*1 If court, mission of amendment tbe to amend indictment. an tbe permitted charge were of this tbe kind it would leave tbe standing by any prose- unsupported defendant affidavit either of tbe cuting attorney unsupported or a witness. it tbe It would leave grand charge jury oath of a in tbe indict- because tbe as contained materially charge in ment was different tbe tbe indictment from always necessary that a amended. Tbe have it lawmakers deemed of an prosecution criminal should be either affidavit based grand individual, official, prosecuting oath of a or tbe oath- a tbe jury. exception therefore, It, We to this. follows that find for, a Tbe reversed new trial. Statute case must be and remanded may com- expired prosecution a of Limitations has not so new. trial, points in tbe motion for new Other are made menced. to, grant permit of tbe trial court to continuance as tbe refusal must be remanded it trial. Since tbe case appellant prepare question. unnecessary to consider tbe is reversed and the cause indicated For the error CC., Cooley Bohling, concur. remanded. opinion foregoing by Westhues,
PER CURIAM: Tbe judges All tbe court. opinion tbe concur. adopted as tbe Adjustment Fidelity M.R. Company, Corporation, Appellant, Patterson, John C. Charles, Cook, Chester (2d) S. W. Frank McAllister. 1162. Two, June
Division
4:6
L. L. Wafts' for appellant. Don T. Patterson and Elmer B. for John 0. Patterson. Silvers B. Caldwell, B. 8. East McCune, B. in and Caldwell <&Downing for Cook, E. M. Chester Charles, and Frank W. Mc- Allister. *3 having sustained the demurrer court, BOHLING, trial C. The Patterson, Charles, John O. Cook, Chester M. E.
of defendants Fidelity petition and Frank McAllister to tbe Adjustment having Company, corporation, plaintiff, a plaintiff further, Plain- plead declined entered defendants. appeals. tiff alleged $29,118.29 seeks
Plaintiff to recover defendants due plaintiff Company, corporation. from Pan American a Feed counts, upon separate is in each a petition fifteen based note assigned for open plaintiff; value to account .endorsed liability imposed upon based civil defendants Company Pan American Feed under Section directors said 2053). (Mo. Ann., p. Statutes Revised Stat. plaintiff's petition putting
Defendants filed demurrers to in issue constitutionality of to main Plaintiff’s being purely alleged defendants, stat tain cause .its ruling presented, constitu utory, 'the issues- involves on the 4628; tionality of said for if unconstitutional no cause action, case, perceive From the we take of the exists. view inserting plaintiff’s purpose to be served averments useful alleges Summarized, incorporation plain petition petition. tiff; 4628, setting verbatim, that was said same petition; at all times mentioned that full force and effect Company corporation; was American Feed Pan January 1, Company forfeited of said Pan American Feed State; registration comply with annual laws for failure to Feed Cor Pan and that defendants were directors American aforesaid, and, pretending directors continued poration on, to act as powers privileges exercise the to- respective Next, the charter. to,1said date of said forfeiture *4 Pan of action petition the set forth cause counts of having of items of indebtedness Company, some American Feed of forfeiture to said prior and other items been incurred premises by the allege defendants, reason-of charter; and individually severally and provisions are and the of plaintiff of indebtedness. to for the item liable - petition are Sec- to in registration laws referred the The annual 2047), Ann., p. (Mo. Stat. seq., Eevised Statutes tions affidavit and filing requiring registration of, the of antitrust the by registration fee information, payment certain other and of annually. provisions Section Under the corporations certain corporate rights p. 2049), Ann., (Mo. Stat. Statutes Eevised comply provisions failing with the corporation and.privileges any given day of December the 31st on or before sections of said thereupon secretary of state shall forfeited, year “shall by corporation appropriate license, of such certificate, or cancel whereupon all the thereof,” margin of the record entry on privileges powers, and' upon corporation franchises conferred such determine, shall and cease etc.
