133 Va. 292 | Va. | 1922
delivered the opinion of the court.
This action originated in a warrant in the Civil Justice’s Court of the city of Richmond. The civil justice’s court rendered a judgment against the railway company for $100 and the costs, from which judgment the railway company appealed to the Law and Equity Court of the city of Richmond. In the latter court there was a trial de novo before a jury, and a verdict and judgment against the railway for $90 and interest and costs. To that judgment the writ of error in this ease was awarded.
The action was to recover for damage to a carload of watermelons shipped from a point in Georgia to the consignees in Richmond, Virginia. The rights and liabilities of the parties, therfore, are not affected by section 3926 of the Code, applicable to shipments originating in this State. The watermelons arrived in bad condition, and in order to recover it was necessary for the plaintiff to show, either directly or indirectly, that they were received in good con
In Chicago & Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Whitnack Produce Co., (April 10, 1922) 257 U. S. -, 42 Sup. Ct. 328, 66 L. Ed. -, it is said: “While this court has not expressly approved it, we think the common law rule, supported both by reason and authority, is correctly stated in section 1348, Hutchinson on Carriers, Third Edition—
“ ‘A connecting carrier, who has completed the transportation and delivered the goods to the consignee in a damaged condition or deficient in quantity, will be held liable in an action for the damage or deficiency, without proof that it was occasioned by his fault, unless he can show that he received them in the condition in which he delivered them. The condition and quantity of the goods when they were delivered to the first of the connecting carriers, being shown, the presumption will arise that they continued in that condition down to the time of their delivery to the carrier completing the transportation and making the delivery to the consignee, and that the injury or loss occurred while they were in his possession.’ i'fi t'fi %
“The petitioner insists that this common law rule conflicts with the Carmack amendment to the Interstate Commerce act, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584, 595, which requires issuance of a through bill of lading by initial
❖ ^*#***#** “Here there is no question of conflict between a State statute and any federal policy; and nothing in the words of the amendment indicates a legislative purpose to abrogate the accepted common law doctrine concerning presumption. The suggestion that by imposing additional liability upon the initial carrier the amendment provides an adequate remedy for shippers and thereby removes the necessity for any presumption against the terminal one and impliedly abrogates the rule, is unsound. There are adequate reasons why shippers should have the benefit of both; and we think Congress so intended.”
The plaintiff filed the affidavit of the consignor, as authorized by section 3 of an act of Assembly approved March 16, 1918. Acts 1918, p. 467, ch. 291. This act amended a previous act of March 24, 1914. Acts 1914, p. 426, eh. 250. The only difference between these two acts is that the act of 1914 permitted the use of the affidavit only where the amount involved did not exceed $25.00, and the act of 1918 increased the amount involved to $300.00. The section permitting the use of the affidavit was first inserted in the statute by the act of 1914, but this act was itself an amendment of an act approved February 29, 1908. Acts 1908, p. 143, ch. 116. -The validity of the last mentioned act is in no way assailed, but, on the con
The judgment in the civil justice’s court was rendered August 20, 1919, before the Code of 1919 took effect. There was an appeal to the Law and Equity Court of the city of Richmond where the case was tried de novo and a verdict rendered April 15, 1920, after the Code took effect. But the enactments of the session of 1918, so far as they vary from or conflict with the Code, are deemed to be subsequent to the Code. Section 6568 of the Code. The act of 1914 was carried into the Code as section 3928, but with some changes in the phraseology and omitting the clause with reference to the affidavit. The rights and liabilities of the parties, therefore, are determinable by the act of 1918, which amended, the act of March, 1914.
It is claimed by the plaintiff in error that the act of 1918 violates section 52 of the Constitution of this State, declaring that “no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.” It is conceded in the petition for the writ of error that “the sole question involved is whether the court erred in permitting the plaintiff to introduce in evidence an affidavit for the purpose of showing the condition of the shipment when it was delivered to the initial carrier. The answer to this question depends upon the constitutionality of the act aforesaid of March 16, 1918. It is conceded, also, that, as this is an amendatory act, if the title of the original act is sufficient to embrace the matters covered by the provisions of the act amendatory thereof, it is unnecessary to inquire whether the title of the amendatory act would of itself be sufficient. Iverson Brown’s Case, 91 Va. 762, 21
We have so often laid down the rules for the construction of the language of section 52 of the Constitution that there is practically nothing left to be said on the subject.
