barb. 261; Ellis v. Paige, 1 Joflfee, 46 Mo. App. 860; Eodgers v. Pick. 45; Berkshire v. Miss. etc. Ey. United States, 185 U. S. 83, 23 S. C. Co., 28 Mo. App. 225; Lyon v. Smith, Eep. 583, 46 L. Ed. 816; In re Eouse, 11 Barb. 134; Smith v. Nobles Co.,37 Hazard & Co., 91 Fed. 96, 33 C. C. Minn. 535, 35 N. W. 383. A. 356. 516 EEPEALS AND EEPBALING ACTS. mer statute.^' "Without express words of repeal a previous statute will be held to be modified by a subsequent one, if the latter was plainly intended to cover the subject em- braced by both, and to prescribe the only rules in respect to that subject that are to govern.^^ Where a provision is amended by the form, " to read as follows," the intention is manifest to make the provision following a substitute for the old provision and to operate exclusively in its place." Does a revision import that it shall displace the last previ- ous form; that it is evidently intended as a substitute for it; that it is intended to prescribe the only rule to govern? In other words, will a revision repeal by implication previ- ous statutes on the same subject, though there be no repug- ns Rogers V. Watrous, 8 Tesr. 62, 63 Am. Dec. 100; Industrial School District v. Whitehead, 13 N. J. Eq. 290; Bryan v. Sundberg, 5 Tex. 418; Mulligan v. Cavanagh, 46 N. J. L. 45, 49; Murdook v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 617, 22 L. Ed. 429; State v. StoU, 17 Wall. 425, 21 L. Ed. 650; United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 20 L. Ed. 153; Board of Com- missioners V. Potts, 10 Ind. 286; State V. Wilson, 43 N. H. 419, 82 Am. Dec. 163; Waterworks Co. v. Burkhart, 41 Ind. 364; Farr v. Brackett, 30 Vt. 344; Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206, 10 S. C. Rep. 527, 33 L. Ed. 879; Giddings v. Cox, 31 Vt. 607; State v. Kelley, 34 N. J. L. 75; Pingree v. Snell, 42 Me. 53; Fayette County v. Faires, 44 Tex. 514; Sacramento v. Bird, 15 Cal. 294; State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501; Dexter & Limerick P. R. Co. v. Allen, 16 Barb. 15; Bracken v. Smith, 39 N. J. Eq. 169; Andrews V. People, 75 111. 605; Daviess v. Fairbairn, 3 How. "636, 11 L. Ed. 760; Red Rook v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596, 1 S. C. Rep. 434, 37 L. Ed. 251; People V. Brooklyn. 69 N. Y. 605; Cook County Nat. Bank v. United States, 107 U. S. 445, 2 S. C. Rep. 445, 37 L. Ed. 537; Dillon v. Bick- nell, 116 Cal. HI, 47 Pac. 937; Callam v. District of Columbia, 16 App. Gas. (D. C.) 271; Lambkin v. Pike, 115 Ga. 827, 42 S. E. 213, 90 Am. St. Kep. 153; Monroe Cour\ty V. McDaniel, 68 Miss. 203, 8 So. 645; State V. Order of Elks, 69 Miss. 895, 13 So. 255; State Revenue Agent v. Hill, 70 Miss. 106, 11 So. 789; School District v. Eckert, 84 Miss. 417, 87 N. W. 1019; State v. Camden, 58 N. J. L. 515, 33 Atl. 846; Camden v. Varney, 63 N. J. L. 325, 43 Atl. 889. 56 Tracy V. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206, 10 S. C. Rep. 527, 33 L. Ed. 879. 57 United States v. Barr, 4 Sawy. 254, Fed. Cas. No. 14,527; United States V. Tynen, 11 Wall. 95, 20 L. Ed. 153; Knox v. Baldwin, 80 N. Y. 610; Goodno v. Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 127; State v. Ingersoll, 17 id. 631; State V. Beswick, 13 R. L 311; ante, §237. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 517 uatice? Tho authorities seem to answer emphatically, Yes. The reasonable inference from a revision is that the legis- lature cannot be supposed to have intended that there should be two distinct enactments embracing the same sub- ject-matter in force at the same time, and that the new statute, being the most recent expression of the legislative will, must be deemed a substitute for previous enactments, and the only one which is to be regarded as having the force of law.^' In case of an act " to revise, amend and 68 Smith V. state, 1 Stew. 506; State V. Whitworth, 8 Port. 434; Wilkinson v. Ketler, 59 Ala. 306; Ogbourne v. Ogbourne's Adm'r, 60 Ala. 616; Hatohett v. Billingslea, 65 Ala. 16; Carmiohael v. Hays, 66 Ala. 543; Scott v. Simons, 70 Ala. 353; Sawyers v. Baker, 73 Ala. 49; Werborn v. Austin, 77 Ala. 381; Wood V. State, 47 Ark. 488, 1 S. W. 709: Wilson v. Massie, 70 Ark. 35, 65 S. W. 943; Inman v. State, 65 Ark. 508, 47 S. W. 538; Hanley v. Sixteen Horses, 97 Cal. 183, 33 Pac. 10; Huffman v. Hall, 103 Cal. 36,36 Pao. 417; San Diego County v. Southern Pao. R. R. Co., 108 Cal. 46, 40 Pac. 1053; Dillon v. Bicknell, 116 Cal. Ill, 47 Pac. 937; Mack v. Jas- tro, 136 Cal. 130, 58 Pao. 373; Peo- ple V. Ames, 37 Colo. 136, 60 Pac. 346; Husbands v. Talley, 3 Penn. (De).)88,47 Atl.1009; Fulton v. Dis- trict of Columbia, 8 App. Cas. Gull River Lumber Co. v. Lee, 68 The Sohoonor Rachel v. United 7 N. D. 135, 73 N. W. 430. States, 6 Cr. 329, 3 L. Ed, 239; Yea- EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 547 an action for its enforcement. It has become a vested right which stands independently of the statute.''' A contractor for grading streets was authorized by the existing law to sue delinquent abutters for unpaid assessments. This right of action was held a part of the contract and not taken away by repeal of the law creating if^ Causes of action barred by the statute of limitations are not revived by a re- peal of the statute.''' The repeal of a statute giving a lien for advances of money for certain purposes will not affect the lien as to such advances as were made prior thereto.'''' Eights that pass and become vested under the existing law are supposed to be beyond the control of the state through its legislature.'' A mere change of the law does not divest or impair rights of property acquired previously, even though the legislature intended the new law so to operate.'^ A law can be repealed by the law-giver; but the rights which have been acquired under it while it was in force do not thereby cease. It would be an act of absolute injustice to abolish with a law all the effects which it had produced. 71 Pacific Mail Steamship Co. t. Wegler, 54 Minn. 235, 55 N. W. 937; JoliflEe, 3 Wall. 450, 17 L. Ed. 805; Hulbert v. Clark, 128 N. Y. 395, 38 Bibb V. Hall, 101 Ala. 79, 14 So. 98; N. E. 638, 14 L. R. A. 59; Boorman Thompson v. West^sg Neb. 677, 83 v. Juneau County, 76 Wis. 550, 45 N. W. 13, 49 L. R. A. 837; Hanscom N. W. 675. V. Meyer, 61 Neb. 798, 86 N. W. 381 ; '« Commissioners v. Northern Florence Gas, Elec. L. & P. Co. v. Bank, 1 Met. (Ky.) 174 Hanby, 101 Ala. 15, 13 So. 343; Beav- " Rice v. R R Co., 1 Black, 358, 17 ers V. Myar, 68 Ark. 33:i, 58 S. W. 40; L. Ed. 147; Mitchell v. Doggett, 1 Commonwealth v. Newcomb, 109 Fla. 356; Naught v. Oneal, 1 111. 36; Ky. 18, 58 S. W. 445; People v. James v. Dubois, 16 N. J. L. 285; Den Common Council, 140 N. Y. 300, 35 v. Robinson, 5 id. 689; MoMechen v. N. E. 485, 37 Am. St. Rep. 563; Ew- Mayor, etc., 3 H. & J. 41; Davis v. ing V. Van Wagenen, 6 Wash. 39, Minor, 1 How. (Miss.) 183, 90 Am. 32 Pac. 1009; State v. Bridges, 33 Dec- 358; Taylor v. Rushing, 3 Wash. 64, 60 Pac. 60, 79 Am. St, Stew. (Ala.) 160; Graham, Ex parte, Eep. 914. 13 Rich. 377; Lincoln County v. 72 Creighton v. Pragg, 31 Cal. 115. Oneida County, 80 Wis. 267, 50 N. W. '3 Cassity ». Storms, 1 Bush, 453; 344. Right V. ^lartin, U Ind. 133; Coo- '« Rock Hill College v. Jones, 47 'ley's Const. L. *;!65,; Whitney v. Md. 1, 17. 548 EEPEALS AND REPEALING ACTS. This is a principle of general jurisprudence; but a right to be within its protection must be a vested right. It must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance of the existing law. It must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment of property, or to the present or future enforce- ment of a demand, or a legal exemption from a demand made by another." If, before rights become vested in par- ticular individuals, the convenience of the state induces amendment or repeal of the laws, these individuals have no cause to complain." The legislature, unrestrained by any constitutional provision, may grant an exclusive franchise,'* but the grant will be strictly construed and must be clearly- expressed.^" It is competent for the legislature, after grant- ing to one person or a corporation a franchise which affects the rights of the public, to grant a similar franchise to an- other person or corporation, though the use of the latter should impair or even destro}'^ the value of the first fran- chise; and this grant does not depend on a reservation of the power in the original granf Nothing but plain En- glish words will grant an exclusive franchise, and thus cre- ate a monopoly.^^ The repeal of a statute after judgment will not defeat an appeal previously taken.^ And if the "Id.; Cooley. Const. Lim. 359 Merrill v. Sherburne, 1 N. H. 213 Wiltlerman v. Baltimore, 8 Md. 551 ''Slaughter- House Cases,16 Wall. 36, 31 L. Ed. 394. sold. State V. Warren, 28 id. 338; Wor- »! The Charles River Bridge v. The then V. Ratcliffe, 43 Ark. 330; James Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 9 L. Ed. V. Dubois, 16 N. J. L. 285; Graham 773, 938; Mohawk Bridge Co. v. V. Chicago, etc. E. R Co., 53 Wis. Utica, etc. R. R. Co., 6 Paige, 554;: 473; Grey v. Mobile Trade Co., 55 Oswego Bridge Co. v. Fish, 1 Barb.. Ala. 387, 28 Am. Rep. 729; Streu- Ch. 547; Fort Plain Bridge Co. v. bel V. Milwaukee, etc. R. R, Co., 13 Smith, 30 N. Y. 44. Wis. 67; Aspinwall v. Daviess Co., ^2 Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Canal 22 How. 364, 16 L. Ed. 296; Bennet Commissioners, 21 Pa. St. 22; Rich- ■V. Hargus, 1 Neb. 419; Kent's Com. mond R. R. Co. v. Louisa R. R. Co., 455; 2 Story on Const., g 1399. See 13 How. 71, 14 L. Ed. 55; Chenango Wolfe V. Henderson, 28 Ark. 304. Bridge Co. v. Binghamton Bridge- 's Merrill v. Sherburne. 1 N. H. Co., 27 N. Y. 87. 213. 83 Backes v. Dant, 55 Ind, 181. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 549 statute be essential to that judgment, its repeal or expira- tion after the appeal will necessitate a reversal of the judgment.^ A statutory right is to be distinguished from the remedy for its enforcement. But after the right has vested it can- not be taken away by new legislation directly against the right nor indirectly by taking away the remedy.^ A stat- ute of Tennessee provided that foreign insurance compa- nies doing business in the state should file with the insur- ance commissioner a power of attorney authorizing the secretary of state to acknowledge service of process on be- half of such companies, and provided that such service should be binding, though the company had retired or been excluded from the state. This statute was repealed and a different method provided. It was held that the pro- visions of the earlier statute became a part of contracts made while it was in force and that the secretary of state could bind a company which had retired from the state before the repeal took place, by an acknowledgment of service made after such repeal.^^ A statute made it a duty to provide fire- escapes and declared that failure to comply with the statute should be deemed negligence. It was held that a repeal of the statute did not affect a right of action which had oc- curred before such repeal and was founded on such failure.^' The remedy may be changed.*^ And of this nature are stat- es The Schooner Rachel v. United St. 139 ; Farmer v. People, 77 111. 323 ; States, 6 Cr. 329, 3 L. Ed. 239; Yea- Knoup v. Piqua Bank, 1 Ohio St. ton V. United States, 5 Cr. 281,'3 L. 603; Danforth v. Smith, 33 Vt. 247: Ed. 101. Cooley's Const. Lim. *287, 361, 363; 85 Cooley's Const. Lim. *361; Less- Colby v. Dennis, 36 Me. 9, 13; Mus- ley V. Phipps, 49 Miss. 790; Birdsall grove v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R Co., V. Wheeler, 58 Conn. 429, 20 Atl. 50 Miss. 677; Dean v. Mellard, 15 C. 607; Dow v. Electric Co., 68 N. H. B. (N. S.) 19; Linton v. Blakeney, 59, 31 Atl. 22. etc. Society, 3 H. & C. 853; Temple- 86D'Aroy v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 108 ton v. Home, 83 111. 491; Harris v. Tenn. 567. 69 S. W. 768. Townshend, 56 Vt 716; Mechanics' 87 Gorman v. McAidle, 67 Hun, & Farmers' Bank's Appeal, 31 Conn. 484, 82 N. Y. S. 479. , 63; Treasurer v."WygalI,46Tex.44T; 88 The Hickory Tree Read, 43 Pa. Stocking v. Hunt, 3 Denio, 274; Su- 550 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. utes changing the rules of evidence ^' or the competency of witnesses.'" New statutes may be valid which take away defenses based on irregularities and informalities,"' by val- idating contracts executed without compliance with a stat- ute,'2 or in violation of some statutory prohibition.'^ When a remedy upon a contract not unlawful is prohibited, a re- peal of the statute will restore the remedy.'* An act which forbids a corporation to set up the defense of usury repeals as to such corporation the laws against usury, and a repeal of such laws will cut off the defense of usury upon contracts previously made,'* An act in regard to taxation declared that mortgages on lands in more than one county should be void. It was held that, as the object of the statute was to protect the public revenue, the intent of the statute was that such mortgages should be absolutely void and that a repeal of the act would not have the effect of validating such mortgages.'^ § 285 (165). Effect on powers, jnrisdictlon and pending proceedings. — Powers derived wholly from a statute are extinguished by its repeal. All acts done under a statute per visors v. Briggs, id. 173; Matter tate of Sticknoth, 7 Nev. 223; Dent- of Palmer, 40 N. Y. 561 ; Dismukes v. zel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 138. Stokes, 41 Miss. 431 ; Mastronada v. 93 Gibson v. Hibbard, 13 Mich. 215; State, 60 Miss. 86. See Newsom v. Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143, 2 S. C. Greenwood, 4 Ore. 119. Eep. 408, 27 L. Ed. 682; Syracuse 89 Herbert v. Easton, 43 Ala. 547; Bank v. Davis, 16 Barb. 188; Harris Stephenson v. Osborne, 41 Miss. 119, v. Eutledge, 19 lovca, 388, 87 Am. 90 Am. Dec. 358; Journeay v. Gib- Deo. 441; State v. Norwood, 12 Md. son, 56 Pa. St. 57, 60; Fogg v. Hoi- 195; State v. Newark, 25 N. J. L. 399; comb, 61 Iowa, 621, 21 N. W. 111. Lewis v. McElvain, 16 Ohio, 347; 99 Laughlin v. Commonwealth, 13 Savings Bank v. Allen, 28 Conn. 97; Bush, 261. Cooley's Const. Lim. *374 et seq. 9> Cooley's Const. Lim.,*371 et seq. See New York, etc. R R. Co. v. Van 92 Dulany's Lessee v. Tilghman, 6 Horn, 57 N. Y. 473. G. & J. 461; Andrews v. Russell, 7 94 Johnson v. Meeker, 1 Wis. 43G. Blackf. 474; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 95 Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143, 2 48 111. 331; Webber v. Howe, 36 S. C. Rep. 408, 27 L. Ed. 682. _ Mich. 150; Journeay v. Gibson, 56 96 Denny v. McCown, 34 Ora 47, Pa. St. 57; Carpenter v. Pennsylva- 54 Pao. 952. nia, 17 How. 456, 15 L. Ed. 127; Es- REPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 551 "whilst it was in force are good; but if a proceeding is in progress, in fieri, when the statute is repealed, and the pow- ers it confers cease, it fails, for it cannot be pursued.^' It is held that a statutory right of appeal may be taken away, even while an appeal is pending.'^ Jurors drawn and des- ignated according to law to serve for a term of court were " Bac. Abr., tit. Statute, D. ; Road in Hatfield Township, 4 Yeates, 393; Veats V. Danbury, 37 Conn. 412; Stoever v. Immell, 1 Watts, 258; Commonwealth v. Beatty, id. 383; Gilleland v. Schuyler, 9 Kan. 569; Church V. Rhodes, 6 How. Pr. 281; Smith V. Arapahoe Dist. Ct., 4 Colo. S35; State v. Brookover, 23 W. Va. 214; New London Northern R. R. Co. V. Boston, etc. R. R. Co., 103 Mass. 389; Springfield v. Commis- sioners, 6 Pick. 501 ; McRee v. M'Le- more, 8 Heisk. 440; Downs v. Town of Huntington, 35 Conn. 588; Mac- nawhoo Plantation v. Thompson, 36 Me. 365; Illinois, etc. Canal v. Chicago, 14 111. 334; Uwchlan Town- ship Road, 30 Pa. St. 156; Hunt v. Jennings, 5 Blackf. 195; Williams .V. Middlesex, 4 Met. 76; Stephen- son V. Doe, 8 Blackf. 508, 46 Am. Dec. 489; James v. Dubois, 16 N. J. L. 285; Petition of Fenelon, 7 Pa. St. 173; South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U. S. 433, 35 L. Ed. 937; Hamp- ton V. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. St. 339; Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co., 101 Pa. St. 119; Holmes v. French, 68 Me. 525; Warne v. Beres- ford, 2 M. & W. 848; Bucher v. Henderson, L. R. 3 Q. B. 335; Todd V. Landry, 5 Martin, 459, 13 Am. Dec. 479; Callahan v. Jennings, 16 Colo. 471, 37 Pao. 1055; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Lumpkin, 99 Ga. 647, 26 S. E. 74; State v. Order of Elks, 69 Miss. 893, 13 So. 255; State ■Rev. Agent v. Hill, 70 Miss. 106, 11 So. 789; State v. Fragiacomo, 71 Miss. 417, 15 So. 798; Wooding v. Puget Sound Nat. Bank, 11 Wash. 527, 40 Pac. 223. The city of Evansville passed an ordinance for the improvement of streets pursuant to a power given in the charter. It was held that the subsequent repeal of the sec- tion conferring the power did not aflfect the ordinance. Chamber- lain V. Evansville, 77 Ind. 543; Dashiell v. Baltimore, 45 Md. 615. In March, 1875, a trader committed an act of bankruptcy, upon which a commission might have issued under the statutes then in force. On May 1st these statutes were re- pealed. On May 3d the repealing act was repealed and the former acts thereby revived. In July a commission of bankruptcy issued. Held, it was supported by the act of bankruptcy in March. Lord Tenterden : " We find certain stat- utes in force in March, 1825, when the act of bankruptcy was com- mitted, and we find the same stat- utes in force in July when the commission issued. It appears to me that the case is not affected by anything that passed in the inter- val. The 5 Geo. IV., cb. 98, having been repealed, is to be considered, as far as this question is concerned, as if it had never existed." Phillips V. Hopwood, 10 B. & C. 39. 