One of the constitutional issues to the common demurrers and presented as an issue on is that the Sec this review of said based, upon plaintiff’s tion cause is not expressed clearly required act title to said Section IY, Article of Missouri. of the Constitution 28, Article . . provides: of our Constitution “No bill . clearly subject, expressed
shall contain more than one which shall be in its title.” . . being (that portion, involved set supra, reads here italics):
forth in “Any person, attempt persons.who exercise, shall or exer- any any cise, powers, privileges, corporation on franchises same, has been forfeited and after the certificate or license guilty of a mis- provided as in this article shall be deemed canceled punished demeanor, provided; conviction as hereinafter and Missouri, agent if a directors, principal 'and in and officers foreign any which shall-.so violate the corporation, of provisions several- partners this and become article he held as shall corporation.” individually stuch ly and liable the debts of for appearing in 17 of an act Laws Said Section was Section 32, R. 4613-4640, Chap. 227-235 of Art. 1919, pages Sees. [now original reading in law “act” “article” word 1929], change wording, authority for the Sec. R. for [See 9822, R. S. and See. 1919]. 1919, p. insofar as 227], Act of 1919 title to said [Laws italics), appearing (the portion involved material thereof here nn reads: corporations; supervision of certain provide for the “An-Act statements, and filing of annual registration of, and for annual setting filing requiring of a statement by, anti-trust affidavit the officers and of each of name address directors forth the and. registration; providing fixing fees for thereof, corporations; charters; suspension and forfeiture corporate the forfeiture for penalties act; prescribing for violation corporate charters attempt powers, to exercise who shall directors on officers or license has been privileges or certificate for- after franchises forfeiture; suspension or canceled; after reinstatement feited penalties prescribing registration, (cid:127)fixing' for fees fines ...” *5 violation. general, may or it carve may legislative act title The legislated upon. In subject-matter general the details subject of the act in express the such must title “the event either Assembly people may General the members terms 50
not be left in Burg doubt as to what matter is treated v. of” [State doerfer, 107 Mo. l. c. 17 30, In City S. W. of Columbia v. 646]. Public Commission, (2d) Service 38, 45, 813, 329 Mo. 43 S. W. (2), 816 general said: we “The rule of construction thus stated Cyc., 1029, p. in 36 n. 27: express ‘The title need not limitations in body act, the but the where title restrictive the act must be also.’ rel. al., 945, 950, In State ex v. 241 Edwards S. W. we that, ‘where have the of an act particulars descends to details, the must conform par act to the title as thus the limited Hackmann, and details.’ In rel. v. 292 27, ticulars State ex Mo. 742, 743, fully: 237 S. we W. have thus stated rule more the ‘Though constitutionally subject-matter in an as might act be such title, it one so particular be enacted under cannot be in a enacted subject “clearly expressed act, unless within the title” it be the Weitzel, v. 130 such act. Louis Mo. 31 S. W. [St. if par If follows that the title of such act “descends 1045.] subject ticulars,” particulars act, and states such as the the then general subject particulars fall, within which such not the but stated, particulars subject the become the stated in the title. In provisions such a the act case the enactable under fairly a title must be such as relate to and a natural con have general subject might stated, with, nection the have been not subject stated, e., particulars but the which is i. set out 530; 232 W. Rawlings, l. c. 134 S. title. v. Mo. [State Sloan, 313, 314, 500; Scott, v. 258 Mo. l. c. 167 W. Booth v. State S. 269 633; Fisher, 22, 23, 276 Mo. l. 205 S. Hardware c. W. Co. v. 576; Crites, 277 W. 209 S. W. l. c. 190 S. State v. Mo. Mo. ’ ” Brantley, 66 also, [See, Sherrill Mo. v. 863.] Walker, 532; (2d) 529, W. State ex Mo. rel. (2d) 124, 131(9).] particulars The descends to minute title of said Act subjects legislation. first of said portion The others, exercising attempting including persons, directors well as any cor powers, privileges or franchises of exercise for a punishment forfeited to poration after its has been prosecution provided instituted in said act misdemeanor as State; sec of said whereas on behalf act, directors, violating so creates between ofScers tion imposes copartners existing between relation’ contractual corporation. word liability the debts personal civil every in act, of said in the title twice occurs “penalties” of said Section’ in said second subdivision than stance, other give and effect to the To force for crime. punishment refers only must not hold that said section subdivision second meanings as used in said separate and distinct has “penalties” word con- word establishment connotes also hold title but
