In such case the reference to the date may be treated as surplusage. A slight variance in reciting the title of the act. amended will be immaterial, if the act intended is clearly identified.80 But where the variance was calculated to mislead as to the nature of the amendment, it was held fatal.81 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 common 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 8.83 An act was entitled "An act to amend section 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 Rapids and was divided into ten titles, each of which had a section 4. It was held that the title referred to the first section 4 and was sufficient for the purpose. But "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.85 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.86 Haugh, 142 Ind. 254, 41 N. E. 533; 80 Northern Pac. Exp. Co. v. Metschan, 90 Fed. 80, 32 C. C. A. 530. 81 Sanders v. Cambria County, 4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 241. See Mankin v. Pennsylvania Co. (Ind.), 67 N. E. 229. 84 82 State v. Robinson, 32 Ore. 43, 48 Pac. 357. 83 Otis v. People, 196 Ill. 542, 63 N. E. 1053. See post, § 141. 84 Stow v. Grand Rapids, 79 Mich. 595, 44 N. W. 1047. 85 State v. Mitchell, 17 Mont. 67, 42 Pac. 100. And see Hearn v. Louttit, 42 Ore. 572, 72 Pac. 132. 86 State v. Long, 21 Mont. 26, 52 Pac. 645. § 139. Effect of title 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-matter of the sections specified," and that amendments of other sections, not specified, will be void.88 In Michigan, in such cases, the specification of the sections is treated as surplusage, and, under a title to amend a particular section or sections of an act, it is held that the whole law is open to amendment.89 It is held in some states that under a title 87 Ex parte Cowert, 92 Ala. 94, 9 So. 225; 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, 53 Neb. 522, 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., 73 Fed. 1013, 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. 522, 73 N. W. 953, 68 Am. St. Rep. 623; Ex parte Hewlett, 22 Nev. 333, 40 Pac. 96. 89 Attorney-General v. Bolger, 128 Mich. 355, 87 N. W. 366; Common Council v. Schmid, 128 Mich. 379, 87 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 692 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 citizen of the municipality may be seriously affected. To make the matter, if possible, more illogical, a designing legislator might introduce a bill to amend section 2 of chapter 25, which refers to the establishment of a boulevard, and 90 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.91 But 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 section which is provided for elsewhere in the act. Thus an act to amend sections 10, 12 and 14 of an act in regard to licensing 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 intention 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 provisions abolishing the recorder's court, amending the law in regard to sewers, etc." p. 401. 90 State v. Southern Ry. Co., 115 Ala. 250, 22 So. 589; County Com'rs v. Aspen Min. & C. Co., 3 Colo. App. 223, 32 Pac. 717. 91 Shepherd v. Shepherd, 4 Kan. App. 546, 45 Pac. 658. 92 Lewis v. State, 148 Ind. 346, 47 N. E. 675. 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 another 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 knowledge." 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 particular amendment is not germane to the section amended, if it is within the title of the original act.5 An act to amend several sections of a code, which are cognate or related to each other, is not open to the objection that it embraces a plurality of subjects. An act to amend sections 1770 and 1782 inclusive was held to include the intermediate sections.97 § 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 93 State v. Am. Sugar Ref. Co., 106 La. 553, 564, 31 So. 181. To same effect: Ex parte Reynolds, 87 Ala. 138, 6 So. 335. 94 Hoskins v. Crabtree, 103 Ky. 117, 44 S. W. 434, 82 Am. St. Rep. 576. In this case the title was, "An act to amend and re-enact article three of an act entitled 'An act relating to and entitled husband and wife,' approved May 16, 1893." This act changed the rights of the wife in the deceased husband's property. This matter was already provided for in a statute on descent and distribution. It was held that the legislation in question was proper under either title, and the act was sustained. 95 State v. Cornell, 54 Neb. 72, 74 N. W. 432; State v. Madson, 43 Minn. 438, 45 N. W. 856. 96 Hotchkiss v. Marion, 12 Mont. 218, 29 Pac. 821; State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771, 6 So. 638; Commonwealth v. Brown, 91 Va. 762, 21 S. E. 357. And see Lewis v. Dunne, 134 Cal. 291, 66 Pac. 478, 86 Am. St. Rep. 257, 55 L. R. A. 833; Trumble v. Trumble, 37 Neb. 340, 55 N. W. 869. 97 State v. Long, 21 Mont. 26, 52 Pac. 645. sure is limited to the amendments specified, and anything outside of these is void.98 An act was entitled "A supplement to an act entitled 'An act to incorporate the Union Passenger Railway Co.,' approved April 8, 1864, authorizing said company to extend their track." The act authorized the extension 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."99 § 141. Whether title specifying section is sufficient, without giving title or subject of act amended Reference 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 indicating the subject-matter of the section. Under such a title any legislation is proper which is germane to the section. specified.1 Such titles as the following have been ap 98 Niles v. Steere, 102 Mich. 328, 60 N. W. 771; Davey v. Ruffel, 162 Pa. St. 443, 29 Atl. 894; Abernathy v. Mitchell, 113 Ga. 127, 38 S. E. 303; Corscadden v. Haswell, 88 App. Div. 158; Moore v. Moore, 23 Pa. Supr. Ct. 73. 99 Philadelphia v. Market Co., 161 Pa. St. 522, 527, 29 Atl. 286. Compare English & Scottish Am. Mort. Co. v. Hardy, 93 Tex. 289, 55 S. W. 169; Citizens' Savings Bank v. Auditor-General, 123 Mich. 511, 82 N. W. 214. 1 Mobile & Girard R. R. Co. v. Commissioners' Court, 97 Ala. 105, 11 So. 732; People v. Parvin, 74 Cal. 549, 16 Pac. 490; Clay v. Central R. R. & B. Co., 84 Ga. 345, 10 S. E. 967: Foster v. State, 99 Ga. 56, 25 S. E. 613; State v. Brown, 41 La. Ann. 771, 6 So. 638; State v. Read, 49 La. Ann. 1535, 22 So. 761; Garrison v. Hill, 81 Md. 551, 32 Atl. 191; Iowa Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Curtis, 107 Iowa, 504, 78 N. W. 208; Ross v. Aguirre, 191 U. S. 60; State v. Scott, 32 Wash. 279; Beatrice v. |