Statement of Facts.

coupon bonds, payable to the order of the railroad company thirty years from date, with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum, semiannually at the Bank of America, New York. The railroad company indorsed them in blank, and all but one afterwards came into the hands of Joseph C. Butler and L. Worthington, citizens of Ohio, as purchasers for value before maturity.

In 1859, after this subscription was made, and while the bonds issued on that account were outstanding, the county of Boyd was created by the General Assembly of Kentucky, which included within its boundaries a part of the original county of Carter. In 1869 the county of Elliott was created, and this took in another part of Carter, but in each of the acts creating the new counties it was provided:

"That nothing in this act shall be construed so as to release the citizens and property now subject, or which may hereafter become subject, to taxation within the boundaries of Carter County, included in the first section of this act, from being held and made liable for the bonds and interest, issued to the Lexington and Big Sandy Railroad Company, as though this act had never been passed."

Default having been made in the payment of interest on the bonds, suits were brought by Butler against Carter County for the recovery of the amount due on coupons attached to the bonds he held. The suits resulted in judgments against the county. Afterwards the following act, approved January 30, 1878, was passed by the General Assembly of Kentucky: "AN ACT authorizing the county of Carter, and those parts of Boyd and Elliott taken from Carter County, to compromise and settle with the holders of the bonds and coupons of interest executed by Carter County in its subscription to the capital stock of the Lexington and Big Sandy Railroad Company, and to levy and collect a tax for that purpose.

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

"1. That power and authority is hereby given to the county of Carter, and those parts of the counties of Boyd and

Statement of Facts.

Elliott taken from Carter County, to compromise and settle with the holders of the bonds and coupons of interest executed by Carter County in its subscription to the capital stock of the Lexington and Big Sandy Railroad Company. Said compromise and settlement shall be made by the Carter County court, composed of the county judge and a majority of the justices of the peace in commission of Carter County, for and on behalf of the county of Carter, and those parts of the counties of Boyd and Elliott taken from Carter County. Said court may make said compromise through a commission appointed for that purpose; but before the same shall become binding on the county of Carter it shall be approved by the Carter County court, constituted as county levy courts are required by law to be constituted. Said court may execute to the holders of said bonds and coupons of interest, severally, the obligations of the county of Carter and those parts of the counties of Boyd and Elliott taken from Carter County in their formation, which shall be signed by the county judge of Carter County, and attested by the clerk of said court. Said obligations shall contain such stipulations as to interest as may be agreed upon by the court and holders of said bonds and coupons of interest, or either of them, but not at a greater rate than six per cent. per annum, payable semiannually. Said obligations shall be due and payable at such times, and be for such amounts, as may be agreed for by the court and holder or holders of said bonds and coupons."

The next three sections of the act contain provisions for the levy and collection of taxes, to pay the interest and principal of the compromise bonds, upon persons and property within the limits of Carter County, as it was when the debt was originally created. The fifth and last section is as follows:

"5. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage; but nothing in this act shall be so construed as to affect or make more valid the bonds and coupons of interest given by Carter County in its subscription to the capital stock of the Lexington and Big Sandy Railroad Company than they were before the passage of this act."

Under the authority of this statute a compromise was made

Opinion of the Court.

with the holders of the original bonds, by which the county court of Carter County issued 119 new bonds of the county of Carter and those parts of the counties of Elliott and Boyd taken from Carter County, each for the sum of one thousand dollars, payable to Henry Peachey and Richard O. Butler. executors of Joseph C. Butler, or bearer, with semiannual interest warrants at the rate of six per cent. per annum attached. The principal of the bonds was made payable at different dates.

David Sinton, the defendant in error, purchased nine of these bonds for value before maturity, and five hundred and forty of the coupons, and this suit was brought to recover the amount due thereon. Originally the suit included other bonds and coupons, but, as it was discontinued so far as they were concerned before judgment, no questions arise in this court as to them.

To a petition setting forth the foregoing facts the county demurred: 1, because the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and, 2, because the petition shows a defect of parties, plaintiff and defendant. This demurrer was overruled. Sinton v. County of Carter, 23 Fed. Rep. 535. The defendant then filed an answer, some paragraphs of which were stricken out on motion, and others demurred to, and the demurrer sustained. As no point was made on this branch of the case, a further statement of it is not necessary.