51 relationship civil, tractual of a copartnership imposition aof distinguished as from criminal, liability. circumstances, Under the “penalties” we think the word act, more, title to said without has reference to the usual customary adopted and method for secur ing punishment obedience imposed to negatives for crime: and law— .any imposition inference personal civil liability. That the term was so understood is evidenced the title of another act Assembly reading (in same General part): “An Act . . declaring buildings, things certain structures and used in the un lawful intoxicating manufacture and liquors sale to be nuisances right giving abatement; establishing and damage injuries by
in for persons intoxicated illegal liquor sellers; . . . penalties and with for violation” 1919, p. [Laws ; oúr whereas examination titles said acts of 408] General Assembly (other to any fails disclose instance under than involved) the act “penalty” here wherein the word “penalties” has reference other than to criminal responsibility. Said Act of 1919 repealed law, approved April a similar p. 1917 [Laws 230 repealed which had approved a similar law, March seq.], 1913, p. ; 1913 167 et and interpretation such is the seq.] [Laws forth set as the title Act of to the “prescribing fines and 1913— penalties for violation” —in (De Woodward Hardware Co. v. Fisher 269 1916), 576, 578(1). cember Mo. 190 S. W.
In case, supra, the Woodward Hdwe. Co. Act of said 1913, p. with identical Section 17 of the Act of 171], [Laws p. 232—now Sec. before court on [Laws supra], involving an issue our Constitution. Article provide The title to Act of 1913 “An read: Act to for annual registration, filing supervision, cor- reports and annual of certain porations; suspension corporate and forfeiture of charter for viola- penalties . . . act; prescribing tion of this viola- fines for J., writing, court, Bailey, One P. tion.” Division of this Gbaves, concurring; J., expressing opinion, J., and Wood- Bond, Blaie, dissenting, considering portion in J., son, (the supra) italicized Sec. same as the above now be void, said: title “Whether to said act unconstitutional slightest carefully considered, there is not intimation casually or liable,- partners, held be for debts that individuals should therein contracted, purchased which personally were they never n solelyby corporate in name. The members of the its act, might Assembly, voting upon have understood General reading thereto, corporation, the officers of a whose might punished canceled be forfeited and had been carry continuing State, for on the busi- power police been legally its character had for- corporation after of such ness yet canceled, feited and the title said act im wonld not have parted to the liability notice lawmakers that would imposed the officers of corporations it debts which ” gdod* had
alone contracted in Speaking faith. of the Woodward *7 case, supra; Hdwe. Co. Scott, Booth v. 276 Mo. 205 W. 638(3), JJ., concurring, and WoodsoN, stated: “It Blair among evident that words in italics were par not included specified title, (Italics ours.) ticulars and we so held.” Appellant Spoke Hicks, cites Reuter Hub Co. v. 181 Mich. 250, 148 N. W. v. Somps, Francais Cal. 503. The. general appear involved in said to be- of the acts cases in nature. Fisher, The observations of this' court in Woodward Hdwe. Co. v. passing “prescribing supra, phrase penalties” fines and 1913, supra, falling rulings within the title the Act of cited, approve; involving private as in a the cases there matter they rights, rights, property by vouchsafe a con title, carving of an act provision, stitutional details subject sufficiently explicit to all general should be remove doubt person property by affected to the nature 1919, aforesaid, Act This the title to fails to do legislation. of said Section supra; italicized is con far as the so' said, is, therefore, section portion of void. ; and said cerned Westhues, Cooley trial court affirmed. The <7(7.,concur. foregoing opinion Bohlustg, adopted
PER CURIAM: The judges concur. All the court. opinion as the (2d)W. Appellant. Moore, Earl State Two, 30, 1936. Division June