Case Information
*1 aj4 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS i’ AUSTIN
Pebruory 9, ¶Qg3B non* L* A* wooha
state superintendent OS
pub110 Instruction
Austin, Texar
This will
February 7, 192&J,
so that the Mly enacted.
d the caption OS the above eolf, and we do find a variance the caption and the last sontence y call fo your attention the case of 001 District et al vs. Earrs by the Com- d Sound In 41 8. W. Czd) p 9, thich case we believe is In Faint on the question nl? quote presented. the lan,aage of the court In passing upon the Act OS the Legle- lature then in question: .
.The langunge of the title thereoi not olear in some roapeote is sufficient we think to apprise the ordinary mind of the Subject matter *2 *i :
I Eon. L.
of the body of the Aot. The contention that the rubjeot OS the Aot 18 not exjwe88ed in the title IS o rer rulcd l
The oaption of the Aot before ~8, thoagh at var- Iauce In tho lost part OS it, Is sutiioient a8 to the vhole OS it to give notice of what the Aot oontains.
We therefore hold that the Article in question has been properly enacted by the Legislature.