Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Roberts

Washington County Court of Quarter Sessions

Decided April 13, 1935No. 64Published

1Opinion of the Court

Brownson, P. J.,

The Constitution in section 3 of article in provides: “No bill, except general appropriation bills, shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title.”

*448Our appellate courts have laid down and firmly established the following rules, settling the effect of this constitutional provision:

1. The inclusion in a statute of an enactment dealing with a subject not covered by the title of the act renders the statute pro tanto unconstitutional: Commonwealth v. Frantz, 135 Pa. 389, 392.

2. Even if the title should contain a general statement of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sugar Notch BoroughSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
  2. Booth & Flinn, Ltd. v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1912
  3. Page v. CarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  4. Mallinger v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. Commonwealth v. BarbonoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1914

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API