98 Callahan V. Jennings, 16 Colo. 471, 27 Pao. 1055. And see Lake 552 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. held to continue to be legal jurors for the term, though dur- ing the term a new law went into effect prescribing a new method of drawing jurors.'' A grand jury summoned be- fore the repeal of a law by a revision, which changes the qualifications and method of drawing grand jurors, cannot be impaneled after the repeal takes effect.' If there has been a change or alteration or repeal of the law applicable to the rights of the parties, after the rendition of judgment, and pending an appeal, the case must be heard and decided in the appellate court, according to the existing law.^ When a cause of action is founded on a statute, a repeal of the Erie & W. Ry. Co. v. Walkins, 157 Ind. 600, 63 N. E. 443. See post, §717. 99 Welty V. Lake Superior, etc. Ry. Co., 100 Wis. 128, 75 N. W. 1033; Ray V. Lake Superior, eta Ry Co., 99 Wis. 617, 75 N. ;W. 420. 1 Clark V. United States, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.) 395. And see State v. Thomas, 30 La. Ann. 603. 2 Musgro ve v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. Co., 50 Miss. 677; Lewis v. Foster, 1 N. H. 61; Speckert v. Louisville, 78 Ky. 287; State v. Daley, 29 Conn. 273; Atwell v. Grant, 11 Md. 104; Keller v. State, 13 id. 325, 71 Am. Deo. 596; Price v. Nesbitt, 29 Md. 263; Mayor of Annapolis v. State, 30 id. 112; Wade v. St. Mary's School, 43 id. 178; Hartung v. Peo- ple, 22 N. Y. 95; United States v. The Peggy, 1 Cr. 103, 3 L. Ed. 49; Sheppard v. State, 1 Tex. App. 522; Vance v. Rankin, 194 111. 635, 63 N. E. 807, 88 Am. St. Rep. 173; Mc- Nabb V. Tonica, 103 IlL App. 150; Wikel V. Commissioners, 120 N. C. 451, 27 S. E. 117; Sherman v. Lang- ham, 92 Tex. 13, 40 S. W. 140, 43 S. W. 961, 39 L. R. A. 358, 360; The Schooner Rachel v. United States, 6 Cranch, 329, 3 L. Ed. 239; Yeaton V. United States, 5 Cranch, 281, 3 ' L. Ed. 101. In "Vance v. Rankin, 194 111. 635, 63 N. E. 807, 88 Am. St. Rep. 173, the court says: "The ef- fect of the repeal of a statute is to obliterate the statute repealed as completely as if it had never been passed, and it must be considered as a law that never existed, except for the purposes of those actions or suits which were commenced, prosecuted and concluded while it was an existing law. Pending ju- dicial proceedings based upon a statute cannot proceed after its repeal. This rule holds true until the proceedings have reached a final judgment in the court of last resort, for that court, when it comes to pronounce its decision, conforms it to the law then exist- ing, and may therefore reverse a judgment which was correct when pronounced in the subordinate tri- bunal fi'om whence the appeal was taken, if it appears that pending the appeal a statute which was necessary to support the judgment of the lower court has been with- drawn by an absolute repeal." KEPBALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 553 statute before final judgment destroys the right, and a judg- ment is not final in this sense so long as the right of excep- tion thereto remains.' While a case was pending on writ of error, the statute on which the jurisdiction of the lower court depended was repealed. The court inadvertently re- versed the judgment and remanded the cause. On its at- tention being called to the statute, it recalled the mandate, set aside the judgment of reversal and dismissed the writ of error.^ Where a jurisdiction conferred by statute is prohib- ited by a subsequent statute, or the law conferring it is re- pealed, the jurisdiction ceases and causes pending at the time fail, and no costs are recoverable by either party unless saved by provisions of the repealing law.* If pursued the proceedings will be void,* but they may subsequently be validated in certain cases, as when intended to establish a public rather than a private charge or liability.^ Jurisdic- tion may be taken away by repeal of the statutes conferring pp. 627, 638. See Dunham v. Anders, 128 N. C. 207, 38 S. E. 832, 83 Am. St. Eep. 668. 3 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Lump- kin, 99 Ga. 647, 26 S. E. 74; Balch V. Detroit, 109 Mich. 253, 67 N. W. 123. ■* United States v. Kelly, 97 Fed. 460, 38 C. C. A. 275. 5 HoUingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall, 378; Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541, 18 L. Ed. 540; United States v. Boisdore, 8 How. 118, 13 L. Ed. 1009; Grant v. Grant, 12 S. C. 29, 32 Am. Eep. 506; Mo- Nulty V. Batty, 10 How. 73, 13 L. Ed. 333, 576; Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 19 L. Ed. 264; Assessors V. Osbornes, 9 Wall. 567, 19 L. Ed. 748; United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 20 L. Ed. 153; Baltimore, etc. R E. Co. V. Grant, 98 U. S. 398, 25 L. Ed. 231; Eice v. Wright, 46 Miss. 679; Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Cal. 819; Smith v. Arapahoe Dist. Ct, 4 Colo. 235; Wade v. St. Mary's Industrial School, 43 Md. 178; Saco V. Gurney, 84 Me. 14; Miller's Case, 1 W. Black. 451; Yeatonv. United States, 5 Cr. 281, 3 L. Ed, 101; Springfield v. Commissioners of H, 6 Pick. 501; Commonwealth v. Marshall, 11 id. 350, 83 Am. Dec. 377; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 21 Pick. 373; Thayer v. Seavey, 11 Me. 284; Cummings v. Chandler, 26 Me. 453; Texas Mexican Ry. Co. v. Jarvis, 80 Tex. 456, 15 S. W. 1089; Fairchild v. United States, 91 Fed. 297. 6 North Canal Street, 10 Watts, 351, 86 Am. Dec. 185; Church v. Ehodes, 6 How. Pr. 381; Morgan v. Thorne, 7 M. & W. 400; Petition of Fenelon, 7 Pa. St. 173; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Pet. 492, 7 L. Ed. 496. ' In re Pennsylvania Hall, 5 Pa. 554 EBPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. it by necessary implication as well as by express words.' An application was made to the courtof quarter sessions for the discharge of a prisoner under an insolvent debtor act, and every requisite was complied with by the debtor; but the court voluntarily, and without his application, adjourned the matter to a subsequent day, before which the act was repealed. On motion for a mandamus to the sessions to pro- ceed to discharge him, the court of king's bench refused to grant it, as no act of jurisdiction could be done by the ses- sions after the repeal of the statute, though the proceeding had begun before.' § 286 (166). Effect of repeal of a penal statute.— The repeal or expiration of a statute imposing a penalty or for- feiture will prevent any prosecution, trial or judgment for any offense committed against it while it was in force, un- less the contrary is provided in the same or some other exist- ing statute." Where a penal statute is so modified as to St. 204. See Cooley's Const. Lim. *371; Plantation No, 9 v. Bean, B6 Me. 359. 8 Gates V. Knight, 3 T. E. 443: Crisp V. Bunbury, 8 Bing. 394; New London N. R. R. Co. v. Boston, etc. R R. Co., 103 Mass. 386. 9 Rex V. Justices of London, 3 Burr. 1456; Miller's Case, 1 W. Black. 451. 1" Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cr. 281,3 L. Ed. 101; Commonwealth V. Marshall, 11 Pick. 350, 83 Am. Dec. 377: Commonwealth v. Pattee, 13 Cush. 501 ; Heald v. State, 30 Ma 63; Mayers v. State, 7 Ark. 68; Rob- erts V. State, 8 Overt. 433; Bennett V. State, 3 Yerg. 473; Brothers v. State, i Cold. 301; Higginbotham v. State, lOFla. 557; Leftwiche's Case, 5 Rand. 657; Scutt's Case, 8 Va. Cas. 54; Bank of St. Mary's v. State, 13 Ga. 475; State v. Nutt. Phil. L. 20; Catlisle v. State, 48 Ala. 523; Governor v. Howard, 1 Murphy, 465 ; State V. Banks, 13 Rich. 609; Com- monwealth V. Cain, 14 Bush, 535; State V. Addington, 3 Bailey, 516; United States v. B'inlay, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 364, Fed. Cas. No. 15,099; The- Irresistible, 7 Wheat 551, 5 L. Ed. 530; Duane'sCase, 1 Binn. 601; Bay- City, etc. R. R. Co. V. Austin, 31 Mich. 390; United States v. Six Fer- menting Tubs, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 808, Fed. Cas. No. 16,396; Mastrenadav. State, 60 Miss. 86; Mayor, etc. v. State, 30 Md. 113; Commonwealth V. Welch, 3 Dana, 330; Harrison v. Allen, Wythe (Va.), 391; Stoever v. Immell, 1 Watts, 358; Woodburn v. Western Union Tel. Co., 95 Ga. 808, 83 S. E. 116; People v. Hiller,. 113 Mich. 209, 71 N. W. 630; Lind- sey v. State, 65 Miss. 548, 5 So. 99,. 7 Am. St. Rep. 674; Hodnett v. State, 66 -Miss. 26, 5 So. 518; West- chester County v. Dressner, 83 Appt EEPEALS AND EEPEALING. ACTS. 555' exempt a class from its operation, violations by such exempted class before such modification' took effect cannot be prose- cuted afterwards." If a penal statute is repealed pending an appeal and before, the final action of the appellate court, it will prevent an affirmance of a conviction, and the prose- cution must be dismissed or the judgment reversed.'^ A final judgment before repeal is not affected by it." The repeal operates as a pardon of all offenses against it " and a bar to- any subsequent prosecution.^^ There can be no legal con- Divr. 315, 48 N. T. S. 953; State v. Oliver, 13 Wash. 547, 41 Pac. 895; Gulf, Colo. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Lott, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 48; Cleveland, Cin. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. V. Wells, 65 Ohio St. 313, 62 N. E. 333; Dyer v. Ellington, 126 N. C. 941, 36 S. E. 137; Billiard v. Roach, 3 Pa. Co. Ct. 174; State V. Mansel, 53 S. C. 468, 30 S. E. 481. 11 Commonwealth v. Welch, 3 Dana, 330. Instate v.'King, 13 La. Ann. 593; Mouras v. The A. C. Brewer, 17 id. 83; Keller v. State, 13 Md. 333, 71 Am. Deo. 596; Lewis v. Foster, 1 N. H. 61; Speokert v. Louisville, 78 Ky. 387; Commonwealth v. Sher- man, 85 id. 686; Union Pac. Ry. Co. V. Proctor, 13 Colo. 194, SOPao. 615; State V. Allen, 14 Wash. 103, 44 Pac. 131; Mahoney V. State, 5 Wyo. 520, 43 Pac. 13, 63 Am. Sfe Rep. 64. 13 People V. Hobson, 48 Mich. 37, 27 N. W. 771; State v. Addington, 3 Bailey, 516. See Aaron v. State, 40 Ala. 807; Rex v. Davis, 1 Leach, C. C. 871; Rex v. Heath, 3 East P. C. 609; Rex v. McKenzie, R. & R. C. C. 429; Leschi v. Territory, 1 Wash. Ty. 13; Saco v. Gurney, 34 Me. 14; Gaul v. Brown, 53 Me. 496; Welch V. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 149, 79 Am. Dec. 336; Heald v. State, 36- Me. 62; Broughton v. Branch Bank, 17 Ala. 838; Taylor v. State, 7 Blackf. 93; State v. Loyd, 3 Ind. 659; Thompson v. Bassett, 5 id. 535 ^- State V. O'Conner, 13 La. Ann. 486; State v. Cress, 4 Jones (N. C), 421; State V. Van Stralen, 45 Wis. 437; State V. Campbell, 44 id. 529; State V. Ingersoll, 17 Wis. 681; Fisher v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 644;. Calkins v. State, 14 Ohio St. 333;. Wood V. Kennedy, 19 Ind. 68: State V. Fletcher, 1 R. L 193; Greer v. State, 32 Tex. 588; Town of Belvi- dere v. Warren R. R. Co., 34 N. J., L. 193; S. C. in error, 35 id. 584;. Snell V. Campbell, 24 Fed. 880;. Mulkey v. State, 16 Tex. App. 53; State v. Long, 78 N. C. 571; Hub- bard V. State, 3 Tex. App. 506; Montgomery v. State, id. 618; Rood! V. Chicago, etc. Ry. Co., 43 Wis. 146; State v. Gumber, 37 Wis. 298; Union. Iron Co. v. Pierce, 4 Biss. 327; State V. Brewer, 23 La. Ann. 273. 14 Wharton v. State, 5 Cold. 1. . 15 Howard v. State, 5 Ind. 183, 94 Am. Dec. Sl4; Griffin v. State, 39 Ala. 541; Genkinger v. Common- wealth, 33 Pa. St. 99; Wall v. State,. 18 Tex. 633, 70 Am. Dec. 303. -656 . EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. -viction for an offense unless the act be contrary to law at ithe time it is committed ; nor can there be judgment unless the law is in force ,at the time of the indictment and judg- ment.'* Where a statute imposes a penalty for an injurious act ■done to the rights of others, such penalty to be recovered by the party aggrieved, it is in the nature of a satisfaction to him, as well as a punishment of the offender. In such a case the plaintiff is said to have acquired a vested right to the pen- alty as soon as the offense is committed, and a general repeal -of the statute after action accrued does not affect that right." An ordinance passed pursuant to a power in a city charter is not invalidated by repeal of the provision granting the power.'* "While a convict in the state prison was liable to additional punishment under a statute in force at the time of sentence and commitment, in consequence of having been twice convicted and sentenced to confinement, a statute was passed so modifying the previous statute that a convict would be liable to additional punishment only in case he had been twice discharged from imprisonment. Before the prisoner was released from confinement under his second sentence the modifying statute was repealed. It was held that such statute operated to suspend, so long as it remained in force, but not to discharge, the prisoner's liability to ad- ditional punishment." The repeal of a statute allowing the 16 Commonwealth v. Marshall, 11 716; Graham v. Chicago, eta R. R Pick. 350; Commonwealth v. Mc- Co., 53 Wis. 473, 10 N. W. 609; Grey Donough, 13 Allen, 581; Common- v. Mobile Trade Co.. 55 Ala. 387, 28 wealth V. Kimball, 21 Pick. 373; Am. Eep. 729. See Union Iron Co. Hartung v. People, 33 N. Y. 95; Pit- v. Pierce, 4 Biss. 327; Bay City, etc. man V. Commonwealth, 3 Rob. (Va.) R. R. Co. v. Austin, 81 Mich. 390; 813; State v. Daley, 29 Conn. 273. Hibbard v. Parmenter, etc. Co., 70 " President, etc. of L. v. Harri- N. H. 156, 46 Atl. 683. . son, 9 B. & C. 524; Company of Cut- is Chamberlain v. Evansville, 77 lers V. Ruslin, Skinner, 363; Palmer Ind. 543. V. Conly, 4 Denio, 374, 2 N. Y. i' Commonwealth v. Getchell, 16 182; Thompson v. Howe, 46 Barb. Pick. 458. See Commonwealth v. -287; Harris v. Townsheud, 56 Vt. Mott, 21 Pick. 492. REPEALS AND KEPEALINQ ACTS. 55r defendant to give bail in a criminal case pending an appeal annuls the right as to past offenses or pending cases.^" g 287 (167). Saving clauses and general saving stat- utes. — The effect of repeal upon inchoate rights, upon of- fenses and upon incomplete proceedings may be avoided by a saving clause providing that it shall not affect such rights, prosecutions for such offenses, or such proceedings,^' or by^ a general statute for that purpose. Such general statutes have been enacted in nearly all of the states as well as by congress.^^ The provision in the Iowa statute may be re- garded as a typical one of this sort.^' " The repeal of a stat- ute does not revive a statute previously repealed, nor affect- any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any pen- 20 In re Shoemaker, 3 Okl. 606, 39 Pac. 284 21 People V. Gill, 7 Cal. 356; Peo- ple V. Maxwell, 78 Hun, 157, 31 N. Y. S. 564 . 22 See United States v. Eeisinger, 138 U. S. 398, 9 S. C. Eep. 99, 33 L. Ed. 480. In the following cases general saving statutes were construed and applied: Peltier v. Bradley, 67 Conn. 48, 84 Atl. 713, 32 L. E. A. 651 ; State V. Helms, 136 Ind. 122, 85 N. E. 893; Starr v. State, 149 Ind. 592, 49 N. E. 591 ; Meagher v. Drury, 89 Iowa, 366, 56 N. W. 531; Denning v. Yount, 63 Kan. 217, 61 Pac. 803, 50 L. R. A. 103; Denning v. Yount, 9 Kan. App. 708, 59 Pac. 1093; Com- monwealth V. Duff, 87 Ky. 586,9 S. W. 816; Commonwealth v. Selby. 87 Ky. 594 9 S. W. 819; Miles v. Commonwealth, 16 Ky. L. E. 92; Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 150 Mass. 315, 38 N. E. 47; State v. Smith. 63 Minn. 540, 64 N. W. 1022; State V. Reads, 76 Minn. 69, 78 N. W. 883; Sigman v. Lundy, 66 Miss. 523, 6 So. 345; Gassert v. Bogk, T Mont. 585, 19 Pac. 281, 1 L. E. A. 340; Bookwalter v. Conrad, 15 Mont, 464 39 Pac. 573, 851; Chi- cago Title & T. Co. V. O'Marr, 18 Mont. 568, 46 Pac. 809, 47 Pac. 4; State V. Crusius, 57 N. J. L. 379, 31. Atl. 235; Barnaby v. Bradley & Currier Co., 60 N. J. L. 158, 37 Atl. 764; People v. New York Central,, etc. R R. Co., 156 N. Y. 570, 51 N. E., 313; Empire State Savings Bank v. Beard, 81 Hun, 184, 30 N. Y. S. 756;- Wirt V. Supervisors, 90 Hun, 305,- 35 N. Y. S. 887; Lancaster v. Knight, 74 App. Div. 255, 77 N. Y.- S. 488; People v. Bremer, 69 App. Div. 14 74 N. Y. S 570; McCann v. Mortgage Bank & Invest. Co., 3 N.. D. 172, 54 N. W. 1036; Wallace v. Goodlett, 104 Tenn. 670, 58 S. W. 343; Bratton v. Johnson, 76 Wis. 430, 45N. W.413; Crocker v. Hunt- zicker, 113 Wis. 181, 88 N. W. 332; United States v. Keokuk & H.. Bridge Co., 45 Fed. 178. 23 Iowa Code (1888), § 49, par. 1. 558 EEPBALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. alty incurred, or any proceeding commenced, under and by virtue of the statute repealed." A tax voted and levied was held to be saved by that provision, though the statute under which the tax was so levied was repealed before the collection of the tax.^' Such a general provision has the same effect as a saving clause in the repealing statute.^' These general statutes do not bind the legislature, but in the absence of anything showing the contrary, it is pre- sumed that it was intended that they should apply.^* These general saving statutes are held not to apply to the repeal of city ordinances.^' A saving clause is intended to save something which would otherwise be lost.^' An act grant- ing review after judgment was repealed "saving all actions pending; " this saving was held to mean a saving of some- thing out of that which was repealed, and therefore to save pending petitions for review.^' It may embrace an inchoate 2'' Tobin V. Hartshorn, 69 Iowa, 648, 29 N. W. 764. 25 Cedar Rapids, etc. Ry. Co. v." CaiToU Co., 41 Iowa, 153; Dillofl v. Liiider, 36 Wis. 341; Burlington v. Builington, etc. Ry. Co., 41 Iowa, 134; Bartruff v: Remey, 15 id. 257; Chicago, etc. R. R. Co. v. Harts- horn, 30 Fed. Rep. 541; United States V. Barr, 4 Sawy. 254. Fed. Cas. No. 14,527; Garland v. Hickey, 75 Wis. 178, 43 N. W. 832; Harris V. Townshend, 56 Vt. 716; Jones v. State, 1 Iowa, 395; Volmer v. State, 34 Arlj. 487; Sanders v. State, 77 Ind. 227; Tempe v. State, 40 Ala. 350; State v. Ross, 49 Mo. 416; Treat V. Strickland, 23 Me. 234; Hine v. Pomeroy,39Vt.211; State v. Boyle, 10 Kan. 113; State v. Crawford, 11 id. 32; Ballin v. Ferst, 55 Ga. 546; McCuen v. State, 19 Ark. 634; Peo- ple V. Sloan, 2 Utah, 336; McCal- jnent v. State, 77 Ind. 250; Fowle <\'. Kirkland, 18 Pick. 299; Barton V. Gadsden, 79 Ala. 495; Grace v. Donovan, 12 Minn. 580; Pacific, etc. Tel. Co. v. Commonwealth, 66 Pa. St. 70; Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. 613; State v. Hardman, 16 Ind. App. 357, 45 N. E. 345. 