be passed to give effect to proceedings defective and void, because taken in the absence of necessary statutory authority, or because not taken in pursuance of statutes in force.

CHAPTER VII.

AMENDATORY ACTS AND ACTS TO REVIVE, ADOPT OR EXTEND THE PROVISIONS OF OTHER ACTS.

§ 230 (131). The constitutional requirement as to amendments and its purpose.- The requirement is substantially the same in the constitutions of many states that no law shall be revived or revised or amended by reference to the title only; but the law revived or revised, or the section amended, shall be re-enacted or inserted at length` in the new act. The provision is mandatory. This requirement was intended mainly to prevent improvident legislation. By a prevalent form of amendatory legislation the amendatory act itself was unintelligible; words were stricken out or inserted, additions or substitutions made by mere reference to the place in the old law where the change should be introduced. It required an examination of the former act and a comparison with it of the new act to understand the change. Much confusion and uncertainty ensued from this practice. After repeated amendments in this manner there was much difficulty in determining the state of the law. The requirement was intended to remedy this evil by requiring the legislature changing the law to state it entire in its amended form: the whole act, when revived or revised, or a whole section amended."

1 Tuskaloosa Bridge Co. v. Olmstead, 41 Ala. 9: Walker v. Caldwell, 4 La. Ann. 297. See Lehman v. McBride, 15 Ohio St. 573.

484, 497; Davis v. State, 7 Md. 151, 159; Colwell v. Chamberlin, 43 N. J. L. 387; Draper v. Falley, 33 Ind. 465, 469; Blakemore v. Dolan, 50

2 Lehman v. McBride, 15 Ohio St. Ind. 194, 203; State v. Read, 49 La. 573, 603.

3 Timm v. Harrison, 109 Ill. 593; Sovereign v. State, 7 Neb. 409; Mayor, etc. v. Trigg, 46 Mo. 288, 290; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich.

Ann. 1535, 22 So. 761; Warren v.
Crosby, 24 Ore. 558, 34 Pac. 661;
Snyder v. Compton, 87 Tex. 374, 28
S. W. 1061; Fletcher v. Prather, 102
Cal. 413, 36 Pac. 658.

§ 231 (182). Requisites of amendatory act.- In the amendment or revision of a statute two things are required: First, the title of the act amended or revised should be referred to; and secondly, the act as revised, or section as amended, should be set forth and published at full length.* A failure to set out the act or section as amended renders the amendatory act void. It is not necessary in an amendatory statute to set forth the old act or section, but only to re-enact complete the amended section. It is intended that the law in force after the amendment shall be formulated and stated as it reads entire, and not in shreds. The supreme court of Louisiana say: "It was intended that each. amendment, and each revisal, should speak for itself; should stand independent and apart from the act revised or the sec

4 Feibleman v. State ex rel., 98 Ind. 521; Tuskaloosa Bridge Co. v. Olmstead, 41 Ala. 9; Rogers v. State, 6 Ind. 31; Armstrong v. Berreman, 13 id. 422; Sovereign v. State, 7 Neb. 409, 413; Walker v. Caldwell, 4 La. Ann. 297; Kohn v. Carrollton, 10 La. Ann. 719; Jones v. Commissioner, 21 Mich. 236; State v. Algood, 87 Tenn. 163, 10 S. W. 310; O'Mara v. Wabash R. R. Co., 150 Ind. 648, 50 N. E. 821; State v. Murlin, 137 Mo. 297, 38 S. W. 923; Purvis v. Ross, 158 Pa. St. 20, 27 Atl. 882; Smyers v. Beam, 158 Pa. St. 57, 27 Atl. 884. See Comstock v. Judge, 39 Mich. 195; Earle v. Board of Education, 55 Cal. 489, 492, 493.

5 Judson v. Bessemer, 87 Ala. 240, 6 So. 267; Bates v. State, 118 Ala. 102, 24 So. 448; Street v. Hooten, 131 Ala. 492, 32 So. 580; State v. Guiney, 55 Kan. 532, 40 Pac. 926; In re House Roll 284, 31 Neb. 505, 48 N. W. 275; Douglas County v. Hayes, 52 Neb. 191, 71 N. W. 1023; Haverly v. State, 63 Neb. 83, 88 N.

8

W. 171; State v. Haverly, 63 Neb. 87, 88 N. W. 172; State v. Trenton, 53 N. J. L. 566, 22 Atl. 731; State v. Beddo, 22 Utah, 432, 63 Pac. 96; Copeland v. Pirie, 26 Wash. 481, 67 Pac. 227, 90 Am. St. Rep. 769; In re Buelow, 98 Fed. 86.

6 Wilkinson v. Ketter, 59 Ala. 306; Montgomery v. State, 107 Ala. 372, 18 So. 157; Lewis v. State, 123 Ala. 84, 26 So. 516.

