Cited by

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .

It is sufficient if the title is “fairly suggestive.” “It was not intended to embarrass legislation by making laws more restrictive in their scope and operation than is reasonably necessary in order to conserve the purpose for which the constitutional limitation was adopted.” Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; Ek v. St.

The title was never intended to be an index of the law.” And by Chief Justice START in Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .

State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 ; Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .

of Norman Co., 80 Minn. 58 , ; Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; State v. Board of Control, 85 Minn. 165 , .

The numerous authorities which support these views are cited and illustrated in two recent decisions of this court in which this proposition is declared and enforced: Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; State v. Board of Control, 85 Minn. 165 , .

of Norman Co., 80 Minn. 58 , ; Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; Ek v. St.

As said in Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , , “Canons of construction are not the masters of the courts, but merely their servánts to aid them in ascertaining the legislative intent.” A statute amending a previous act, while it might not affect an intermediate law, if its terms give best expression to the legislative will, should be held to do so

In Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , , the court said: “Statutes must be so construed as to give effect to the evident legislative intent,, even if the result seems contrary to rules of construction and the strict letter of the statute.” In Talbot v. Hudson, 82 Mass. 417 , the court had under consideration a statute similar to that here in

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .

It is true that material omissions in the title to an act cannot be supplied by a reference to the enacting clause, but, when the question is whether general words appearing in the title of an act were intended to be read according to their natural and usual meaning or in a restricted sense, the title and the enacting danse should he read and construed together.” Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .

It was not intended to embarrass legislation by making laws more restrictive in their scope and operation than is reasonably necessary in order to conserve the purpose for which the constitutional limitation was adopted.” Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , ; citing, in support of that general view, Board of Supervisors v. Heenan, 2 Minn. 281 (830); State v. Kinsella, 14 Minn. 395 (524); Atkinson v. Duffy, 16 Minn. 30 (45); State v. Cassidy, 22 Minn. 312 ; Gillitt v. McCarthy, 34 Minn. 318

Winters v. City of Duluth, 82 Minn. 127 , .