26 People V. England, 91 Hun, 152, 36 N. Y. S. 1130; McCann v. New York, 52 App. Div. 358, 65 N. Y. S. 308. 27 Rutherford v. Swink, 96 Tenn. 564, 35 S. W. 554. 28 Colby V. Dennis, 36 Me. 9, 12. 2' Id. When a real action was commenced a statute was in force which provided that if either of the demandants should die during the pendency of a real action his death should be suggested on the record, and that the survivor might amend his declaration by describing his interest in the premises and pro- ceed in the cause to final judgment. During the pendency of the action the statutes were revised so as to REPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 559 right as well as the remedy for its enforcement when it matures.^" A saving, that actions pending at the time of the repeal or passage of an act shall not be affected thereby, does not include proceedings in insolvency ,'' nor a petition pending before county commissioners for the location of a highway.'- A municipal appropriation within the restric- tions of the charter, when made, is not affected by a subse- quent statute so changing the limit that such appropriation would exceed it, where the new statute contains a provision that "nothing in this act shall in anj^ measure affect or im- pair any proceeding had and done under the acts to which this is an amendment, or any rights or privileges acquired under said acts." '' A general law for the incorporation of cities provided that any city under a special charter might adopt any chap- repeal that provision, but the revis- ion contained these saving clauses: That ail real actions which shall be pending '• shall proceed and be con- ducted to final judgment, or other final disposal, In lilce manner as if this chapter had never been en- acted ; " in another section a saving to all persons of "all actions and causes of action wliioh shall have accrued in virtue of or founded on any of said repealed acts, in the same manner as if such acts had never been repealed." It was con- tended that that action did not ac- crue in virtue of the repealed act, nor was founded on it. Shepley, J., said: "When the language is consid- ered in connection with [the other saving clause] and with the recol- lection that the general purpose of the revision was to embody in a more systematic form the existing laws, with certain modifications and new provisions, without de- stroying existing rights, there can be little doubt that it was the inten- tion of the legislature to preserve not only actions which, technically and properly speaking, accrued or had been founded on the statute, but those also which were preserved and secured to a party by the re- pealed act." Treat v. Stricljland. 23 Me. 334. 30 Cochran v. Taylor, 13 Ohio St. 388. "Belfast V. Fogler, 71 Me. 40S. Provisions saving pending proceed- ings are construed in the foUowjn^ oases: Rice v. MoCauUy, 7 Houst, 226, 31 Atl. 240; Nelson v. Sykes. 44 Minn. 68, 46 N. W. 207; Hopkins v Jamieson-Dixon Mill Co., 11 Wash. 308, 39 Pac. 815. 32 Webster v. County Commis- sioners, 63 Me. 27; Downs v. Town of Huntington, 35 Conn. 588. And see Burlington v. Burlington Trac- tion Co., 70 Vt. 491, 41 Atl. 514. ssBeatty, Auditor, v. People, 6 Colo. 538. 560 EEPEALS AND EBPEALING ACTS. ter or section in lieu of its charter on the same subject. It was held that such adoption had the same effect as an amendment of the charter and that the general saving stat- ute would apply to save any rights under the charter pro- visions displaced by the adoption.'* But where a local prohibitory statute was displaced by the adoption of a local option law, it was held that prosecutions under the pro- hibitory law were not preserved by the general saving stat- ute.^^ An act of February 10, 1893, repealed the mortgage tax law without any saving clause as to taxes then due. On February 21, 1893, an act was passed that these taxes should be collected as if there had been no repeal. Both acts went into Immediate effect. It was held that the acts were to be construed together and that the saving clause of the later act was virtually incorporated into the earlier.'^ The right to peremptory challenges in a criminal case is held not to accrue until the defendant is put on trial, and where the statute giving such right is repealed before the trial, the right is not preserved by a general saving statute, that a repeal shall not affect any right accrued before such repeal." And the same saving statute was held not to pre- serve a lien for wages, where the repeal of the statute took place after the labor was performed and before proceedings commenced.^' A revenue act provided that lands sold for the non-pay- ment of taxes could be redeemed within a certain time upon the payment of a fixed penalty. The act was repealed by a subsequent one, changing the time of redemption and the amount of the penalty, but providing that the former act should remain in force for the collection of taxes levied thereunder. It was held that an act in force for the pur- pose of collection was in force for the purpose of redemp- 34 Mauoh V. Hartford, 112 Wis. 40, Pac. 643 ; Windle v. Hughes, 40 Ore. 87 N. W. 816. 1, 65 Pac. 1058. '5 Wooten V. Commonwealth, 98 37 Mathis v. State, 31 Fla. 291, 12 Ky. 468, 33 S. W. 397. So. 681. 38 Smith V. Kelly, 24 Ore. 464, 33 38 National Bank v. Williams, 38 Fla. 305, 20 So. 981. EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 561 tion.'' The lien of a judgment in respect ,to duration was held saved by the words "no rights vested or liabilities in- curred at that time shall be lost or discharged." The judg- ment lien is incident to a judgment, a liability incurred, and therefore saved from the effect of the repealing stat- ute.^" A saving of pending prosecutions does not include a case where the prosecution has closed and sentence has been pronounced;** nor cases commenced afterwards.''^ Under a saving of pending prosecutions and offenses theretofore committed, an indictment filed after the repeal took effect was sustained.*' Such a provision in a repealing act relates solely to the acts repealed by it,** unless a different inten- tion is deducible from the language of the saving clause. A provision in the repealing law to the effect " that no remed}' to which a creditor is entitled under the provisions of the laws heretofore in force shall be impaired by this act" does not apply to creditors suing for breaches of the bond occurring since the enactment of the repealing stat- ute.*' The effect of the repeal of a statute and its re-enact- ment in the same words b}' a statute which takes effect at the same time with the repealing act is to continue such statute in uninterrupted operation.*' The rule is the same- as to criminal offenses.*' § 288 (168). Revival by repeal of repealing statute. — The common-law rule is well settled that the simple repeal, suspension or expiration of a repealing statute revives the 3'J Wolfe V. Henderson, 28 Ark. Dashiell v. Mayor, etc., 45 Md. 615; 304 Capron v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304; ^o Dearborn V. Patton, 3 Ore. 420. United Hebrew B. Asso. v. Ben- "Aaron V. State, 40 Ala. 307. See shimol, 130 Mass. 325; Knoup v. Luke V. Calhoun Co., 56 Ala. 415. Bank, 1 Ohio St. 603; Coffin v. Rich, «2Knox V. Baldwin, 80 N. Y. 610. 45 Me. 507, 71 Am. Dec. 559; Smith « Sanders v State, 77 Ind. 227. v. Estes, 46 Me. 158. « Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. *' State v. Cumber, 37 Wis. 298; 613. State v. Wish, 15 Neb. 448, 19 N. "Collins V. Warren, 63 Tex. 311. W. 686; ante, § 238; MoMullen v. <6Laude v. Chicago, etc. E. R. Guest, 6 Tex. 278; Hirsehburg v. Co., 33 Wis. 640; Middleton v, N. People, 6 Colo. 145. J. etc. R. R. Co., 26 N. J. Eq. 269; 36 562 EEPEALS AND EEFEALING ACTS. repealed statute, whether such repeal was express or only by implication." But it is frequently provided by statute that the repeal of a repealing act shall not have that effect.*' Where a law is merely suspended, the removal of its suspen- sion restores its operation notwithstanding such a statute.^" The constitution of New Jersey provides that "no law shall be revived or amended by reference to its title only, but the act revived, or the section or sections amended, shall be in- serted at length." It has been held by the highest court of that state that this provision does not cover a revival by operation of law and, therefore, that the repeal of a repeal- ing act revives the original acf The same ruling has been made in Tennessee in a case where the first repeal was by implication only.^^ "When a statute restraining a man's nat- «Gale V. Mead, 4 Hill, 109; Brown v. Barry, 3 Dall. 365; People V. Davis, 61 Barb. 456; Wheeler v. Roberts, 7 Cow. 536; Van Denburgh V. President, etc., 66 N. Y. 1 ; Van Valkenburgh v. Torrey, 7 Cow. 253; People V. Trustees, 26 Hun, 488; Commonwealth v. Churchill, 2 Met. 118; Hastings v. Aiken, 1 Gray, 163; McMillan v. Bellows, 37 Hun, 214; Doe V. Naylor, 2 Blackf. 33; Harris V. Supervisors, 33 Hun, 379; Zim- merman V. Perkiomen, etc. Co., 81* Pa. St. 96; Baum v. Thoms, 150 Ind. 378, 50 N. E. 357, 65 Am. St. Rep. 368; Mayor v. Broadway, 97 N. Y. 375; Chard v. Holt, 136 N. Y. 30, 38 N. E. 740; People v. Scannel, 68 App. Div. 849, 70 N. Y. S. 983; Greenlee V. Eisenbrown, 10 Pa. Co. Ct. 4S3; Ottman v. Hoffman, 7 Misc. 714, 88 N. Y. S. 88. It has been held that a statute repealed by two acts is not revived by repeal of one of them. Dyer v. State, Meigs, 837; Teter v. Clayton, 71 Ind. 237; Poor Directors v. R R. Co., 7 Watts & S. 236; Zimmerman v. Perkiomen, 81* Pa. St. 96; Longlois v. Longlois, 48 Ind. 60; Waugh v. Riley, 68 id. 483; Niblack, Adm'r, V. Goodman, 67 id. 174; Brinkley v. Swicegood, 65 N. C. 626; Harrison v. Walker, 1 Ga. 33; People v. Wintermute, 1 Dak. 63, 46 N. W. 694; Janes v. Buz- zard, Hempst. 259; Witkouski v. Witkouski, 16 La. Ann. 238; Talla^ mon V. Cardenas, 14 id. 509; Weak- ley V. Pearce, 5 Heisk. 401; High- tower V. Wells, 6 Yerg. 849. See Southwark Bank v. Common- wealth, 36 Pa. St. 446. ^9 Rice V. Commonwealth, 22 Ky. L, R. 1793, 61 S. W. 473; State v. Sawell, 107 Wis. 300, 83 N. W. 296. 5" State V. Sawell, 107 Wis. 300, 83 N. W. 296;Cassell v. Lexington, etc. Turnpike Ca, 10 Ky. L. R. 486, 9 S. W. 502. 61 Wallace v. Bradshaw, 54 N.J. L. 175, 23 Atl. 759, reversing 53 N. J. L. 315, 21 Atl. 941. S'! State V. King, 104 Tenn. 156, 57 S. W. 150; Zickler v. Union Bank EEPEALS AND EEPBALING ACTS. 563 tiral rights, or his use of his property, is repealed, he is re- stored to those rights, as before the law was passed/' This rule of revival was held to apply to the vote of a tax by tax- able inhabitants. This vote was restored to effect by re- pealing a rescinding vote.^* Where a statute professes to repeal absolutely a prior law and substitutes other provis- ions on the same subject which are limited to continue only till a certain time, the prior law does not revive after the repealing statute is spent, unless the intention of the legis- lature to that effect is expressed/^ The legislature may make the revival of an act depend upon a future event to be made known by executive proclamation.'^ Where an act is revived by a subsequent law the legislature must be understood to give it, from the time of its revival, precisely that force and effect which it had at the moment when it expired." Incomplete proceedings which were arrested and rendered void by repeal of the statute under which they were instituted will not be restored to life by a revival thereof.'* A forfeiture for a prohibited act was given by statute to any one who should sue for it. Afterwards the exclusive right to sue for it was given to overseers of the poor. The repeal of this act was held to operate only pros- pectively and gave no right to any other than the overseers ■& T. Co., 104 Tenfl. 277, 57 S. W. pealed, but its operation merely 541. Contra, Renter v. Bauer, 3 Kan. suspended or interrupted by the 505. In the first case cited the adoption of another rule." pp. 166, 'Court says: " Whatever may be the 167. law as to the revival of lawsvchich S3 James v. Dubois, 16 N.J. L. 285. have been expressly repealed by ^4 Gale v. Mead, 4 Hill, 109. repealing the repealing act, it '' Warren v. Windle, 3 East, 205. has been held in this state, and we s" Cargo of Brig Aurora v. United think upon sound principle, that States, 7 Cr. 383, 3 L. Ed. 378. when a law has been repealed by 57 jj, g^e Shipman v. Henbest, implication merely, the repeal- of 4 T. R. 109; Winter v. Dickerson, the act which thus impliedly re- 43 Ala. 93. peals the former law revives such 58 Commonwealth v. Leech, 24 law, and this for the reason such Pa. St. 55. iormer law was never, in fact, re- 5Qi EBPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. for forfeitures incurred during the operation of the second act.'9 -Where the repeal of a repealing statute is for the purpose of substituting other provisions in its place, the implication of an intention to revive the repealed statute cannot arise, and especially if the substituted provision is repugnant to the original provision, or is not properly cumulative to it.*" So the repeal of a statute which was a revision of and a substitute for a former act to the same effect which was therefore repealed cannot be deemed to revive the previous act; for this- would be plainly contrary to the intention of the legislature.*^ And where a statutory provision has been repealed without change in the amendatory act and the lat- ter is afterwards repealed, the original provision is repealed also.'^^ Statutes have been very generally adopted in the states abolishing the rule of implied revival as a consequence of the repeal of the repealing statute.*' In State v. Slaughter*^* the court construed the effect of a general provision that " where any law repealing any former law, clause or provision shall itself be repealed, it shall not be considered to revive such former law, clause or provis- ion, unless it be expressly otherwise provided." It was held that if the section of the marriage act under consideration repealed or superseded the common law on the subject of incestuous marriages, its repeal would not revive the com- mon law. Where a revival requires re-enactment, a legis- lative declaration that an act mentioned shall not repeal the provision will not suflBce.*' Where a general act appli- es Van Valkenburgh v. Torrey, 7 ^2 Moody v. Seaman, 46 Mich. 74, Cow. 352. 8 N. W. 711 ; Goodno v. Oshkosh, 31 60 Coraraonwealth v. Churchill, 3 Wis. 187; People v. Supervisors, 67 Met. 118; Bouton v. Royce, 10 Phila. N. Y. 109, 23 Am. St. Rep. 94; Har- 559; Warren v. Windle, 3 East, 805. ris v. Supervisors, 33 Hun, 379. 61 Butler V. Russel, 3 Cliff. 251, "3 gee Milne v. Huber, 3 McLean, Fed. Caa No. 2843; Butner v. Boi- 218, Fed. Cas. No. 9617. feuillet, 100 Ga. 743, 28 S. E. 464; 64 70 Mo. 484. State V. Burk, 88 Iowa, 661, 56 N. 65 state v. Conkling, 19 Oal. 50U W. 180; Cochrane v. King County, 13 Wash. 518, 41 Paa 923. EEPEALS AND EEPEALIKG ACTS. 565 cable to all the counties of the state is repealed as to a par- ticular county, and a still later act amends a section so partially repealed, the amendment will not be deemed to affect the excluded county .^^ Where a repealing act is repealed before it goes ints effect, it is nugatory and the original act stands.^' Where a local or special law is repealed by another local or special law and the latter is then repealed, it is held that the orig- inal act is not revived, if there is a general law covering the subject.*^ An act imposing certain fees and duties upon auctioneers was amended "so as to read as follows," and the amendatory act repealed. The latter act contained provisions which indicated that the legislature supposed that the repeal revived the original act. Two years later the next legislature passed an act based upon the assump- tion that the original act was in force. It was held that this belief or assumption of the legislature could have no effect to revive the original act without appropriate words to that effect.^' Where a city was incorporated under a general law and afterwards under a special charter, it was held that the repeal of the latter did not restore the former organization.™ 66 People V. Tyler, 36 Cal. 523. again breathed into it. . . . The 67 Adam v. Wright, 84 Ga. 720, 11 belief of the legislature of 1883, S. E. 898. however, has not the slightest tend- 68 Knox Street, 13 Pa. Supr. Ct. enoy to prove what was the legal 534. effect of the action of the legisla- 69 People V. Wilmerding, 136 N. tureof 1868 upon the prior statutes. Y. 3G3, 33 N. E. 1099. The court This is a. simple question of law. says: "A legislative intent to work We find from an examination of a revival of a law which already, the act of 1868 that the act of 1866 by legislative action, has been was plainly and in unmistakable wholly annihilated is not alone language i-epealed. The fact that sufficient to accomplish such re- the legislature of 1883 treated the vival. There must be some Ian- third section of the act of 1866 as guage used which is at least equiv- still alive is simply proof of a legis- alent to an enactment before an lative error in regard to the law.'' act, which had become wholly ex- pp. 373, 374 tinct and blotted out, can be re- '"> Euohs ^. Athens, 91 Tenn. 30, vived and have the breath of life 18 S. W. 400, 30 Am. St. Rep. 8-58 666 EEPBALS AND EEPEALING AOTS. § 289. Constitutional provisions as to repeals.— The constitution of Georgia provides as follows: "No law, or section of the code, shall be amended or repealed by mere reference to its title, or to the number of the section of the code, but the amending or repealing act shall distinctly de- scribe the law to be amended or repealed, as well as the alteration to be made." '' A repealing act which gives the title of the act repealed and date of its approval is held to comply with the constitution.