Court Opinion

ID: 9818062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:13:48.091636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:15.342614
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
On application by the defendant in error, which was assented to by the Attorney General, the petition for rehearing vras set for oral argument. Oral argument was made on the part of counsel for the defendant in error, but neither was any oral argument made on the part of counsel for the plaintiff in error, nor has any brief been filed or response made in resistance to said petition for rehearing.
It has been very ably and earnestly contended on the part of defendant in error that the former opinion delivered in this case should not be adhered to, but that a contrary conclusion ought to be reached.
In addition to the adjudications relied upon by this court in its former opinion, in our research we have found additional ad-judiations supporting its former contusion. In Union Depot Company v. Commissioner of Railroads, 118 Mich. 340, 76 N. W. 631, it is said:
*365“The relator is clearly a corporation operating a railroad. As such, it is within the tide of the original railroad law of 1873; but it is not within the language of the act as originally passed, either under section 3 of article.3 standing alone, which limited taxation to companies to be organized under that act, or as enlarged by section 13 of article 5, which made section 3 applicable to roads then existing under laws therein enumerated. Section 3 might have been made broader under the title, and included all corporations operating railroads; and, if it might have been done originally under the title, we see no reason for denying the power of the Legislature to do the same thing by amendment. The important question is. What is requisite to the title of the amendatory act? Must it call attention to the fact that the scope of section 3 is to be enlarged, and mention the corporations to be included, either by name or generically, or must every one take notice that section 3 is liable to be amended in any particular and to any extent, within the terms of the original title? This constitutional restriction upon the power of the Legislature is not to be enlarged by construction. Cooley, Const. Lim. (6th Ed.) 175; State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 [28 N. W. 241], Many authorities support the rule that the title of the amendatory act is sufficient, and will support any legislation that would have been permissible under the original title when the law amended was enacted, if the amendatory act refer by chapter or section to the act amended, giving its title, although the practice has been criticised. Thus, in the case of People v. Judge of Superior Court of Grand Rapids, 39 Mich. 197, such an amendment was sustained, notwithstanding the title incorrectly stated the number of the section sought to be amended. In People v. Gadway, 61 Mich. 290 [28 N. W. 102] 1 Am. St. Rep. 576, Mr. Justice Champlin saj^s: Tn applying the constitutional test to this law, it must be regarded as if section 15 (Act No. 178, Pub. Acts 1883) was embraced in the original when passed; and, if it is embraced in the title of the act of 1881, it is valid; otherwise not.’ It is fair to say that it is not clear that the exact question be'foje us was discussed in that case, as apparently both court and counsel took it for granted that the case must turn upon the title to the original act. The case of Holden v. Supervisors of Osceola County, 77 Mich. 202 [43 N. W. 969], is also in point; Mr. Justice Campbell saving: Tt is undoubtedly competent to introduce, by amendment, anything which might have been introduced *366ill tlie original act/ The title to the act in that case, as in this, íef erred, to a section, and not to the act. It was as follows: ‘An act to amend section 3 of Act No. 331/ etc., ‘entitled/ etc. Act No. 34-2, Local Acts 1889.. The question was before this court in People v. Howard, 73 Mich. 10 [40 N. W. 789]. This was a criminal case, and title was ‘An act to amend chapter 154 of the Revised Statutes of 1846, being chapter 180 oE the Compiled Laws, entitled, “Of offenses against the lives and property of individuals.”’ Act No. 116, Laws 1867. The object of this amendment was to create a new offense, and a felony at that; yet the law was held valid. The following cases from other states support the rule: State v. Berka, 20 Neb. 375 [30 N. W. 267]; State v. Algood, 87 Tenn. 163 [10 S. W. 310]; State v. Ranson, 73 Mo. 78; Morrison v. Railway Co., 96 Mo. 602 [9 S. W. 626, 10 S. W. 148]; State v. Chambers, 70 Mo. 625; State v. Miller, 100 Mo. 439 [13 S. W. 677]. See, also, 23 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 281, and note 1, where many authorities are collected. We think the Michigan cases cited by counsel are distinguishable. The following cases appear to support their contention: State v. Tibbetts, 52 Neb. 228 [71 N. W. 990] 66 Am. St. Rep. 492; Tingue v. Village of Port Chester, 101 N. Y. 294 [4 N. E. 625]; State v. Smith, 35 Minn. 257 [28 N. W. 241].”
This case was, also quoted from at length with approval in Common Council of Detroit v. Schmid, 128 Mich, at pages 386, 387, 87 N. W. 383, 92 Am. St. Rep. 468, which is in every respect in point. See, also, Lewis v. State, 148 Ind. 346, 47 N. E. 675; Cathcart v. Comstock, 56 Wis. 609, 14 N. W. 842.
Whilst there is a sharp conflict of authority on this question, and it may be the weight, of authority is in favor of the contention of the defendant in error, yet, when the rule which will sustain this law and not bring it in conflict with the Constitution is supported by so many adjudications from courts of eminent standing, and which at the same time will conserve the principle for which such provision has been ingrafted into state Constitutions, we feel that we should not declare this law void. The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.
All the Justices concur.