7 Greencastle, etc. Co. v. State ex rel., 28 Ind. 382; Draper v. Falley, 33 id. 465; Blakemore v. Dolan, 50 id. 194; Rogers v. State, 6 id. 31; People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 182; Arnoult v. New Orleans, 11 La. Ann. 54; Jones v. Commissioner, 21 Mich. 236; City of Portland v. Stock, 2 Ore. 69; Colwell v. Chamberlin, 43 N. J. L. 387; Lehman v. McBride, 15 Ohio St. 573, 602; Mayor v. Trigg, 46 Mo. 288; State v. Powder Mfg. Co., 50 N. J. L. 75, 11 Atl. 127.

8 Arnoult v. New Orleans, 11 La. Ann. 54.

tion amended. It was therefore provided that, in such cases, if the object was to revise an act, it should be re-enacted throughout; and if the object was to amend an act, then the section amended should be re-enacted and published." A recital of the section amended as it stood prior to the amendment will not vitiate the amendatory statute; such recital will be treated as surplusage. If incorrectly recited it will not affect the validity of the amendatory act.10 It is not required that the amendatory act state that certain words. of a specific section are stricken out and others inserted, and then set out in full the section as amended; it is sufficient if the section as amended be set out in full." Sections of the same act not amended need not be set out.12 When an act is amended by adding new sections thereto, no part of the act amended need be set forth.13 So where a section consisted of numerous subdivisions numbered consecutively, it was held that the section could be amended by adding new subdivisions without setting forth the entire section.1 But where a section not so divided is amended by adding certain words or provisions, the whole section as amended must be set forth.15

If the reference to the act to be amended in the title and body of the amendatory act is sufficient for identification, it is all that is required, and slight errors will be disregarded.16

9 Draper v. Falley, 33 Ind. 465. 10 People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 182; School Directors v. School Directors, 73 Ill. 249.

21 Pac. 1011; State v. Thurston, 92 Mo. 325, 4 S. W. 930. 1 Am. St. Rep. 720; State v. Hendrix, 98 Mo. 374, 11 S. W. 728; In re White, 33 Neb.

11 Morrison v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. 812, 51 N. W. 287; Matter of South Co., 96 Mo. 602.

12 State v. Thurston, 92 Mo. 325, 4 S. W. 930, 1 Am. St. Rep. 720; State v. Hendrix, 98 Mo. 374, 11 S. W. 728; Montclair v. New York, etc. Ry. Co., 45 N. J. Eq. 436, 18 Atl. 242.

13 Hellman v. Shoulters, 114 Cal. 136, 45 Pac. 1068; Edwards v. Denver & R. G. R. R. Co., 13 Colo. 59,

Market St., 76 Hun, 85, 27 N. Y. S.
843; Berry v. Kansas City, etc. R.
R. Co., 52 Kan. 759, 34 Pac. 805, 39
Am. St. Rep. 371.

14 Beatrice v. Masslich, 108 Fed. 743, 47 C. C. A. 657. See post, § 236. 15 Barrett's Appeal, 116 Pa. St. 486, 10 Atl. 36.

16 Harper v. State, 109 Ala. 28, 19 So. 857; Harper v. State, 109 Ala.

The title of amendatory acts has been treated in a former chapter."7

$232. Constitutional provisions in Georgia, Nebraska and Tennessee. The constitutional provisions in these states differ from the typical form. That of Georgia is 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 describe the law to be amended or repealed, as well as the alterations to be made." 18 The cases seem to hold that it is sufficient if the amendatory act gives the title of the act or section of the code to be amended, and sets forth in full the section as amended.19 In Nebraska the amendatory act must not only set forth the act or section as amended, but must contain an express repeal of the old act or section, and the absence of such express repeal renders the amendatory act void.20 The provision in Tennessee is that "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."" A recital of either the title or substance is sufficient, and an act to amend a specified section of the code complies with the constitution.22 An act was entitled "An act to amend the

66, 19 So. 901; Fenton v. Yule, 27
Neb. 758, 43 N. W. 1140; State v.
Cross, 44 W. Va. 315, 29 S. E. 527;
State v. Woolard, 119 N. C. 779, 25
S. E. 719.

17 Ante, § 137 et seq.

18 Const. 1877, art. 3, sec. 7, pt. 17. 19 Ryle v. Wilkinson County, 104 Ga. 473, 30 S. E. 934; Puckett v. Young, 112 Ga. 578, 37 S. E. 880; Fite v. Black, 85 Ga. 413, 11 S E. 782; Gilbert v. Georgia R. R. & B. Co., 104 Ga. 412, 30 S. E. 673.

20 Lancaster County v. Hoagland, 8 Neb. 36; South Omaha v. Taxpayers' League, 42 Neb. 671, 60 N.

W. 957; Grand Island & Wyo. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Swinbank, 51 Neb. 521, 71 N. W. 48; Horkey v. Kendall, 53 Neb. 522, 73 N. W. 953, 68 Am. St. Rep. 623; Reynolds v. State, 53 Neb. 761, 74 N. W. 330; Reid v. Panska, 56 Neb. 195, 78 N. W. 534. The constitutional provision is as follows: "And no law shall be amended unless the new act contain the section or sections so amended and the section or sec tions so amended shall be repealed." Const. 1875, art. 3, sec. 11. 21 Art. 2, sec. 17.

22 Ransome v. State, 91 Tenn. 716,