^'' The constitution of Tennes- see contains a similar provision reading as follows: "All acts which repeal, revive or amend former laws shall recite in their caption or otherwise the title or substance of the law repealed, revived or amended." An act to repeal cer- tain sections of an act gave the title of the act containing the sections and the date of its passage, and was held suf- ficient." It is held that these constitutional provisions do not apply to repeals by implication." § 290. Repeal by constitution. — Ordinarily constitu- tional provisions imposing limitations upon the legislative power are prospective in their operation and do not repeal existing statutes.''' But a constitutional provision may be so framed as to repeal all inconsistent legislation.™ The constitution of Mississippi, adopted in 1890, forbids local or special laws on various subjects, and among others exempt- ing any person from jury, road, or other civil duty, and de- ■" Const. 1877, art. 3, sec. 7, par. v. Memphis, 93 Tenn. 571, 36 S. W. 17. 838; State v, Yardley, 95 Tenn. 546, « Adam v. Wright, 84 Ga. 730, 11 33 S. W. 481, 34 L. R. A. 656; Hen- S. E. 893; Fullington v. Williams, ley v. State, 98 Tenn. 665, 41 S. W. 98 Ga. 807, 37 S. E. 183. 353. '3 Ruohs V. Athens, 91 Tenn. 30, " Pecot v. Police Jury, 41 La. 18 S. W. 400, 30 Am. St. Rep. 858. Ann. 706, 6 So. 677; ante, g 190. ^* Johnson v. Southern Mut. B. & '« Griebel v. State, HI lud. 369, 12 L. Ass'n, 97 Ga. 633, 35 S. E. 358; N. E. 700; Fesler v. Bray ton, 145 Collins V. Russell, 107 Ga. 433, 33 Ind. 71, 44 N. E. 37; Van Pelt v. S. E. 444; Higgins v. Mitchell Gardner, 54 Neb. 701, 75 N. W. 874- County, 6 Kan. App. 314, 51 Pao. Remington v. Higgins, 6 S. D. 313, 73; Lowe v. Bourbon County, 6 60 N. W. 73. Kan. App. 603, 51 Pac. 579; Hunter KEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. 667 Clares that no person shall be exempted therefrom by force of any local or private law. The latter was held to repeal all local or private laws conferring such exemption." The constitution of Arkansas, adopted in 1864, contained the following: "And it is further hereby declared that all laws in force in this state on the 4th day of March, 1861, are still in force, not inconsistent with the provisions of this consti- tution and which have not expired by limitation therein contained." This was held, by implication, to repeal all laws passed subsequent to March 4, 1861.™ Before the new constitution of Ohio took effect, the legislature of that state passed a law authorizing towns and counties, the people as- senting, to subscribe for stock in railroad corporations. A clause in the constitution declares that " the general assem- bly shall never authorize any county, town or township by vote of its citizens or otherwise to become a stockholder in any joint-stock company or corporation." It was held that this clause did not repeal the previous law.™ § 291. An act to repeal a void act. — In State v. Field ^^ the question arose whether an act to repeal a void act was itself valid. The act in question purported to repeal the void act and to substitute a valid act in its place. The act was sustained and the court says: "But it is said a void act is no law, and the power to repeal does not reach it. It is evident, however, that this argument ignores the fact that unconstitutional enactments are sometimes spread upon our statute books and are obeyed by the people and the officers of the law, and are usually clothed with the semblance at least of valid laws. They stand unchallenged sometimes for years, and then present the gravest questions for the "Chidsey v. Scranton, 70 Miss. 437; Van Hagan, Ex parte, 25 id. 449, 12 So. 545. 426; Elizabethtown, etc. R. R. Co. v. '8 Ex parte Osborne, 24 Ark. 479; Elizabetlitown, 12 Bush, 233; Coats Mach V. Johnson, 59 Arlr. 333, 27 S. v. Hill, 41 Ark. 149; Stephens v. W, 231. Ballon, 27 Kan. 594. '9 Cass V. Dillon, 2 Ohio St. 607; ^ong Mo. 593, 34 S. W. 753. State ex rel. v. Dudley, 1 Ohio St. 568 EEPEALS AND REPEALING ACTS. determination of the courts. Now, when placed upon the statute books by the action of the legislature, why should not the same governmental agency remove them from the statutes and prevent them from becoming snares and pit- falls to the people of the state. Surely it needs no argu- ment to demonstrate that the legislature has the power to see that nothing shall deface our statute books that is not a law. . . . Certainly the legislature may purge the statute books of any matter not lawfully there. To deny it this power is to ascribe to it a most dishonoring impo- tence and a disregard of the analogies of the law." § 292. Construction of express repeals. — The repeal- ing clause of a statute is not effective until the act goes into effect and until then the old law remains in force.*' The express repeal of certain sections implies an intent not to repeal other sections.*^ An act was revised and repealed except one section. This was held not to give any new force to that section, nor to make it a part of the new act.*' "Where a territorial act was amended by congress "so as to read as follows," and as so amended was approved and con- firmed, the territorial act was held to be repealed.** A re- peal of all former acts on pleading and practice was held not to repeal an act making the county from which a change of venue is taken liable for all expenses of the trial.*^ A statute providing a remedy for an illegal tax was held not embraced in a general repeal of all laws relating to assess- ments in an act prescribing and regulating the method of assessing taxes.** An act fixing the compensation of county commissioners at three dollars and fifty cents a day and re- pealirig all local acts fixing a less per diem was held not to 81 state V. Kearney. 49 Neb. 335, *' Matter of Lampson, 32 Miso. 337, C8 N. W. 538, 70 N. W. 355. 198, 49 N. Y. S. 576. 82 Sales V. Barber Asphalt Pa v. "Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95, Co., 166 Mo. 671, 66 S. W. 979; Curt- 22 S. E. Rep. 776, 46 L. Ed. 1070. wrlght V. Crow, 44 Mo. App. 563; 85 state v. Moore, 121 Ind. 116, 23 Crosby v. Patch, 18 Cal. 438; State N. E. 743. V. Morrow, 36 Mo. 131. See Burn- 86 Shear v. Commissioners of Co- ham V. Onderdonk, 41 N. Y. 425. lumbia, 14 Fla. 146. EEPEALS AND EEPEALINQ ACTS. 569 repeal a local act fixing a salary.^' An act relating to the selection of jurors in counties of Y0,000 population or more repealed the existing law on the subject as to such counties, with a proviso that the former law should remain in force until such time as the county board complied with the act. Non-compliance having been shown in a given case the former law was held to be in force.^^ An act of congress disapproved and annulled all acts of the territory of Utah " which establish, support, maintain, shield or countenance polygamy." This was held not to annul an act providing that illegitimate children and their mothers should inherit the same as legitimate children.^' The code of IS'orth Caro- lina provided that no act of a private or local nature should be construed to be repealed by any section of the code. It was held that no provision of a private charter would be repealed though it was of a public nature.'" Where an act states that it is to take the place of statutes which have failed in their object and there was only one section of the Eevised Statutes which could have been intended, that sec- tion will be held to be repealed, though not necessarily in- consistent." An act of March 8, 1893, in regard to foreign corporations repealed chapter 24 of the laws of 1887 on the same subject. In the revised code passed February 19, 1896, chapter 24 was largely, though not identically, re- enacted. On March 13, 1895, an act was passed providing that the act of March 8, 1893, should continue in full force and eflfeot. It was held that this did not give any force to the section in the latter act repealing chapter 24, so as to make it operate on the sections of the code adopted from said chapter."^ A general revenue law of Washington re- 87 Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 2 Pa. 9» State v. Womble, 113 N. C. 868, :Supr. Ct. 6; aflSrmed, 178 Pa. St. 17 S. E. 491, 19 L. E. A. 837. 308; Bucks County v. Gill, 5 Pa. 9i Meriwether v. Love, 167 Mo. Dist. Ct. 266. 514, 67 S. W. 250. 88 Neal V. State, 33 Neb. 130, 49 N. ^2 state v. Potwitt, 17 Mont 41, W. 174. 41 Pac. 1004 89 Cope V. Cope, 137 U. S. 682, 11 S. E. Rep. 332, 34 L. Ed. 832. 570 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING AOTS. pealed all acts and parts of acts theretofore enacted by the legislature of the territory or state "providing for the as- sessment and collection of taxes " in that state. This was held to refer to laws operating generally in all parts of the state and not to repeal an act on the subject applicable only to cities of the first class."' "Where the title of a repealing- act describes the act to be repealed it need not be again de- scribed in the body of the act but may be referred to as "said act.'"* § 293. Errors and mistakes in express repeals. — A liquor tax law of New York passed in 1896 contained an express repeal of various acts including chapter Y44 of the acts of 1895. This act related to a sewer in Eochester and was amended at the same session. Chapter 774 of the acts of 1895 was a liquor statute. The reference to chapter 744 was held to be a clerical mistake and the law was held not to be repealed.'^ An act of Washington to provide for the reclamation of the state's granted school, tide, oyster and other lands contained an express repeal of an act relating to arid lands. The former act as passed did not relate to such lands, but it appeared that as introduced it embraced the arid lands, but the provisions relating to such lands were stricken out of the title and body of the act in course of its passage through the legislature. This was held to show that the legislature did not intend to deal with arid lands and that the repealing clause was left in by mistake and should be disregarded.'^ The title of an act was to amend sections 643, 644, 646 and 647 of the code. The body of the act amended these sections and repealed sec- tions 243, 244, 246 and 247. This was held to be a mistake, and the repealing clause was corrected by the title and 93 state V.Carson, 6 Wash. 350,33 Co. v. Williams, 63 App. Div. 553, Pao. 428. 51 N. Y. S. 399; MoKee Land & Imp. 9* Savings Bank v. Burns, 104 Cal. Co. v. Swikehard, 23 Misc. 21, 51 N. 473, 38 Pao. 102. The body of the Y. S. 399. act was "section 1 of said act is ^6 jjgwiett v. Cheetham, 17 Wash, hereby repealed." 62G, 50 Pac. 523. 85 McKee Land & Improvement EEPEALS AND EEPEALINa ACTS. 571' body of the act so as to repeal the same sections as were- amended.'' "A clause in a statute purporting to repeal other statutes- is subject to the same rules of interpretation as other enact- ments, and the intent must prevail over literal interpreta- tion." '' An absolute repeal may be construed as a qualified or partial repeal, where other parts of the statute show such to have been the real intent.'' The revised codes of North Dakota included a new reve- nue law and expressly repealed a great number of acts in- cluding " chapter 132 of the laws of 1890." One section of- this chapter out of a hundred or more provided for the of- fice of district assessor in unorganized counties. If this section was repealed then there was no provision in the law for levying a tax in such counties and the whole revenue law was void. The new act referred to the office as an ex- isting one and plainly intended that all property in the- state should be taxed. It was held that the absolute repeal of the whole chapter should be qualified by excluding the- section in question from its operation.' 97 state V. Pierce, 51 Kan. 241, 33 To give effect to that purpose w& Pao. 924. must limit the broad language of 98 Smith V. People, 47 N. T. 330, the repealing act, so that it will not 339; Home B. & L. Ass'n v. Nolan, defeat such purpose. Not having 21 Mont. 305, 53 Pac. 738. made provision in the new revenue- 99 l(j. law for the office of district assessor, 1 State V. Morehouse, 5 N. D. 406, and yet having clearly evinced a 67 N. "W. 140. The court says: " It purpose that property in such terri- is manifest that tlie broad letter of tory should be assessed, and having this repealing act is in conflict with in terms referred to that office and the whole spirit and purpose of the the district over which the juris- revenue law passed at the same diction of a district assessor ex- time. As both cannot stand, it is tended, it does not admit of doubt obvious that we must give effect to that it was never intended by the- that which expresses the true leg- legislature that those provisions of islative purpose. It is too plain chapter 132 relating to the office of for argument that one of the great district assessor, etc., should be re- purposes of the legislation was to pealed. To reach the contrary con- provide for the assessment of prop- elusion would be to impute to the erty throughout the entire state, legislature a deliberate intention, -572 EEPEALS AND KEPBALING ACTS. § 294. Effect of a statute and its repeal upon the com- mon law. — A statute inconsistent with the common law >repeals the common law so far as it is inconsistent.^ " If the legislature undertakes to provide for the regulation of hu- man conduct in respect to a specific matter or thing already covered by the common law, and parts of which are omitted from the statute, such omission may be taken generally as evidence of the legislative intent to repeal or abrogate the same." ' But an intention to change the rule of the com- mon law will not be presumed from doubtful statutory pro- visions; the presumption is that no such change is intended unless the statute is explicit and clear in that direction.* The common law will be held no further abrogated than the clear import of the language used in the statute re- quires.^ .An act provided that any person who shall keep a disorderly house shall on conviction thereof be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than three hundred dollars or by imprisonment not less than ten days or more than six months. The keeping a disorderly house was a to pass an unconstitutional law, for 80 N. W. 585, 76 Am. St. Rep. 877; its violation of the state oonstitu- Hill v. Ginn, 3 Penn. (Del) 174, 43 tion would be palpable if it left a Atl. 608. portion of the territory of the state ^ in re Lord & Polk Chemical Co., without any legislation authoriz- 7 Del. Ch. 848, 44 Atl. 775. ing the levy and colleotion of taxes * McClelland v. Hammond, 13 therein. Moreover, we must not Colo. App 83, 54 Pao. 538; McCarthy ignore the public mischief which v. McCarthy, 30 App. Cas. (D. C.) would result from such a construe- 195; Bozarth v. Largent, 138 111. tion of the statute as would de- 95, 21 N. E. 318; Deatherage v. feat taxation, not only in these un- Rohrer, 78 111. App. 348; Common- organized townships, but through- wealth v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., out the entire state. In a doubt- 104 Ky. 366, 47 S. W. 358; Beard v. ful case, such consideration should State, 74 Md. 130, 31 Atl. 700; For- have great weight; but we do not rester v. Boston, etc. Min. Co., 31 regard this case as at all doubt- Mont. 514, 55 Pao. 339, 353; People ful." p. 410. Compare People v. v. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110, 16 N. E. Wilmerding, 136 N. Y. 363, 32 N. E. 539; Smith v. Railroad Co., 183 Pa. 1099, which is stated in section 388, St. 139. 37 Atl. 930. -note 69. 6 Id. ; Fitzgerald v. Quann, 109 N. 2 Barger v. Berger, 104 Wis. 283, Y. 441, 17 N. E. 354. REPEALS AND EEPBALING ACTS. 5(5 common-law offense punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court, without limit. It was held that the statute did not repeal the common law as to past offenses, and a person convicted before the act took effect was sentenced after it took effect to a fine of $1,200 and imprisonment for thirteen months and the judgment sustained.* The repeal of a statute which abrogates the common law revives the common law,' even though there is a statute that the repeal of a repealing act shall not re- vive the act repealed.* So the repeal of an act declaratory of the common law leaves the common law in force." § 295. Miscellaneous points and cases. — The mere refer- ence to a repealed act or section as still in force, or the sup- position or assumption on the part of the legislature that, such act or section remains in force, does not affect the re- peal or restore the law.^" Where a provision which excepts a class or specified localities from the operation of the act is repealed, the law operates generally over the excepted class or localities." The enacting clause of a statute belongs no 6 Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 Compare State v. Morehouse, 5 N. Atl. 700. D. 406, 67 N. W. 140. In the case 'Matiiewson v. Phoenix Iron first cited the court says: "But Foundry, 20 Fed. Rep. 281; State v. even if congress had supposed that Rollins, 8 N. H. 550; Gray v. Obear, thatsection was still the law, when, 54 Ga. 231; Lowenberg v. People, as a matter of fact, it had been re- 87 N. Y. 336. See Boismare v. His pealed, it would make no difference Creditors, 8 La. 315. in this consideration. The question' 8 Beavan v. Went, 155 111. 593, 41 is, was said § 354 repealed by the N. E. 91, 31 L. E. A. 85; Baum v. act of 1878? That is a judicial Thorns, l.';0 Ind. 378, 50 N. E. 357, question, to be determined by the 65 Am. St. Rep. 368. courts, upon a proper construction 9 Hanlon v. Partridge, 69 N. H. 88, of that section and subsequent leg- 44 Atl. 807; Chippewa Falls V. Hop- islation upon the same subject- kins, 109 Wia 611, 85 N. W. 553; matter, and is not for the legisla- Matter of Steinway, 31 App. Div. tive branch of the government to- 70. 52 N. Y. S. 343. determine." p. 27. 1" District of Columbia v. Hut- ii Heinssen v. State, 14 Colo. 228, ton, 143 U. S. 18, 13 S. C. Rep. 369, 23 Pac. 995; Bauen County Court 36 L. Ed. 60; People v. Wilmerd- v. Knislow, 9 Ky. L. R. 108; Pusher ing, 136 N. Y. 363, 33 N. E. 1099. v. Morris, 53 Minn. 325, 53 N. W.. '574 EEPEALS AND EEPEALING ACTS. more to the first section of a statute than to the other sec- tions, and a repeal of the first section does not leave the •other sections without such clause.'