 | Michigan. Supreme Court, Randolph Manning, George C. Gibbs, Thomas McIntyre Cooley, Elijah W. Meddaugh, William Jennison, Hovey K. Clarke, Hoyt Post, Henry Allen Chaney, William Dudley Fuller, John Adams Brooks, Marquis B. Eaton, Herschel Bouton Lazell, James M. Reasoner, Richard W. Cooper - 1897 - 824 стор.
...smokestacks, and to provide a penalty for its violation," is not unconstitutional as contravening section 20, art. 4, of the Constitution, providing that " no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title," although it authorizes a recovery for damages sustained... | |
 | Thomas McIntyre Cooley - 1868 - 776 стор.
...this constitutional provision are too well understood to require any eluOhio. and Pennsylvania provide that " no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Those of Michigan, Louisiana, and Texas are the same, substituting the word... | |
 | Michigan. Legislature. House of Representatives - 1869 - 928 стор.
...known. The constitution of Minnesota, Kansas, Maryland, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio and Pensylvania provide that " no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Those of Michigan, Louisiana and Texas are the same, substituting the word... | |
 | Illinois. Constitutional Convention - 1870 - 1074 стор.
...Legislative committee Ire requested to inquire into the expediency of so amending the Constitution that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be named in the title; but if the title contain only one subject the law shall be valid as to that and... | |
 | Thomas McIntyre Cooley - 1874 - 904 стор.
...The Constitutions of Minnesota, Kansas, Maryland, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, and Pennsylvania provide that " no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Those of Michigan, New Jersey, Louisiana, and Texas are similar, substituting... | |
 | 1896 - 542 стор.
...only, embraces but a single subject, and is not in violation of Const, art. 3, §21, which provides that "no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed In tbe title."— STATE v. AYERS, S. Dak., 67 NW Eep. 611. 15. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW— Obligation... | |
 | Indiana. Supreme Court, Horace E. Carter, Albert Gallatin Porter, Gordon Tanner, Benjamin Harrison, Michael Crawford Kerr, James Buckley Black, Augustus Newton Martin, Francis Marion Dice, John Worth Kern, John Lewis Griffiths, Sidney Romelee Moon, Charles Frederick Remy - 1875 - 674 стор.
...support, which they could not if presented separately." The constitution of Western Virginia provides, that " no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." The Supreme Court of that State, in Cutlip v. Sheriff, etc.. 3 West Va. 588,... | |
 | 1884 - 1902 стор.
...not the right to incorporate — to an existing company. The constitution, art. 4, § 27, provides that "no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title." Did the legislature intend more than was named in this title, and, if it did,... | |
 | 1883 - 662 стор.
...portions of a Statute. In many of the American States there are constitutional provisions to the effect that no law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in its title. The effect of these provisions, and the cases decided thereunder are reviewed.... | |
 | American Bar Association - 1883 - 1094 стор.
...The precise influence of constitutional provisions, such as will hereafter be referred to, in effect that no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title, should have on the title as evidence of the legislative intent, is not well... | |
| |
no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title, 