In Town of Narrows v. Giles County, 128 Va. 572, 582-3,105 S. E. 82, 85, one of the latest cases on the subject, it is said: “The constitutional provision was never intended to hamper honest legislation, nor to require that the title should be an index or digest of the various provisions of the act, and it is rare that the generality of the title is a valid objection thereto. The fact that
Nothing remains to be done now but to test each case by the rules heretofore laid down. In the ease in judgment, is the title of the act of 1908 broad enough to cover the provision of section 3 of the act of 1918 with reference to the use of the affidavit? That title is: “An act to regulate the time and manner in which common carriers doing business in this State shall adjust and pay just freight charges, and claims for loss or damage to freight and claims for storage, demurrage
“3. In any action which may be instituted pursuant to this act before a justice of the peace, or a civil justice court for an amount not exceeding three hundred ($300.00) dollars, either party at or before the return day of the warrant may file an affidavit relating to the subject matter and the other party to such action shall have a right of continuance for a reasonable time; provided, that any party to such warrant may give .reasonable notice to the party filing such affidavit and take the deposition of the affiant or affiants, at such time and place as the court may prescribe, the taking of such deposition to be governed by the rules of law in force regarding the cross-examination of witnesses. Such affidavits and depositions shall be read with the same force and effect as if taken in the form of a deposition after due notice to the other party. In the event of appeal of any such action such affidavits and depositions shall be read in the appellate court with the same force and effect as in the civil justice court, or before the justice of the peace.”
It will be observed from the title of the act that it is a regulatory statute. The word “regulate” is very Comprehensive in its scope, as is manifest from the interpretation put upon it by the Supreme Court of the United States in cases arising under the provisions of the federal Constitution giving to the Congress power “to regulate commerce.” Black’s L. Diet., “Regulate.”
To regulate is to fix or control the manner in which a thing is to be done; to prescribe a rule or method for doing it. It is comprehensive enough to cover the . exercise of • authority over the whole subject to be regulated. 4 Words and Phrases (2d ed.), 234. To
In Westgate v. Town of Adrian, 161 Mich. 333, 126 N. W. 422, the title of the original act, passed in 1887 (Pub. Acts Mich. 1887, No. 145), was “An act to regulate the use of steam engines, .steam wagons or other vehicles, which are, in whole or in part, operated by steam, on the public highways of this State, and to
“Any provisions germane to the subject expressed
In Jonesboro City v. Cairo & St. Louis R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 192, 4 Sup. Ct. 67, 28 L. Ed. 116, the title of the act was, “An act to amend the charter of the Cairo & St. Louis Railroad Company,” and the body of the act contained a provision validating a prior election held in the city of Jonesboro authorizing a bond issue by the city as a subscription to the stock of the railroad company, and it was held that the title of the act was broad enough to cover the validating section. In the course of the opinion it is said: “The authority of municipalities to make subscriptions in aid of the construction of railroads in Illinois has frequently, if not generally, been given in the charters of the respective railroad corporations. Whether a particular municipality has legislative authority for a subscription to the stock of a particular railroad company can be determined, ordinarily, by referring to the charter of that company. The general subject of municipal subscriptions to the stock of this particular company was, therefore, germane to and fairly embraced by the title of the act of 1869. Upon like grounds a provision in the same act legalizing a previous election at which the people voted in favor of a subscription and giving authority to issue bonds for the amount indicated by the popular vote, was sufficiently covered by a title showing that the act in question was amendatory of the original charter of the company; this, because the validity of bonds so issued would depend upon the existence of legislative authority to issue them, and the existence of such authority
A number of eases from this and other jurisdictions have been cited upon the sufficiency of titles of acts to cover matter embraced in the enactments, but it is unnecessary to review them as they are only valuable as illustrations. The sufficiency of the title of each act must be determined from a consideration of its title and the body of the act under established rules of construction.
We are of opinion that the title of the original act of 1908 is broad enough to cover the amendment made by the act of 1918, and that the judgment of the trial court so holding should, therefore, be affirmed.
Affirmed.