^ A freeholders' charter framed in accordance with the constitution is held to repeal prior inconsistent laws.'^ A statute forbade the sale of liquors within three miles of an orphans' home. It was held that ■the burning of the home and the temporary removal of the inmates to a place five miles distant did not suspend the operation of the act." An act imposing upon three cities the duty of maintaining a bridge is not repealed by an act consolidating them into one, but the obligation passes to the new corporation.^' The mere omission of an act from a re- vision was held not to repeal it.'^ "Where a town voted for license under a general local option law, a prohibitory act applicable to the precinct including the town was held to be repealed as to such town." "Where a law is revised and certain provisions omitted, which had been declared invalid, a repeal of all inconsistent laws cannot be construed as a re-enactment of the omitted provisions, on the ground that they are not inconsistent." Where one section is dependent upon another, a repeal of the latter destroys both.^' An amendment to a section or statute is not necessarily repealed by a repeal of the section or statute amended.^" A joint resolution of congress passed July 7, 1898, annexed the Hawaiian Islands and provided that the municipal legisla- tion of the Islands, not inconsistent with the resolution,nor contrary to the constitution of the United States nor to any 143; Grand Isle v. Milton, 68 Vt !« State v. Meek, 26 Wash. 405, 67 234, 35 Ati. 71. Pac. 76. liiPearce v. Vittum, 193 III. 193, "Lafferty v. Hoffman, 99 Ky. 80, 61 N. E. 1116. 35 S. W. 123, 32 L. E. A. 203. 13 Ex parte Sparks, 120 Cal. 395, i^ Vance v. Vandercook County, 52 Pac. 715. 170 U. S. 438, 18 S. C. Rep. 645, 43 " State V. Barringer, 110 N. C. 525, L. Ed. 1111. 14 S. E. 781; State v. Eaves, 106 N. "Stony Creek v. Kabel, 144 Ind. ■C. 752, n S. E. 370, 8 L. E. A. 259. 501, 43 N. E. 559. 15 Winters v. George, 31 Ore. 251, 20 state v. Young, 80 & C. 399, 9 ^7 Pac. 1041. S. E. 355; State v. Whitesides, 30 S. C. 579, 9 S. E. 661. EEPBALS AND EEPEALING ACTS, 575 existing treaty, should remain in force until congress should otherwise deterniine. Congress did not otherwise determine until June 14, 1900. It was held that the resolution did not annul legislation permitting criminals to be tried on information and to be convicted by less than the unanimous verdict of a jury, that the intent was to continue the exist- ing system of laws under which civil and criminal justice was administered, and that the intent prevailed over the letter of the resolution.*' Though the reason for a statute ceases, the statute continues until repealed.*^ 21 Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 22 State v. Eaves, 106 N. C. 752, 11 197. a E. 370, 8 U E. A. 259. CHAPTER IX. STATUTES VOID IN PART. § 296 (169). Statutes may be void in part and good in part, — In this country legislative bodies have not an un- limited power of legislation. Constitutions exist which contain the supreme law. Statutes which contravene their provisions are void. Courts have power, and they are charged with the judicial duty, to support the constitutions under which they act against legislative encroachments. They will declare void acts which conflict with paramount laws.' Where a part only of a statute is unconstitutional, and therefore void, the remainder may still have effect under certain conditions. The court is not warranted in declar- ing the whole statute void unless all the provisions are con- nected in subject-matter, depend on each other, were de- signed to operate for the same purpose, or are otherwise so dependent in meaning that it cannot be presumed that the legislature would have passed one without the other. The constitutional and unconstitutional provisions may even bs expressed in the same section, or even in the same sentence^ and yet be perfectly distinct and separable, so that the first may stand though the last fall.^ The point or test is not iSoudder v. Trenton Delaware 121; Hill v. Sunderland, 3 Vt. 507; Falls Co., 1 N. J. Eq. 694, 23 Am. Holden v. James, 11 Mass. 396, 6 Deo. 756; State v. Parkhurst, 9 N. Am. Dec. 174. J. L. 437; Bank of Hamilton v. Dud- 2 Grimes v. Eddy, 126 Mo. 168, 28 ley's Lessee, 2 Pet. 493, 7 L. Ed. 496; S. W. 756, 47 Am. St. Rep. 653, SO Ogden V. Saunders, 13 Wheat. 213, L. R A. 638; People v. Knopf, 183 6 L. Ed. 606; Emerick v. Harris, 1 III. 410, 56 N. E. 155; State v. Dil- Bin. 416; Piscataqua Bridge v. N. Ion, 32 Fla. 545, 14 So. 383; Moore H. Bridge, 7 N. H. 35; Pierce v. v. State, 63 Neb. 345, 88 N. W. 514; Kimball, 9 Me. 59; Goshen v. Ston- State v. Westerfield, 33 Nev. 468, 49 ington, 4 Conn. 335, 10 Am. Dec. Pac. 119. STATUTES VOID IN PART, 577 whether they are contained in the same section, for the dis- tribution into sections is purely artificial, but whether they are essentially and inseparably connected in substance.' If so connected the whole statute is void.* ' Treasurer v. Bank, 47 Ohio St. 503, 523, 25 N. E. 697; Common- wealth V. Hitohings, 5 Gray, 482; Mobile, etc. R. R. Co. v. State, 29 Ala. 573; South & North Ala. R. R. Co. V. Morris, 65 Ala. 193; State v. Brown, 19 Fla. 563; Morrison v. State, 40 Ark. 448; State v. Wilson, 12 Lea, 246; Tillman v. Cocke, 9 Baxt. 499; Johnson v. Winslow, 63 N. O. 553; Harlan v. Sigler, Morris, 39; State v. Marsh, 37 Ark. 356; State V. Kantler, 33 Minn. 69; S. G, 6 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 169; American Print Works v. Law- rence, 23 N. J. L. 590, 17 Am. Deo. 420; Lea v. Bumm, 83 Pa. St 237; Bittle V. Stuart, 34 Ark. 224; Na- tional Bank v. Barber, 24 Kan. 534; Darrah v. McKlm, 3 Hun, 337; Berry t. R. R. Co., 41 Md. 446, 30 Am. Rep. 69; Fleisohner v. Chad- wick, 5 Ore. 153; Village of Deposit V. Vail, 5 Hun, 310; State v. Clarke, 54 Mo. 17; Turner v. Board of Com- missioners, 37 Kan. 314; State v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 390; People ex rel. V. Kenney, 96 N. Y. 394; Dur- yee v. Mayor, etc., id. 477; Matter of Met. Gas Light Co., 85 id. 527- Matter of Sackett, etc. Streets, 74 id. 95; Matter of Ryers, 73 id. 1; Tiernan v. Rinker, 103 U. S. 123, 26 L. Ed. 103; Powell v. State, 69 Ala. 10; State ex rel. v. Tuttle, 53 Wis. 45, 9 N. W. 791; State v. Newton, 59 Ind. 173; Tripp v. Overocker, 7 Colo. 73, 1 Pac. 595; Gunnison Co. Com. V. Owen, 7 Colo. 467; People v. Jobs, id. 475; People v. Hall, 8 id. 485, 9 Pac. 34; Cole v. Commission- ers, 78 Me. 533; Re Grofif, 81 Neb. 647; Frazer, Ex parte, 54 Cal. 94. In Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 96, ^ Yerby v. Cochrane, 101 Ala. 541, 14 So. 355; Randolph v. Builders' and Painters' Supply Co., 106 Ala. 501, 17 So. 721; Orange County v. Harris, 97 Cal. 600, 32 Pao. 594; Ballentine v. Willey, 8 Idaho, 496; Duggan V. Peoria, etc. Ry. Co., 43 111. A pp. 536; ToUey v. Courter, 93 Mioh. 469, 53 N. W. 620; Attorney- General V. Gramlich, 139 Mich. 630, 89 N. W. 446; Board of Education V. Moses, 51 Neb. 288, 70 N. W. 946; Ex parte Hewlett, 22 Nev. 333, 40 Pac. 96; Johnson v. State, 59 N. J. L. 271, 35 Atl. 787; Johnson v. State, 59 N. J. L. 535, 37 AtL 949, 38 L. R. A. 373; Smeath v. Mager, 64 N. J. 37 L. 94, 44 Atl. 983; McArdle v. Jer- sey City, 66 N. J. L. 590, 49 Atl. 1013, 88 Am. St. Rep. 496; New York V. Manhattan Ry. Co., 143 N. Y. 1, 37 N. E. 494; Rathbone v. Wirth, 150 N. Y. 459, 44 N. E. 1124, 34 L. R. A. 408; Angell v. Cass County, 11 N. D. 365, 91 N. W. 72; State V. Bradt, 103 Tenn. 584, 53 S. W. 942; Kimbrough v. Barnett, 93 Tex. 301, 55 S. W. 120; Skagit County v. Stiles, 10 Wash. 388, 39 Pac. 116; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 22 S. C. Rep. 431, 46 L. Ed. 679; Loeb v. Colum bia Tp., 91 Fed. 37; Union Sewe» Pipe Co. V. Connelly, 99 Fed, 354 578 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. If one provision of an enactment is invalid and the others valid, the latter are not affected by the void provision, un- less they are plainly dependent upon each other, and so in- separably connected that they cannot be divided without defeating the object of the statute.* And the converse is true. The vicious part must be distinct and separable, and, when stricken out, enough must remain to be a complete act, capable of being carried into effect, and sufficient to ac- complish the object of the law as passed, in accordance with the intention of the legislature.' It should be confined to Comstock, J., said: "A doctrine which is expressed in the words 'void in part, void in toto,' has often found its way into books and judi- cial opinions as descriptive of the eiiEect which a statute may have upon deeds and other instruments which have in them some forbidden vice. There is, however, no such general principle of law as the maxim would seem to indicate. On the contrary, the general rule is that if the good be mixed with the bad it shall nevertheless stand, pro- vided a separation can be made. The exceptions are, first, where a statute by its express terms de- clares the whole deed or contract void on account of some provision which is unlawful; and second, where there is some all-pervading vice, such as fraud, for example, which is condemned by the com- mon law, and avoids all parts of the transaction because all are alike infected." ^ Duryee v. Mayor, etc., 96 N. Y. 477; Re Groff, 21 Neb. 647. 5 The following cases sustain the general principles stated, and in each case the act in question was held to be severable and the valid part was sustained as an act com- plete in itself: Bradley v. State, 99 Ala. 177, 13 So. 415; Keutz v. Mo- bile, 120 Ala. 623, 24 So. 952; Browne V. Mobile, 122 Ala. 159, 25 So. 223; State V. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, 30 So. 344, 89 Am. St. Rep. 23; Leep v. Railway Co., 58 Ark. 407, 25 a W. 75, 41 Am. St. Rep. 109, 23 L. R. A. 364; Gray v. Matheny, 66 Ark. 36, 48 S. W. 678; MoGowan v. McDonald, 111 Cal, 57, 43 Pac. 418, 52 Am. St. Rep. 149; Murphy v. Pacific Bank, 119 Cal. 334, 51 Pao. 317; Johnson V. Tautphaus, 127 Cal. 605, 60 Pac. 172; English v. State, 31 Fla. 340, 13 So. 689; State v. Dillon, 33 Fla. 545, 14 So. 383; Ex parte Pitts, 85 Fla. 149, 17 So. 76; Irwin v. Greg- ory, 86 Ga. 605, 13 S. E. 120; Gaines- ville V. Simmons, 96 Ga. 477, 23 S. E. 508; People v. Illinois State Re- formatory, 148 111. 413, 36 N. E. 76; Ritchie v. People, 155 111. 98, 40 N. E. 454, 462, 46 Am. St. Rep. 815, 39 L. R. A. 79; People v. Knopf, 183 111. 410, 56 N. E. 155; Smith v. Mc- Clain, 146 Ind. 77, 45 N. E. 41; Townsend v. State, 147 Ind. 634, 47 N. E. 19, 62 Am. St. Rep. 477, 37 L. R. A 294; State v. Ray, 153 Ind. 334, 54 N. E. 1067; Missouri, Kan. STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 579 the same limits and still subject to the intended qualifi- cations.^ § 297 (170). General rules and principles. — It may be laid down generally as a sound proposition that one part of a statute cannot be declared void and leave any other part in force, unless the statute is so composite, consisting of such separable parts, that, when the void part is eliminated, an- other living, tangible part remains, capable by its own terms of being carried into effect, consistently with the intent of the legislature which enacted it in connection with the void ■& Tex. Ey. Co. V. Simonson, 64 Kan. 802, 68 Pao. 653, 91 Am. St. Eep. 348; Hardy v. Kingman Coun- ty, 65 Kan. Ill, 68 Pao. 1078; State V. Goff, 106 La. 870, 30 So. 844; Gra- ham V. Muskegon County Cletk, 116 Mich. 571, 74 N. W. 729; Moreland V. Millen, 126 Mich. 381, 85 N. W. 883; Belding Land & Imp. Co. v. Belding, 138 Mich. 79,87 N. W. 113; Stotz V. Thompson, 44 Minn. 271, 46 N. W. 410; Reimer v. Newel, 47 Minn. 237, 49 N. W. 865; State v. Sullivan, 73 Minn. 136, 75 N. W. 8; State V. Justus, 85 Minn. 279, 88 N. W. 759, 89 Am. St. Eep. 550; North- western Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis & Clark County, 28 Mont. 484; Moore v. State, 63 Neb. 345, 88 N. W. 514; State v. Humboldt County Com'rs, 21 Nev. 235, 29 Pac. 974; State V. Westerfield, 23 Nev. 468, 49 Pac. 119; State v. Franklin, 59 N. J. L. 106, 84 Atl. 1088; Lawton v. Steele, 119 N. Y. 226, 23 N. E. 878, IB Am. St. Eep. 813, 7 L. E. A. 134; Matter of New York & L. L Bridge Co., 148 N. Y. 540, 42 N. E. 1088; Bohmer v. Hafflen, 161 N. Y. 390, 55 N. E. 1047; McCless v. Meekins, 117 N. C. 34, 23 S. E. 99; Eothermel V. Meyerle, 136 Pa. St. 250, 20 Atl. 583, 9 L. E. A. 366; Commonwealth V. Moir, 199 Pa. St. 534, 49 Atl. 851, 85 Am. St. Eep. 801; Philadelphia, M. & S. St. Ey. Co., Petitioner, 203 Pa. St. 354, 53 Atl. 191 ; Treasurer V. Bank, 47 Ohio St. 503, 25 N. E. 697; State v. Eussell, 20 Ohio C. C. 551; State v. Clark, 15 E. I. 383, 5 Atl. 635; State v. Cummins, 99 Tenn. 667, 43 S. W. 880; Grebble v. Wilson, 101 Tenn. 613, 49 S. W. 736; Zwerneman v. Van Eosenberg, 76 Tex. 533, 13 S. W. 485; People v. Clayton, 4 Utah, 431, 11 Pac. 206; State V. Kibling, 63 Vt. 636, 22 Atl. 613; Carter v. Commonwealth, 96 Va. 791, 33 S. E. 780, 45 L. E. A. 310; Danville v. Hatcher, 101 Va. 533; State V. Henry, 28 Wash. 38, 68 Pac. 368; Baker v. State, 80 Wis. 416, 50 N. W. 518; Bittenhaus v. Johnston, 93 Wis. 588, 66 N. W. 805, 33 L. E. A. 380; Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 12 S. C. Eep. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294; Reagan v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 154 U. S. 363, 14 S. C. Eep. 1047, 38 L. Ed. 1014; Busch v. Webb, 122 Fed. 655. 6Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 485; Burkholtz v. State, 16 Lea, 71; Bit- tie v. Stuart, 34 Ark. 234; Allen v. Louisiana, 103 U. S. 80, 26 L. Ed. 318; People v. Porter, 90 N. Y. 68. 580 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. part. " If the legislative purpose as expressed in the valid portions of the act can be accomplished, independently of the unconstitutional portion, and, considering the entire act, it cannot be said that the legislature would not have passed the valid portion had it been known that the invalid por- tion must fail, effect will be given to so much as is good." ^ On the other hand, if it is obvious that the legislature did not intend that any part should have effect unless the whole,, including the part held void, should operate, then holding a part void invalidates the entire statute. ' "If all the pro- visions of an act are so interwoven as to be incapable of distinct separation, or are of such a character that it cannot be said that the legislature intended that the valid parts shall be enforced if the other parts fail, the entire law will be held to be invalid." ' If the obnoxious section or part is of such import that the other sections or parts without it would cause results not contemplated or desired by the leg- islature, then the entire statute must be held inoperative.* If a statute attempts to accomplish two or more objects, or to deal with two or more independent subjects, and the provisions as to one are void, it may still be in every respect complete and valid as to any other.'" Illustrations of this 'English V. State, 31 Fla. 340, 12 Ballentine v. Willey, 8 Idaho, 496, So. 689. "If the court can see and 31 Pac. 994; Chicago, B. & Q. R. R. say that the act, in the form in Co. v. Jones, 149 111. 361, 37 N. E. which it is left with the obnoxious 347, 41 Am. St, Rep. 278, 34 L. R. A. portions excised, is still such an 141; Rothermel v. Meyerle, 136 Pa., act as it may be presumed that the St. 350, 30 Atl. 583, 9 L. E. A. 366. legislature would have passed had ' Johnson v. State, 59 N. J. L. 371, it known that certain provisions 378, 35 Atl. 787;«S. C. affirmed, 69- were void, the remainder, under N. J. L. 535, 37 AtL 949, 38 L. R. A. well-settled rules of construction, 373. may stand." Dwyer v. Parker, 115 ' Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Cal. 544, 47 Pac. 373. See also Har- Co., 184 U. S. 540, 565, 22 & C. Rep. per V. State, 109 Ala. 38, 19 So. 857; 431, 46 L. Ed. 679. Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 66, 19 So. i» People v. Cooper, 83 111. 585; ' 901; Newman v. People, 28 Colo. Towles, Ex parte, 48 Tex. 413; State 300, 47 Pac. 378; Branch v. Lew- v. Clinton, 38 La. Ann. 201; Wells, erenz, 75 Conn. 319, 53 AtL 658; Ex parts, 31 Fla. 280; Hinzev.Peo- STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 581 proposition are furnished by numerous cases wiiere acts are violative of the constitutional injunction that an act shall relate to but one subject, which shall be stated in the title. If the act embraces more than one subject, and one is stated in the title, it is valid as to that subject if complete in itself, but void as to any other. The elimination of the latter leaves a constitutional act, where there is no interdependence between the subjects." If the matter of the act foreign to the subject stated in the title is divisible from that which is clearly within the title, and the latter can stand and have effect without the former, then only so much of the act as is not embraced in the title is void." But otherwise the whole act is void." pie, 93 111. 406; Lombard v. Antiooh College, 60 Wis. 459, 19 K W. 367; Sparrow v. Commissioner of Land Office, 56 Mich. 567, 23 N. W. 315; People V. Luby, 56 Mich. 551, 83 N. W. 318; Bittenhaus v. Johnston, 93 Wis. 588, 66 N. W. 805, 33 L. E. A. 380; Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 13 S. C. Eep. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294. 11 People V. Hall, 8 Colo. 485, 9 Pao. 84; State v. Kurds, 19 Neb. 317; Whited V. Lewis, 35 La- Ann. 568; Gibson v. Belcher, 1 Bush, 145; Jones V. Thompson, 13 id. 394; Fuqua v. Mullen, 13 Bush, 467; Harris v. Supervisors, 33 Hun, 379; Mississippi, etc. Co. v. Prince, 34 Minn. 79; Municipality No. 3 v. Michoud, 6 La. Ann. 605; State v. Exnicius, 33 id. 253; State v. Crow- ley, 33 id. 782; State v. Dalon, 35 id. 1141; Dorsey's Appeal, 72 Pa. St. 193; Thomason, Ex parte, 16 Neb. 238; Davis v. State, 7 Md. 151. 12 Unity V. