referredto in the captionof the bill, is this sectionvalid?"
A carefulreadingof the captjLm:.of Senate Bill #28 revealsthat the subject nmtter of.Section2 is unquestionably omittedtherefrom. Speakinggenerally, a title should be neitherbroadernor narrowerthan the body of the Act, but the fact that the title IS narrowerdoes not renderthe Act void, unless the omissionis such as to render the title misleadingas to that which is actuallycontainedin the enactment. See Imreryvs. Red Cab Company,262 S. W. 147; Ex partewhite, 198 S. W. 583. In this instancewe find that the body of the bill presentsa subjectmatterwhich is in narise treated in the captionthereof. The captionexpresslyenumeratesdormitories, cottagesor stadiumswhich are buildingsof a class entirelydistinctfrom museums,librarybuildingsor the generalwords following"such other buildingsas may be deemednecessary." In applyingthe doctrineejusdem HonorableJ. A. Hill, page #3 (O-1273)
generis,that Is, where generalwords follow specificwords, the general words used are descriptiveof the subjectstreatedby the previously used specificwords. We think,therefore,that the title of Senate Bill #28 is at wariancewith the subjectof the legislationand it has been held that the title and the body of an Act must deal with the same subject matter and maniifestthe same legislativeintentand purpose. See CommonwealthInsuranceCompanyvs. Finegold,183 5. W. 833. The courts have furtherheld that a title is deceptivewhen it importsa subject differentfrom that which the Act relatesand it would, therefore,be misleadingif the body of the Act containedsubjectmatter that was not includedin the title. We do not think that this is an inmaterialor unimportantdiscrepencybetweenthe title and the body, and are of the opinionthat such discrepancyis fatal to the validityof Section2 of Senate Bill #28.
Having thereforeconcludedthat Section2 is invalid,we do not think it necessaryto go furtherinlboyour questionsrelatingto that Sectionof the Act.
We must point out that Section11 thereofprovidesin pert that "should any sectionor provision* * * be held Invalid,It is hereby declared to be the legislativeintentthat the remainingsection* * * shall not be affectedtherebybut will rein effectiveafter omittingsuch invslid provisionsor parts."
Trustingthat the foregoingsatisfactorily answersyour letter,we are
BePy truly yours
ATTORNEY CEWEBALOFTEEAS~
s/ ClarenceE. Crowe
m ClarenceE. Crowe Assistant
cRc:s
Amov~D AUG. 26, 1939 .a/Gerald C. M.%M ATTCBWEI CZEEBALOFTEXAS APPBCVEBOPINIONCm BY B. W. B. CHAIRMAN