The court gave judgment against the county for $29,121.54, and to reverse that judgment this writ of error was brought.

Mr. W. Lindsay and Mr. A. Duvall for plaintiff in error.

Mr. George Hoadly, Mr. Edgar M. Johnson, Mr. Edward Colston, Mr. George Hoadly, Jr., and Mr. James O'Hara, for defendant in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, after stating the facts reported above, delivered the opinion of the court.

The principal points presented by the argument of the plaintiff arise on the demurrer to the petition, and they may be stated thus:

Opinion of the Court.

1. The act of January 30, 1878, is void by the constitution of Kentucky, because the subject to which it relates is not clearly expressed in its title.

2. The act is also unconstitutional and void because it vests in the county court of Carter County the power to bind the parts of Elliott and Boyd counties which had been set off from Carter.

3. The act gave no authority to the county court of Carter County to issue negotiable securities which pass by delivery and in the hands of innocent holders are free from defences which would be good as between the original parties.

4. There is a defect of parties defendant, because Carter County is sued alone without joining "those parts of Boyd and Elliott counties taken from Carter."

1. As to the title of the act.

The provision of the constitution of Kentucky relied on is Art. II, § 37, as follows:

"No law enacted by the General Assembly shall relate to more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

Undoubtedly the design of this provision was, as is said in Pennington v. Woolfolk, 79 Ky. 20, "to prevent the use of deceptive titles as a cover for vicious legislation, by enabling members of the General Assembly to form such opinion of the nature of a bill by merely hearing it read by its title;" but as early as 1859 the Court of Appeals said in Phillips v. Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Company, 2 Met. (Ky.) 219, 221: “This prohibition should receive a reasonable and not a technical construction; and looking to the evil intended to be remedied, it should be applied to such acts of the legislature alone as are obviously within its spirit and meaning. None of the provis ions of a statute should be regarded as unconstitutional where they all relate directly or indirectly to the same subject, have a natural connection, and are not foreign to the subject expressed in its title." This is in accord with the decisions of this court in Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, where we followed the rulings of the Supreme Court of New Jersey upon a similar provision in the constitution of that state; in

Opinion of the Court.

Jonesboro City v. Cairo & St. Louis Railroad, 110 U. S. 192, and Mahomet v. Quakenbush, 117 U. S. 509, where the constitution of Illinois and the decisions of the Supreme Court of that state were considered; and in Otoe County v. Baldwin, 111 U. S. 1, which had reference to the constitution of Nebraska and the settled rule of decision in that state; and in Ashley School District v. Hall, 113 U. S. 135, which arose in Iowa. It is enough if the law has but one general object, and that object is fairly expressed in its title. Cooley on Const. Lim., 1st ed. 144, § 2; 4th ed. 175.

Here the title is "An act authorizing the county of Carter, and those parts of the counties of Boyd and Elliott taken from Carter County, to compromise and settle with the holders of the bonds and coupons of interest executed by Carter County in its subscription to the capital stock of the Lexington and Big Sandy Railroad Company, and to levy and collect a tax for that purpose." This clearly and distinctly expresses the whole object of the legislation, and there is nothing in the body of the act itself which is not in every way germane to what is there expressed. No one interested in the subject matter of the law could be put off his guard by hearing the bill read by its title. True, it does not state that the county court of Carter County is to act as the representative of the parts of Boyd and Elliott counties, as well as the county of Carter, in making the compromise, or that bonds are to be issued for the purpose of carrying it out, but all this is matter of detail, suitable to the single purpose the legislature had in view, namely, a settlement and compromise with the holders of bonds issued by Carter County before its division, and for which the present Carter County and those parts of Boyd and Elliott which were taken from the old county were liable. It is difficult to see how the subject of the legislation could be stated more clearly without making the title of the act "a detailed statement, or an index or abstract of its contents," which all agree is not necessary. Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 155.

2. The authority of the county court of Carter County to bind "those parts of the counties of Boyd and Elliott taken from Carter County."