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447, 26 L. Ed. 405; Moore, Ex parte, 63 Ala. 471; Walker v. State, 49 id. 329; Lowndes County v. Hunter, 49 id. 507; Shields v. Bennett, 8 W. Va. 74; Matter of Sackett St., 74 N. Y. 95; Mewherter v. Price, 11 Irid. 199; Bucky v. Willard, 16Fla. 330; State v. Wilson, 7 Ind. 516; Packet Co. v. Keokuk, 95 U. S. 80, 24 L. Ed. 377; Matter of De Vau- cene, 31 How. Pr. 341; Harris v. Supervisors, 33 Hun, 279; Rader v. Township of Union, 39 N. J. L. 509; Colwell V. Chamberlin, 43 id. 387; Matter of Van Antwerp, 56 N. Y. 261 ; People ex rel. v. Briggs, 50 id. 553; Fleisohner v. Chadwiok, 5 Ore. 152; Matter of Paul, 94 N. Y. 497; Dewhurst v. City of Allegheny, 95 Pa. St. 437; Allegheny Co. Home's Case, 77 Pa, St. 77; Lea v. Bumm, 83 Pa. St. 237; Town of Fishkill V. Fishkill, etc. Plk. E. Co., i^Yerby v. Cochrane, 101 Ala. -541, 14 So. 355; Elliott v. State, 91 Ga. 694, 17 S. E. 1004; State v. Fer- guson, 104 La. 249, 28 So. 917, 81 Am. St. Rep. 133; State v. Atkins, 104 La. 37,28 So. 919; State v. Walker, 105 La. 492, 29 So. 973; Tolley v. Courter, 93 Mich. 469, 53 N. W. 630; Trumble v. Trumble, 87 Neb. 340, 55 N. W. 869. 5S2 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. A corporate charter is not entirely vitiated because it pro- vides unconstitutionally for the exercise of the power of eminent domain for certain purposes," or unconstitutionally restricts the right to vote for officers.*" Parts relating ta mere detail incident to the main purpose of an act may be stricken out without prejudice to the remainder of it, which contains valid provisions amply sufficient to enable the cor- poration to fully perform all its functions, unless vital to- the main purpose as means or as compensation.*^ "Where a new offense is created and procedure for punishment pro- vided, if the latter is invalid, and there are general laws under which prosecutions for such an offense could be con- ducted, the invalidity of the part relating to the procedure will not affect the part creating the offense." An act re- 33 Barb. 634; State v. Clarke, 54 Mo. 17; Savannah, etc. Ry. Co. v. Geiger, 31 Fla. 669, 58 Am. Rep. 697 ; Callaghan v. Chipman, 59 Mioh. 610, 36 N. W. 806; State v. Persin- ger, 76 Mo. 346; Stiefel v. Mary- land Institute, 61 Md. 144; Wyn- koop V. Coooh, 89 Pa. St. 450; Ex parte Cowert, 93 Ala. 94, 9 So. 335; Bradley v. State, 99 Ala. 177, 13 So. 415; Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 28, 19 So. 857; Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 66, 19 So. 901; State v. Davis, 130 Ala. 148, 30 So. 344, 89 Am. St. Rep. 23; Cullen v. Glendora Water Co., 113 Cal. 503, 39 Pao. 769, 45 Pao. 833,1047; Hancock v. State, 114 Ga. 439, 40 S. E. 317; Ritchie v. People, 155 111. 98, 40 N. E. 454, 463, 46 Am. St. Rep. 315, 39 L. R. A. 79; Dixon V. Poe, 159 Ind. 492, 65 N. E. 518; Steenken v. State, 88 Md. 708, 42 Atl. 312; Belding Land & Imp. Co. V. Belding, 138 Mioh. 79, 87 N. W. 113; State v. County Court, 103 Mo. 531, 15 S. W. 79; State v. Courtney, 27 Mont. 378, 71 Pao. 308; State v. Humboldt County Com'rs, 31 Nev. 335, 39 Pac. 974; Jones v. Morris- town, 66 N. J. L. 488, 49 Atl. 440; Parfitt v. Ferguson, 8 App. Div. 176,. 38 N. Y. S..466; Commonwealth v. Ayers, 3 Pa. Supr. Ct. 353. 1* Morgan v. Monmouth Plank R Co., 36 N. J. L. 99; Matter of Vil- lage of Middleton, 83 N. Y. 196. 15 State ex rel. v. Tuttle, 53 Wis. 45, 9 N. W. 791; People ex reL v. Kenney, 96 N. Y. 394 Ki Id. ; Phillips v. Mayor, etc., 1 Hilt. 483; State v. Elizabeth, 40 N. J. L. 378; Wakeley v. Mohr, 15 Wis. 609; State v. Rosenstook, 11 Nev. 138; Robinson v. Bid well, 33 Cal. 379; Board of Com. v. Silvers, 33 Ind. 491; Turner v. Board of Commissioners, 37 Kan. 814; Mat- ter, etc. of Village of Middleton, 82 N. Y. 196; Gordon v. Comes, 47 id. 617; Zwefneman v. Van Rosenberg,. 76 Tex. 533, 13 S. W. 485. See post, §398. " State V. Newton, 59 Ind. 173. STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 583 districting a county for supervisors was held valid, though it unconstitutionally provided that incumbents should hold over beyond their election terms until they could be imme- diately succeeded by supervisors elected under the act." The powers of a judicial officer are so separable and inde- pendent that a grant of them may be void as to one part or subject and good as to others." An act providing for im- pounding cattle taken damage feasant, and for detention of them until costs and damages are paid, may be sustained, though it include a void provision for a summary sale of such cattle.^" A statute which prohibits traffic in intoxicat- ing liquors, provides penalties therefor, and also forfeiture of liquors kept for sale, and the vessels in which the same are kept, is not an entirety. The forfeiture clause may be held unconstitutional, and the remainder nevertheless be sustained.^* In Skagit County v. Stiles ^■^ the court says : " In deter- mining whether part of an act can stand where another part has been held unconstitutional, a different rule as to prer sumptions is recognized from that whieh obtains where the whole act is being considered. The general rule that legis- lative acts are primarily presumed to be constitutional, and that all intendments are to be made in favor of the act to give It effect according to the intent of the lawmaking power, does not apply in such cases, as the upholding of part of an act is not favored; and where a part has been held un- constitutional, and the remaining portion comes up for con- sideration as to whether it can stand as an independent proposition, the presumptions are generally against it, and it Vfill not be sustained unless that which remains is com- plete in itself and capable of being executed in accordance isChristyv. Board of Supervisors, Wilcox v. Hemming, 58 Wis. 144, 39 CaK 3. 159, 46 Am. Rep. 635. 19 Mayor, etc. v. Deohert, 33 Md. ^i state v. Wheeler, 25 Conn. 290; 869; Reid v. Morton, 119 111. 118, 6 Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray, 1. N. E. 414. ''■'^ 10 Wash. 388, 39 Pao. 116. 20 Rood V. McCargar, 49 Cal. 117; 584: STATUTES VOID IN PART. with the apparent legislative intent wholly independent of that which was rejected." § 298 (171). Rule when physical severance is impossi- Ibie — Whether words and provisions can he severed in their application or scope. — In most cases which arise where statutes are void in part only, the void part consists of distinct sections or provisions which can be literally and physically separated from the remainder, and such remain- der can be read independently of the void part. But some- times the provisions of a statute are valid as applied to cer- tain cases or objects and invalid as applied to others, and the question arises whether such a statute is void in toto because it embraces too much, or whether it will be con- strued as applying only to the objects and cases within the power of the legislature and so upheld as valid legislation. The supreme court of 'New Hampshire, in an opinion often quoted with approval, lays down the following rule on the subject: "The rule of construction universally adopted is that when a statute may constitutionally operate upon cer- tain persons, or in certain cases, and was not evidently intended to conflict with the constitution, it is not to be held unconstitutional merely because there may be persons to whom, or cases in which, it cannot constitutionally apply ; but it is to be deemed constitutional and to be construed not to apply to the latter persons or cases, on the ground that courts are bound to presume that the legislature did not intend to violate the constitution." ^^ The supreme court of Kansas says that the rule that only the invalid parts of a statute are ineffective is not confined to cases where the invalid parts consist of separable words, clauses, sentences or sections which may be literally stricken out, as it were, but that " it applies as well to exclude from the operation of the statute subjects and classes of things lying without the legislative intent, although comprehended within the 2' Opinion of the Justices, 41 N. Northrup v. Hoyt, 31 Ore. 524, 4» H. 555, quoted and approved in Pao. 754 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 585 general terms of the act, as it does to exclude parts of the verbal phraseology." ^^ la Eailroad Companies v. Schutte ^' the court said the striking out of the void part is not neces- -sarily " by erasing words, but it may be by disregarding the unconstitutional provision, and reading the statute as though that provision was not there." Many cases are of the same purport.^^ These views are in accordance with the general ■rule that a statute will be so construed, if possible, as not to violate the constitution," as well as with the rule that the words of an act will be restrained or limited by its title, «o as not to apply to persons or cases not expressed in the title.'' A statute which had the effect of regulating both state and interstate commerce in the same provision was held valid as to the former and void as to the latter.^' But where such an act exacts a license fee of comraon^carriers based upon the total amount of business done in each county, which was made up- in part of interstate and in part of state 21 state V. Smiley, 65 Kan. 240, 69 Sexton, 29 Iowa, 356, 4 Am. Rep. Pac. 199. 214; Hiss v. Baltimore, etc. E. R. i» 103 U. S. 118, 142, 26 L. Ed. 327. Co., 52 Md. 242, 36 Am. Rep. 871; 26 Grimes v. Eddy, 126 Mo. 168,28 Franklin v. Westfall, 27 Kan. 614; S. W. 756, 47 Am. St. Rep. 653, 26 Western Union TeL Co. v. State, L. R. A. 638; State v. McGowan, 62 Tex. 630. i38 Mo. 187, 39 S. W. 771; Citizens' '^'' Ante, § 83; post, § 498. Nat. Bank v. Graham, 147 Mo. 250, 28 state v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 48 S. W. 910; State v. Mines, 88 W. 99 Ala. 221, 13 So. 363; Bell v. State, Va. 135, 18 S. E. 470; State v. Fack- 91 Ga. 337, 18 S. E. 288; Comer v. ler, 91 Wis. 413, 64 N. W. 1029; State, 103 Ga. 69, 29 S. E. 501; Pitts- United States V. Central Pao. R. R. burg v. Reynolds, 48 Kan. 360, 29 Co., 118 U. S. 235, 6 S. C. Rep. 1038, Paa 757; Commonwealth v. Barney, 80 L. Ed. 173; Packet Co. v. Keo- 34 Ky. L. R. 3353, 74 S. W. 181 ; Allen k\xk, 95 U. S. 80, 34 L. Ed. 377; v.BernardsTp.,57N. J.L.303,31 Atl. Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall. 232; 219; State v. State, 57 N. J. L. 348, Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U. S. 30 Atl. 480; Cooper v. Springer, 65 305, 313, 314, 26 L. Ed. 1044; McCuI- N. J. L. 594, 48 Atl. 605. iough V. Virginia, 173 U. & 102, 19 29 State v. Scott, 98 Tenn. 354, 39 S. C. Rep. 134, 43 L. Ed. 383. And S. W. 1, 36 L. R. A. 461; Austin v. fiee Austin v. The Aldermen, 7 State, 101 Tenn. 563, 48 S. W. 305, Wall. 694, 19 L. Ed. 224; Bull v. 70 Am. St. Rep. 703, 50 L. R. A. 478; Eowe, 13 S. C. 355; MoCready v. Freight Tax Case, 15 Wall 232. 586 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. business, it was held that there could be no separation, and the provision was held void in its entirety.^" "Where the constitution forbade an appropriation for a longer term than two years, a statute making an appropriation for a longer term was held good for two years." A statute authorizing municipalities to become indebted beyond the constitutional limit was held effectual to authorize the creation of a debt not exceeding the limit fixed by the constitution.'^ The constitution of l^ebraska authorized the commitment to the reform school of children under sixteen years of age. A statute authorized the commitment of children under eighteen. It was held valid as to those within the constitu- tional age." Where the constitution limits the term of an office to a specified number of years, there is a difference of opinion as to whether an act creating an office and provid- ing for a longer term is valid for the maximum term fixed by the constitution, or whether it is void in that respect. Some courts hold to the former alternative.'* Others hold 30 state V. Northern Pao. Express Co., 37 Mont. 419, 71 Pac. 404. 31 Pickle V. Finley, 91 Tex. 48^ 44 S. W. 480. 32 Dunn V. Great Falls, 13 Mont. 58, 31 Pao. 1017; Germania Sav. Bank v. Darlington, 50 S. C. 337, 27 S. E. 846. 33 Scott V. Flowers, 61 Neb. 620, 85 N. W. g57. In this case the court says: "The legislature has here clearly expressed its will, but it has gone too far; it has transcended the limits of its authority. It has, in an unmistakable manner, signi- fied its purpose not only to author- ize the commitment to the reform school of certain children under tlie age of sixteen years, but, also, children beyond that age who, al- though guiltless of crime, have evinced a criminal tendency and are without proper parental re- straint. The legislature having declared its will, and its command to the courts being in part valid and in part void, the decisive ques- tion is, shall section 5 be given ef- fect so far as it is in accord and agreement with the paramount law ? It seems that both good sense and judicial authority require that the question should receive an af- firmative answer." p. 624. 3* Sinking Fund Com'rs v. George, 104 Ky. 360, 47 S. W. 779, 84 Am. St. Rep. 454; State v. Stuht, 53 Neb. 309, 71 N. W. 941. In the former case an act created a board of peni- tentiary commissioners and pro- vided that, of the first board, one should hold for two years, one for four years and one for six years and that their successors should be elected for six years. The constitu- tion forbade the creation of ofBces STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 587 that the provision fixing the term is void altogether. Of these, some, again, hold that the remainder of the act is valid, and that the officer provided for holds during the pleasure of the appointing power,'' while others hold the entire act void.'^ A statute of Indiana regulating the liability of railroads and other corporations and doing away with the fellow- servant rule was held by the supreme court of that state to be valid as to railroads whether valid as to other corpora- tions or not." The claim was that it was class legislation as applied to other corporations, as it would subject indi- viduals and corporations in the same business and under the same circumstances to different rules of liability. The same statute was sustained as to railroads by the supreme with a longer term than four years. The act was held to create a four- year term and to be valid as so modified. The court says: "The language employed shows that the general assembly was willing that one of the commissioners should hold his oflSce for six years — two years longer than the constitution will permit. As the general as- sembly expressed a willingness that one of the commissioners should hold for two years longer than the constitution permits, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that it was the will of that body that the com- missioners should hold for four years, as this term is necessarily included in the longer one which it fixed. To hold the act void in so far as it makes the term six years instead of four, still thei balance of the act is complete and enforceable. The purpose and intent of the gen- eral assembly, that the commission- ers should manage and control the penitentiaries, can be effectuated by eliminating from the act that, part which attempted to make terms six instead of four years." And see People v. Burch, 84 Mich. 408, 47 N. W. 765. 85 People V. Perry, 79 Cal. 105, 31 Pac. 423; Lewis v. Lewelling, 53 Kan. 201, 36 Pac. 851, 23 L. R. A. 510. In the former case the court says: "But we know of no preced-^ ent for holding jthat a clause of a statute, which as enacted is un- constitutional, may be changed in meaning in order to give it some operation, when admittedly it can- not operate as the legislature in- tended. This would, it seems to- ns, be making a law, and not merely correcting an excess of authority.'* p. 115. 3« State V. Harris, 19 Nev. 222, 8 Pac. 462; Kimbrough v. Barnett,. 93 Tex. 301, 55 S. W. 120. s' Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. Ey. Co. V. Montgomery, 152 Ind. 1, 49^ N. E. 583, 71 Am. St. Rep. 801. ^588 STATUTES VOID IN PABT. ■ijourt of the United States on the ground that the effect of •the Indiana decision was to hold that the statute was capa- We of severance.'^ A similar statute was held void alto- gether by the supreme court of Mississippi in a very elabo- rate opinion in which many cases are reviewed. The stat- ute in question originally applied only to railroads and was amended so as to apply to all corporations. It was argued that it should be construed as applicable only to corpora- tions engaged in a hazardous business like that of railroads and as so restricted should be sustained. The court held that it could not limit the statute in this manner, and in rcr spect to the doctrine of severance says: "The difficulty is in finding the true test as to when a statute may be severed; that test clearly is this: That whenever the court finds on the face of a statute a number of different provisions, some constitutional and some unconstitutional, there it may sever, if they are not interdependent, between these provisions, striking out the unconstitutional; and, let it be marked, that in every such case there is something to sever between on the face of the statute. That is what is meant by the severance of a statute. But whenever a court, in order to uphold the provisions of a statute as constitutional, has to interpolate in such statute provisions not put there by the legislature, in order by such interpolation to make the pro- vision which the legislature did put there constitutional, this is no case of severance in any proper legal sense; nor is it in any legal or logical sense a proper limitation of the provisions which are in a statute by judicial construction. Such action by a court is nothing less than judicial legisla- tion pure and simple." '' § 299 (172). The same question in case of criminal stat- utes. — But the rule is more stringent in regard to criminal -statutes. As said by Johnson, J., in Wynehamer v. Peo- ple:*" "Laws in relation to civil rights are sometimes held 38 TuUis V. Lake Erie & "W. B. R. 39 Ballard v. Miss. Cotton Oil Co., <:;o., 175 U. S. 340, 20 S. C. Rep. 136, 81 Miss.'507, 573, 574, 34 So. 53a 44 L. Ed. 193. « 13 N. Y. 378, 425. STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 589^ to be unconstitutional, in so far as they affect the rights of certain persons, and valid in respect to others. This is done- mainlj'^ upon the ground that the courts will not construe them to relate to such cases as the legislature had not power to act upon. To statutes creating criminal offenses, such a rule of construction ought not to be applied, and I cannot find any trace of its ever having been applied. It is of the highest importance to the administration of criminal justice that acts creating crimes should be certain in their terms^ and plain in their application; and it would be in no small degree unseemly that courts should be called upon, in ad- ministering the criminal law, to adjudge an act creating of- fenses at one time valid, and at another time void. It must, I think, stand as it has been enacted, or not stand at all." A law void as to certain property (intoxicating liquors) al- ready possessed at the passage of the law, but which would be valid if confined to such property subsequently acquired, is wholly void, being general so as to include both in penal destruction of value." Where the constitution fixed the limit of punishment by fine imposed by a justice of the peace at $3, and the legislature provided for a fine not ex- ceeding $20 in such cases, the statute was held valid to the constitutional limit of $3, and void beyond that sum.*^ The excess was easily ascertained, and divisible from the amount authorized. And though the void part could not be lit' erally stricken out without changing the letter of the statute, it could be-excluded with no less certainty and pre- cision. § 300 (173). In United States v. Eeese« it was held that, the power of congress to legislate at all upon the subject of voting at state elections rests upon the fifteenth amendment to the federal constitution, and can be exercised by provid- ing a punishment only when the wrongful refusal to receive the vote of a qualified elector at such election is because of his race, color or previous condition of servitude. A con- « Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. " Clark v. Ellis, 2 Blaokf. 8. 378, 425. " 92 U. S. 214, 23 L. Ed 566. -590 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. gressional enactment not confined in its operation to unlaw- ful discrimination on account of race, color or previous con- dition of servitude transcends the constitutional limit, and is unauthorized. "Waite, C. J., said: "We are therefore directly called upon to decide whether a penal statute en- acted by congress, with its limited powers, which is in gen- eral language broad enough to cover wrongful acts without as well as within the constitutional jurisdiction, can be lim- ited by judicial construction so as to make it operate only on that which congress may rightfully prohibit and punish. For this purpose we must take these sections of the statute as they are. We are not able to reject a part which is un- constitutional and retain the remainder, because it is not possible to separate that which is unconstitutional, if there be any such, from that which is not. The proposed effect is not to be attained by striking out or disregarding words that are in the section, but by inserting those that are not now there. Each of the sections must stand as a whole or fall altogether. The language is plain. There is no room for construction, unless it be as to the effect of the constitu- tion. The question, then, to be determined is whether we can introduce words of limitation into a penal statute so as to make it specific, when, as expressed, it is general only. It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be right- fully detained and who should be set at -large. This would, to some extent, substitute the judicial for the legislative department of the goverjiment. The courts enforce the legislative will when ascertained, if within the constitu- tional grant of power. ... To limit this statute in the manner now asked would be to make a new law, not to en- force an old one. That is no part of our duty." This view has been repeatedly approved in subsequent cases." Where ** United States v. Harris, 106 U. Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. S. 629, 27 L. Ed. 290; Trade Mark 305, 29 L. Ed. 185. ■Cases, 100 U. S. 83, 35 L. Ed. 550; In Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. STATUTES VOID IN PAKT. 591 1 statute forbade the sale of all kinds of intoxicating liquors, and was vo'd as to some such liquors, it was held to be wholly void.'" To be separable for the purpose of sustain- 678, 7 a C. Rep. 656, 763, 30 L. Ed. 766, the plaintiff liad been in cus- tody on a charge of violating an act of congress whioli provided for punishment of those who "in any- state or territory conspire, . . . for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal pro- tection of the laws or of equal priv- ileges or immunities under the laws." Sec. 5519, R. S. U. S. Waite, C. J., said: "In United States v. Harris, supra, it was decided that this section was unconstitutional as a provision for the punishment of conspiracies of the character therein mentioned within a state. Itis now said, however, that in that case the conspiracy charged was by persons in a state against a citizen of the United States and of the state, to deprive him of the protec- tion ha was entitled to under the laws of that state, no special rights or privileges arising under the con- stitution, laws or treaties of the United States being involved; and it is argued that although the sec- tion be invalid so far as such an offense is concerned, it is good for the punishment of those who con- spire to deprive aliens of the right guaranteed to them in a state by the treaties of the United States. In support of this argument re- liance is had on the well settled rule that a statute may be in part constitutional and in part uncon- stitutional, and that under some circumstances the part wliioh is constitutional will be enforced, and only that which is unconstitu- tional will be rejected. To give effect to this rule, however, the parts — that which is constitu- tional and that which is unconsti- tutional — must be capable of sepa- ration, so that each may be read by itself. This statute, considered as a statute punishing conspiracies in a state, is not of that character, for. in that connection it has no parts within the meaning of the rule. Whether it is separable so that it can be enforced in a territory, though not in a state, is quite an- other question, and one we are not now called on to decide. It pro- vides in general terms for the pun- ishment of all who conspire for the purpose of depriving any person, or any class of persons, of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws. A single provision, which makes up the whole section, em- braces those who conspire against citizens as well as those who con- .spire against aliens; those who conspire to deprive one of his rights under the laws of a state and those who conspire to deprive him of his rights under the consti- tution, laws or treaties of the United States. The limitation which is sought must be made, if at all, by construction, not by sep- aration. This, it has often been decided, is not enough." ■IS Elliott V. State, 91 Ga. 694, 17 S. E. 1004; Papworth v. State, 103 592 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. ing the remainder of the act, such remainder must be com- plete in itself and sufficient to accomplish the legislative intent without aid from the void part.'*' § 301 (171). The main purpose being unconstitutioual the whole act void.— Where all the provisions of an act are connected as parts of a single scheme, the incidental or dependent provisions must fall with the failure of the main purpose.*' That which is merely auxiliary to the main design must fall with the principal to which it is merely an incident.*' If only one object is aimed at, and that is un constitutional, and all the provisions are contributory to that object, and were enacted solely for that reason, the whole act is void.*" An act provided for a new police dis- trict, and police justice, with exclusive jurisdiction not only of new offenses created by the same act, but of matters previously cognizable by other courts. As the creation of the new district and court were essential to accomplish the purpose of the act, and that part of it being held uncon- stitutional, the whole act was void.^" Where the entire soheme must fail because of a want of power to enact it, Ga. 36, 31 S. E. 403; Harris V. state, 133; Eckhart v. State, 5 W. Va. 114 Ga. 436, 40 S. E. 815. 515; Brooks v. Hydoon, 76 Mich. « Allen V. Louisiana, 103U. S. 80, 273, 43 N. W. 1123; Blades v. Board 26 L. Ed. 318; People v. Porter, 90 of Water Com'rs, 122 Mich. 366, 81 N. Y. 68; Hinze v. People, 92 111. N. W. 271; State v. Stephens, 146 406; Towles, Ex parte, 48 Tex. 413; Mo. 662, 48 S. W. 929, 69 Am. St. Bittle V. Stuart, 34 Ark. 324; Black Rep. 625; Grey v. Dover, 63 N. J. L. V. Trower, 79 Va. 123; State v. 40, 40 Atl. 640; Dover v. Grey, 6& Duke, 42 Tex. 455. N. J. L. 647, 43 Atl. 674. « Randolph V. Builders' & Paint- so People v. Porter, 90 N. Y. 68; ers' Supply Co., 106 Ala. 601, 17 So. Reed v. Omnibus R. R. Co., 33 Cal., 731; Orange County v. Harris, 97 212; Kelley v. State, 6 Ohio St. 269; Cal. 600, 32 Pac. 594; Jones v. Jones, SumterCo. v. GainesvlUeNatBank, 104 N. Y. 234, 10 N. E. 269; Black 62 Ala. 464, 34 Am. Rep. 30; Stat& V. Trower, 79 Va. 133. v. Chamberlin, 37 N. J. L. 388; 48 Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. Lathrop v. Mills, 19 CaL 513^ S. 370, 304, 5 S. C. Rep. 903, 39 L. Dells v. Kennedy, 49 Wis. 555, 6 Ed. 185. N. W. 346, 381, 35 Am. Rep. 786; 49 Darby v. Wilmington, 76 N. C. Slinger v. Henneman, 38 Wis. 504.. STATUTES TOID IN PAl!^. 593 there can be no possible good in upholding an isolated pro- vision which it was, perhaps, competent for the law-giver to enact, but which is unreasonable and unjust if left to stand alone." § 302 (175), A law is entire where each part has a gen- eral influence over the rest, and all are intended to operate together for one purpose. In such case the invalidity of that purpose will affect the whole act.^^ ITevertheless if only one incidental provision is invalid, that may not ren- der the whole act void.'' It is not entire in that sense.^^ Where a repeal of prior laws is inserted in an act in order to the unobstructed operation of such act, and it is held un- constitutional, the incidental provision for the repeal of prior laws will fall with it.°' An act was passed to dis- solve municipal corporations and provided the manner in which they might re-incorporate. The latter was the ob- ject of the enactment, and that being held unconstitutional the former was also invalid.'* li such cases the object of the legislature is frustrated ; when the void part is elim- inated, there is not a complete act remaining expressive of the intent of the legislature and sufficient to carry it into effect.'' 61 Fant V. Gibbs, 54 Miss. 396, 411. M Ante, § 306. 52 Second Municipality v. Mor- '^Quinion v. Rogers, ISMich, 168; gan, 1 La. Ann. Ill; Powell v. State v. Commissioners, 88 N. J. L. State, 69 Ala. 10; Towles, Ex parte, 320; Childs v. Shower, 18 Iowa, 361 ; 48 Tex. 413; Neely v. State,4Baxt. Randolph v. Builders' & Painters' 174. Supply Co., 106 Ala. 501, 17 So. 721 ; 53 Bradley v. State, 99 Ala. 177, 13 Carr v. State, 127 Ind. 204, 26 N. E. So. 415; Wilson v. State, 136 Ala. 778, 11 L. R. A. 370; Fesler v. Bray- 114. 38 So. 831; CuUen v. Glendora ton, 145 Ind. 71, 44 N. E. 87; Bar- Water Co., 113 Cal. 503, 39 Pac. 769, ringer v. Florence, 41 S. C. 501, 19 45 Pao. 822, 1047; Alexander v. Du- S. E. 745; ante, § 245. But see luth, 57 Minn. 47, 58 N. W. 866; Equitable Guaranty & Trust Co. v. State V. County Court, 102 Mo. 531, Donahoe, 3 Penn. (Del.) 191, 49 Atl. 15 S. W. 79; State v. Franklin, 59 '372. N. J. L. 106, 34 Atl. 1088; English se State v. Stark, 18 Fla. 25&; & Scottish Am. Mort. Co. v. Hardy, Quinlon v. Rogers, 12 Mich. 168. 93 Tex. 389, 55 S. W. 169. " Towles, Ex parte, 48 Tex. 413. 38 594 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. § 303 (176). Where the Toid part is inducement to or consideration of residue of act.— A leading case on this subject is "Warren v. Mayor, etc.'' In that case was involved the validity of a statute for the annexation of the city of Charlestown to the city of Boston. There were provisions intended to secure to the inhabitants of Charlestown certain constitutional rights of representation in the legislature un- til the time when they could enjoy them within the city of Boston. Some years must elapse before that time. The provisions to secure such rights during the interval were held unconstitutional, and therefore that the whole act was void. Shaw, C. J., said: " If [the parts of the act] are so mutually connected with and dependent on each other, as conditions, considerations or compensations for each other, as to war- rant a belief that the legislature intended them as a whole, and that, if all could not be carried into effect, the legisla- ture would not pass the residue independently, and some parts are unconstitutional, all the provisions which are thus dependent, conditional and connected must fall with them." " The object of the act is the annexation ; the merger of one municipality and the enlargement of the other. This must necessarily aflfect the municipal and political rights of the inhabitants of both, guaranteed as they are by the constitu- tion. The legislature manifestly felt it to be their duty, in accomplishing this object, to make provision for the preser- vation of these constitutional rights; if this object is not effectually accomplished, we have no ground on which to infer that the legislature would have sanctioned such an- nexation and its consequences. The various provisions of the act, therefore, all providing for the consequences of such annexation, more or less immediate or remote, are connected and dependent; the different provisions of the act look to one object and its incidents, and are so connected with each other that, if its essential provisions are repugnant to the constitution, the entire act must be deemed unconstitutional 68 2 Gray, 84 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 595 and void." The doctrine of this case has been generally- approved and acted upon.'' " If the void part of the act is the compensation for or the inducement to the valid portion, so that, looking at the whole act, it is reasonably clear that the legislative body would not have enacted the valid portion alone, then the whole act will be held inoperative and void."^* "It is not necessary that the invalid portion of ^n act of the legisla- ture should have operated as the sole inducement to the passage of the law to render the same void. It will have that effect if the void part to any extent influenced the leg- islature in passing the statute." *' § 304: (177). Same — Illustrations. — An act created an office and defined the powers and duties as well as fixed the compensation of the incumbent. The part which defined the powers and duties violated a constitutional rule of uni- formity and was held void ; this part being inducement to the residue fixing the compensation, the latter was held void also.*^ So where a statute annexed to a city certain lands lying outside of its limits, but contained a proviso that the lands so annexed should be taxed at a different and less rate than other lands in the city, and thts proviso was unconstitutional, the principle under consideration was 69 Commonwealth v. Hitchlngs, 5 311, 74 N. W. 615; Crawford Corn- Gray, 483 r Jones v. Bobbins, 8 pany v. Hathaway, 60 NeK 754, 84 Gray, 339, 339; State ex rel. v. Com- N. W. 271; S. C. on rehearing, 61 raissioners, etc., 5 Ohio St. 497; Neb. 317, 85 N. W. 303; Weaver v. State V. Sinks, 43 Ohio St. 845; Davidson County, 104 Tenn. 315, 59 Central Branch Union P. E. Co. v. S. W. 1105; Pollock v. Farmers' L. Atchison, etc. R. E. Co., 28 Kan. & T. Co., 158 U. S. 601, 15 S. C. Rep. 453; S. C, 10 Am. & Eng. R R. Cas. 912, 39 L. Ed. 1108; Robertson v. 528; Rood v. McCargar, 49 CaL 117; Preston, 97 Va. 396, 33 S. E. 618. State V. Stark, 18 Fla. 255; Spar- no Gilbert- Arnold Land Co. v. Su- hawk V. Sparhawk, 116 Mass. 315, perior, 91 Wis. 353, 357, 64 N. W. 999. 330; People v. Cooper, 83 III. 585; si State v. Cornell, 59 Neb. 417, Hinze v. People, 92 111. 406; Conk- 434, 81 N. W. 431. lin v. Hutchinson, 65 Kan. 583, 70 '2 state ex rel. v. Dousman, 28 Pao. 587; State v. Bowen, 54 Neb. Wis. 541. 596 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. held applicable, and the act was inoperative.^' Where, how- ever, a statute gave authority to municipalities competi- tively to make proposals to procure the location therein of a normal school, and gave power of local taxation to carry accepted proposals into effect, the latter provision was not affected by the unconstitutionality of the appropriation made in the act for the support of such schools. The court held that by establishing the schools and inducing contri- butions from others, the legislature assumed the duty of supporting them; the particular provision which it has at- tempted to make for that purpose being objectionable, it must be assumed that the legislature will regard it as their duty to provide a substitute.^ § 305 (178). The valid part must be complete and ac- cord with the legislative intent. — One part of a statute may be distinct in the text and literally separable from the rest, and yet be indissolubly connected with it in the legis- lative intent. The mere fact that one part standing alonie would be within the scope of the legislative power does not necessarily prove that it can be upheld when coupled with other matter. The court in Meshmeier v. State *' uttered sound logic and sound law: "It would seem that the pro- visions of the statute held to be constitutional should be substantally the same when considered by themselves as when taken in connection with the other parts of the stat- ute held to be unconstitutional; or, in other words, where that part of a statute which is unconstitutional so limits and qualifies the remaining portion that the latter, when stripped of such unconstitutional provisions, is essentially different, in its effect and operation, from what it would be were the whole law valid, it would seem that the whole law should fall. The remaining portion of the statute, ^'Slauson Y. Eacine, 13 Wis. 398; The latter overrules Westport v. Jones V. Memphis, 101 Tenn. 188, McGoe, 128 Mo. 152, 30 S. W. 523, 47 S. W. 138; Copeland v. St. Joseph, which holds a contrary doctrina 126 Mo. 417, 29 S, W. 281; State v. «* Gordon v. Cornes, 47 N. Y. 608. Warden, 153 Mo. 319, 54 S. W. 574. es 11 Ind. 483, 485. STATUTES VOID IN PART. 597 when thus stripped of its limitations and qualifications, can- not have the force of law, because it is not an expression of the legislative will. The legislature pass an entire statute, on the supposition, of course, that it is all valid and to take effect. The courts find some of its essential elements in conflict with the constitution; strip it of those elements, and leave the remaining portion mutilated and transformed into a different thing from what it was when it left the hands of the legislature. The statute thus emasculated is not a creature of the legislature; and it would be an act of legislation on the part of the court to put it in force."*' § 306 (179). Effect of void exceptions, provisos, restric- tions, etc. — If, by striking out a void exception, proviso or other restrictive clause, the remainder, by reason of its gen- erality, will have a broader scope as to subject or territory, its operation is not in accord with the legislative intent, and the whole would be affected and made void by the invalid- ity of such part." An act of a general nature which the constitution re- quired to have a uniform operation throughout the state excepted certain counties from its operation. This rendered the whole act void. After striking out the exception, if the general words gave the act operation in the excepted coun- 66 To same effect: State v. Davis, Sheriff, 48 Minn. 236, 51 N. W. 112, 130 Ala, 148, 30 So. 344, 89 Am. St. 31 Am. St. Kep. 650; Low v. Eees Rep. 23; Dwyer v. Parker, 115 Gal. Printing Co., 41 Neb. 127, 59 N. W. 544, 47 Pac. 372; Kiernan v. Swan, 362, 43 Am. St. Eep. 670, 24 L. R A. 131 Ca). 410, 63 Pac. 768; State v. 702; Edmonds v. Herbrandson, 2N. Dillon, 33 Fla. 545, 14SO.S83; Ritchie D. 270, 50 N. W. 970, 14 L. R. A. 725; V. People, 155 111. 98," 40 N. E. 454, State v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St. 273,54 463, 46 Am. St Rep. 315, 29L. R. A. N. E. 273; Gilreath v. Greenville 79; Smith v. McClain, 146 Ind. 77, County, 63 S. C. 75, 40 S. E. 1028; 45 N. E. 41; Ex parte Hewlett, 23 Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., Nev.333,40Pao. 96; State V. Becker, 184 U. S. 540, 23 S. C. Rep. 431, 3 S. D. 39, 51 ISr. W. 1018. 46 L. Ed. 679; Commonwealth v. 6' Marsh v. Hanley, 111 Cal. 368, Petranioh, 183 Mass. 217, 66 N. E. 43 Pac. 975; Mathews V. People, 202 807; Schumacher v. McCallep, 69 111. 389, 67 N. E. 28; State v. Mitch- Ohio St. 500. ell, 97 Me. 66, 53 Atl. 887; State v. 598 STATUTES VOID IN PART. ties, such effect would be directly contrary to the expressed intent of the law-maker.^' An act relating to elections in cities of certain classes excepted from its operation " Mans- field and cities of the fourth grade in the first class." This exception was held to make the act local and special, and it was also held that the exception could not be stricken out and the remainder of the act stand. The court says: "It is urged, however, that if this exception makes the act un- constitutional, the exception should be disregarded, and the act held valid as operating uniformly throughout the state. The answer to this is that the court has no law-making power, and cannot extend a statute over territory from which it is excluded by the general assembly. A court can hold a whole act unconstitutional because it is not broad enough, that is, because it is not of uniform operation throughout the state; but it cannot extend an act which is too narrow, so as to take in territory which was left out by the general assembly. In the case of an exception, the gen- eral assembly never enacted it in the excepted territory, and the court has no power to enact it therein. . . . There is a difference between an exception and a limitation. When a statute upon a subject of a general nature is made to ex- tend to the whole state in one part thereof, and then in an- other part an attempt is made to limit its operation to terri- tory less than the state, the limitation may be disregarded ; because to give it effect would render the whole statute un- constitutional ; and such construction should be given, M'hen reasonable, as will uphold the statute rather than one which would defeat it." *' The states were authorized by an act of congress to make regulations relative to pilots in bays, inlets, rivers, harbors «8 Kelley v. State, 6 Ohio St. 269. Wis. 376, 379, 22 N. W. 572; Spraigue To same effect. Marsh v. Hanley, v. Thompson, 118 U. S. 90, 30 S. C. Ill Cal. 368, 43 Pac. 975; Edmonds Rep. 115. Contra, Turner v. Fish, V. Herbrandson, 2 N. D. 270, 50 N. 19 Nev. 295, 9 Pac. 884. See State W. 970, 14 L. R. A. 785; Gilreath v. v. Hanger, 5 Ark. 412. Greenville County, 63 S. C, 75, 40 69 State v. Buckley, 60 Ohio St. S. E. 1028; State v. Supervisors, 63 273, 296, 54 N. E. 272. STATUTES VOID IN PAET. 599 and ports of the United States, but they were expressly prohibited from making any discriminations in the rate of pilotage between vessels sailing between the ports of differ- ent states, and existing regulations making such discrimina- tions were annulled and abrogated. A statute of Georgia excepted coasters in that state and coasters between the ports of that state and those of South Carolina and Florida. The exception was held a discrimination within the pro- hibition, and the court said if the exception only is affected the legislature of Georgia is made to enact what confessedly it never meant, by giving the statute an operation be3'ond the limits specified by the legislature. The exception, there- fore, could not be rejected and the remainder held valid; the whole was treated as annulled and abrogated.™ An act to provide for free employment agencies contained a section denying the benefit of the act to employers whose men were out on a strike or lockout. This exception was held to make the act class legislation and void in toto, as to strike out the section and leave the balance in force would give such employers the benefit of the act, contrary to the legisla- tive intent.''^ The same holding, in substance, was made in case of the following acts: An act which forbade peddling without a license, but provided that any resident of a town, having a place of business therein and paying taxes to the amount of twenty-five dollars on his stock in trade, might peddle in his own town without a license;'^ an act making eight hours a legal day's work for all classes of mechanics, servants and laborers except those engaged in farm or domestic labor;'' an anti-trust act which excepted from the operation of the act agricultural products and live stock in the hands of the producer or raiser.'* 'OSpraigue v. Thompson, 118 IT. S. Neb. 137, 59 N. W. 363, 43 Am. St 90, 6 S. C. Eep. 988, 30 L. Ed. 115. Rep. 670, 34 L. R. A. 703. '1 Mathews v. People, S03 111. 389, '< Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe 67 N. E, 38. Co., 184 U. S. 540, 23 S. C. Rep. 431, 72 State V. Mitchell, 97 Me. 66, 53 46 L. Ed. 679. In this case the court Atl. 887. says: "The first section of the act ■'^Low V. Rees Printing Co., 41 here in question embraces by its 600 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. Two cases may be noticed which seem to hold a contrary doctrine. An act in relation to county and township gov- ernment provided in section 60 that county and township officers should be elected every four years. The act divided counties into fifty-three classes, and section 170, as construed by the court, provided that the officers in the eighth class should be elected every two years. This was held to de- stroy the uniform operation of the act and to be void, but it was held that it could be stricken out aiid that the general provision could stand and apply to all counties.'* An act forbade the use of any product of petroleum for illuminating purposes which would emit a combustible vapor at not less than 105°, except the gas be generated in closed reservoirs outside of the building to be lighted and except the lighter products of petroleum when used in the Welsbach hydro- carbon incandescent lamp. It appearing that there were other lamps constructed on the same principle as the Wels- bach and equall}'^ safe, the last exception was held void as conferring an exclusive privilege. It had been the policy of legislation for twenty-five years to forbid the sale and use of lighter products of petroleum, and this was held to terms all Qersons, nrms, corpora- their products or stock in hand, tions or associations of persons who Looking then at all the sections to- combine their capital, skill or acts gether, we must hold that the leg- for any of the purposes specified, islature would not have entered while the ninth section declares upon or continued the policy indi- that the act shall not'apply to agri- cated by the statute unless agricul- culturists or live-stock dealers in turists and live-stock dealers were respect of their products or stock excluded from its operation and in hand. If the latter section be thereby protected from prosecu- eliminated as unconstitutional, tion. The result is that the statute then the act, if it stands, will apply must be regarded as an entirety, to agriculturists and live-stock and in that view it must be ad- dealers. These classes would in judged to be unconstitutional as that way be reached and fined, denying the equal protection of the when, evidently, the legislature in- laws to those within its jurisdio- tended that they should not be re- tion who are not embraced by the garded as offending against the ninth section.'' p. 565. law even if they did combine their '5 Hale v. McGefctigan, 114 Cal. capital, skill or acts in respect of 113, 45 Pac. 1049. STATUTES VOID IN PART. 601 sliow an intent that the restriction should continue though the exception was void, and the act was held valid with the exception elirainatedJ^ A provision which states a contingency on which the act is or is not to take effect, whether it be the result of a pop- ular vote or some other, is not independent and separable ; for the intent of the law-maker is therein expressly declared, and the statute cannot on principle take effect contrary to that intent, though it be expressed in a section wholly un- constitutional." § 307. When act intended to operate as a whole. — If the parts of a statute are so connected as to warrant the conclusion that the legislature intended them as a whole, and Would not have enacted the part held valid alone, when a part is unconstitutional, they are not separable; if one part is void the whole is void.™ This conclusion should be based upon a consideration of the act and a comparison of its effects with and without the void part, by considering the connection and relative operation of the valid and in- valid provisions.™ Where two provisions of a statute are so dependent upon one another that one cannot stand alone without a manifest perversion of the legislative intent, and 'estate V. Santee, 111 Iowa, 1, 83 E. 439; Rader v. Township of N. W. 445, 83 Am. St. Rep. 489, 53 Union, 39 N. J. L. 509; Flanagan v. L. R. A. 763. Plainfield, 44 id. 118, 134; State v. "Barto V. Himrod, 8 N. Y. 483, Commissioners, 38 id. 330; Western 59 Ana. Deo. 506; Thome v. Cramer, Union TeL Co. v. State, 63 Tex. 630; 15 Barb. 113; Parker v. Common- S. C, 13 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 396; wealth, 6 Pa. St. 507, 47 Am. Dec. Childs v. Shower, 18 Iowa, 261; La- 480; Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. throp v. Mills, 19 Cal. 513: Central 483; Lathrop v. Mills, 19 Cal. 513. Br. Union Pao. R. R. Co. v. Atohi- See Santo v. State, 8 Iowa, 165, 63 son, etc. R. R. Co., 28 Kan. 453; Am. Dec. 487; State v. Copeland, 3 a C, 10 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 538; R. I 33. Moore v. New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 78Eckhart V. State,5W. Va. 515; 736; Robinson v. Bidwell, 23 Cal. Warren v. Mayor, etc., 2 Gray, 84; 379. State V. Sinks, 43 Ohio St. 345; ™ Robinson v. Bidwell, 22 Cal. 379; People ex rel. v. Cooper, 83 111. 595; Sumter Co. v. Gainsville Nat. Bank, Hinze v. People, 93 id. 406, 434; 63 Ala. 46^ 34 Am. Rep. 30. State V. Pugh, 43 Ohio St. 98, 1 N. 602 STATUTES VOID IN PAET. the other is void, the whole act is void.^" Where one act is dependent upon another, which is held invalid, both fall.*' § 308. Miscellaneous acts held severable. — An act for the incorporation and government of banks contained an invalid provision exempting stockholders from liability. It was held that this could be rejected and the balance sus- tained.^ In an act which provides for the establishment of new roads and an improvement of roads already established, an invalid provision for condemning the right of way for new roads will not affect the partas'to the improvement of roads. *' A revenue act contained a provision that, in coun- ties of 125,000 inhabitants or over, the aggregate rate of taxation should not exceed five per cent, on the assessed value of the property, and that county, municipal and school taxes should be scaled ^ro rata^ if necessary, so as. to bring the aggregate rate of the county within this limit. This provision was held to be invalid and severable.^ An ap- propriation bill provided for certain salaries payable out of the general school fund. The legislature had no power ta make them so payable, but it was held that these words could be rejected and the remainder stand, the effect of which was to make the salaries payable out of the general fund.** An act provided for the appointment of three elec- tion commissioners by the governor and required him ta 8» Burkholtz v. State, 16 Lea, 71. U. S. 601, 15 & G Eep. 913, 39 L. And see generally the following Ed. 1108. oases in which the entire act was 'i Ballentine v. Willey, 3 Idaho, held void: Yerby v. Cochrane, 101 496, 21 Pac. 994; People v. OJsen, Ala. 541, 14 So. 355; People v. 204 III. 494, 68 N. E. 376. Knopf, 198 111. 340, 64 N. E. 1127; 82McGowan v. McDonald, 111 State V. Walker, 105 La. 493, 29 So. Cal. 57, 43 Pac. 418, 53 Am. St. Rep. 973; Trumble v. Trumble, 37 Neb. 149; Murphy v. Pacific Bank, 119 340, 55 N. W. 869; State v. Stewart, Cal. 334, 51 Pac. 317. 53 Neb. 243, 71 N. W. 998; State v. 83 Seanor v. County Com'rs, 13- Bedell, 67 N. J. L. 148, 50 Atl. 364; Wash. 48, 43 Pac. 552. Angell V. Cass County, 11 N. D. «♦ People v. Knopf, 183 111. 410, 56 365, 91 N. W. 72; Skagit County v. N. E. 155. Stiles, 10 Wash. 388, 39 Pac. 116; 85 state v. Westerfield, 23 Nev. Pollock V. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 158 468, 49 Pac. 119. STATDTE8 VOID IN PAKT. 603-- appoint one from three persons to be named by a party central committee. This requirement was held void and severable and the remainder of the act valid.*^ An act cre- ating a city court provided that cases in which the amount involved was not over $50 should be tried without a jury. This was contrary to the constitution, which guarantied the right of trial by jury in all cases. The provision was held severable and the remainder of the act valid.^ Some addi- tional cases are referred to in the margin.** 86 State V. Washburn, 167 Mo. 680, 67 S. W. 592, 90 Am. St. Rep. 430. 8' Mattox V. State, 115 Ga. 313, 41 S. E. 709. The court says: "The main purpose of the act was to create a court of the character above referred ta The manner of trial to be followed in that court in cases of trifling importance, em- bracing unquestionably a very small part of the cases falling within the jurisdiction of the court, was merely a matter of minor de- tail. To hold the section unconsti- tutional which takesawaythe right of trial by jury in suits for fifty dollars or less would not in any mar terial or substantial way disturb the general scheme of the act; for the efifect of such a ruling would be simply to eliminate from the act the paragraph in question and make applicable to the cases re- ferred to in the paragraph the other provisions of the act in reference to trial by jury. No further legislation would be i-equired, and the practice and procedure of the court would not be in any material respect al- tered. Viewing the act as a whole we do not think that portion which, if valid, would have resulted in a deprivation of the right of jury trial in such a small and compara- tively insignificant class of cases, when it is provided for all other- classes of cases, and when the method and machinery for obtain- ing juries is provided, is such an es- sential part of the scheme of the act creating the court as that its with- drawal from the actwould have the effect to render the entire act void. The efifect of this ruling is to give to litigants in all cases in the city court of Valdosta the right to de- mand a trial by jury; or, in other words, to give to litigants in that court, in suits involving fifty dol- lars or less, the same rights with respect to jury trial as are provided by the act for litigants in other cases." pp. 316, 217. 88 Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 28, 19 So. 857; Townsend v. State, 147 Ind. 634, 47 N. E. 19, 63 Am. St. Rep. 477, 37 L. R. A. 294; Rodman-Heath Cotton Mills V. Waxhaw, 130 N. C. 293, 41 S. E. 488; Trimble v. Com- monwealth, 96 Va. 818, 33 S. E. 786; State v. Sullivan, 73 Minn. 126, 75- N. W. 8; State v. Duluth Gas & Water Co., 76 Minn. 96, 78 N. W> 1033. :.i^^^i^m.^^m^^^^