55 of the Compiled Statutes of Nebraska," are valid, and that such a title is a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the constitution. Dogge v. State, 17 Neb. 140, 22 N. W. 348; Muldoon v. Levi, 25 Neb. 457, 41 N. W. 280. This is the general holding of the courts on the subject. City of Omaha v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 36 U. S. App. 615, 20 C. C. A. 219, 73 Fed. 1013; Swartwout v. Railroad Co., 24 Mich. 389; People v. Pritchard, 21 Mich. 236; People v. Kirsch, 67 Mich. 539, 35 N. W. 157; State v. Reid, 49 La. Ann. 1535, 22 South. 193; State v. Stewart, 52 Neb. 243, 71 N. W. 998. The supreme court of the state of Washington placed the same construction upon a like provision in the constitution of that state. The court say:

"If it is competent for the legislature to enact this entire body of laws under a single title, it must follow that an act to revise or re-enact the same would, upon familiar principles, be likewise valid; and, if the whole act can be revised or re-enacted under one title, the same can be revised or re-enacted in part by way of amendments, provided the parts to be amended are specified in the title." Marston v. Humes, 28 Pac. 520, 524.

The case of Harland v. Territory (Wash. T.) 13 Pac. 453, cited by the plaintiff in error, and which held a different doctrine, was expressly overruled in Marston v. Humes, supra.

"The legislature," says Judge Cooley, "must determine for itself how broad and comprehensive shall be the subject of a statute, and how much particularity shall be employed in the title defining it." Cooley, Const. Lim. 144. Statutes with titles similar to the one here assailed are common in states having a constitutional provision like that in North Dakota. It is the usual and customary title where the state has a code of laws with sections numbered consecutively. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

NOTE.

Power of the Legislature to Pass Curative Statutes.

1. Nature and Scope of Power in General.

[a] (Ark. Sup. 1884) The rule in regard to healing acts is that if the thing omitted or failed to be done, and which constitutes the defect in the proceedings, is something which the legislature might have dispensed with by a previous statute, it may do so by a subsequent one; and if the irregularity consists in doing some act or in the mode or manner of doing it, which the legislature might have made immaterial by a prior law, it may do so by a subsequent one.-Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420.

[b] (Ark. Sup. 1884) The legislature has power to pass healing acts which do not impair the obligation of contracts, or interfere with vested rights.Green v. Abraham, 43 Ark. 420.

[c] (Cal. Sup. 1866) Remedial statutes, which are retrospective, but do not impair contracts or disturb absolute vested rights, and only go to confirm rights already existing, are not unconstitutional.-Dentzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 138.

[d] (Ind. Sup. 1862) It is competent for the legislature, by curative laws, when not restrained by constitutional provisions, to make a void thing valid. -Walpole v. Elliott, 18 Ind. 258.

[e] (Tex. Sup. 1884) It is competent for the legislature to give retrospectively the capacity it might have given in advance, and to dispense retrospectively with any formality it might have dispensed with in advance.-Morris v. State, 62 Tex. 728.

2. Contracts.

[a] (Cal. Sup. 1866) A statute designed to validate and confirm contracts made in good faith, but not made in the precise mode prescribed by the existing law, does not operate to devest vested rights, and is not, therefore, unconstitutional.-Dentzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 138.

3. Municipal Acts and Contracts.

[a] (Kan. Sup. 1886) Where an irregularity rendering an act of a city or subordinate agency illegal or void is simply a failure to comply with some provision of the statutes, the compliance with which the legislature might in advance have dispensed with, the legislature can, by a general curative statute, subsequently passed, dispense with such compliance, and thereby render the act of the city or subordinate agency legal and valid.-Mason v. Spencer, 11 Pac. 402, 35 Kan. 512.

[b] (Miss. Sup. 1878) Defective or irregular exercise of municipal power may be ratified by the legislature, where the legislature could have originally conferred the power.-Cutler v. Board, 56 Miss. 115.

[c] (N. Y. App. 1875) The legislature has power to ratify a contract entered into by a municipal corporation for a public purpose which is ultra vires; and, thus ratified, it is valid and binding.-Brown v. Mayor, etc., 63 N. Y. 239.

[d] (N. Y. Sup. 1899) Laws 1893, c. 231, legalizing a contract between the city of Binghamton and the Binghamton Railroad Company, exempting the latter from liability to pave parts of streets occupied by it, was not void because it validated a contract void for want of power in the city to make it, since the legislature may confer such power by retrospective legislation.— Wood v. Common Council, 56 N. Y. Supp. 105, 26 Misc. Rep. 208.

[e] (Utah Sup. 1898) A legislature, possessing the power to raise the debt limit of a county when a warrant, void by reason of being issued in excess of such limit, is issued, may afterwards validate such warrant.-Daggett v. Lynch, 54 Pac. 1095, 18 Utah, 49.

[f] (Wash. Sup. 1891) Act Wash. Feb. 26, 1890, p. 225, § 5, provides, in the first clause, that any indebtedness contracted strictly for municipal purposes, and now owing by any city organized prior to the adoption of the constitution, is hereby validated, and declared a binding obligation upon the city, when the only ground of its invalidity is that it exceeds the amount authorized by the charter; and provides in a further clause that there must be a popular vote, if the excess reached be beyond 12 per cent. of the taxable property of the city. Held that, where a city has done an act beyond its statutory powers, but within the powers which it is competent for the legislature to confer upon it, the act may be validated by a curative statute.— Baker v. City of Seattle, 27 Pac. 462, 2 Wash. St. 576.

[g] (Wis. Sup. 1875) The legislature may subsequently legalize any contract or agreement of a board of supervisors or other municipal authority which it could have authorized in the first instance.-Single v. Supervisors, 38 Wis. 363.

4. Municipal Ordinances Irregularly Adopted.

[a] (U. S. C. C., Cal., 1895) An act of a legislature, ratifying a municipal ordinance by which a contract is made, does not ratify a fraud, inherent in such contract, which is not disclosed to the legislature at the time of the passage of the act.-Santa Ana Water Co. v. Town of San Buenaventura, 65 Fed. 323.

[b] (Iowa Sup. 1896) Act March 23, 1894, providing that the ordinance of the city of Clinton respecting the paving of the streets, and the resolutions assessing and levying taxes therefor, be legalized, and that the actions of the city council in respect thereto be of as binding force as though in strict conformity to law, was a valid curative act, though passed after an action had been commenced to recover a special assessment for improvements made under the ordinance referred to.-City of Clinton v. Walliker, 68 N. W. 431, 98 lowa, 055.

[e] (Minn. Sup. 1898) An amendment to a city charter providing that all ordinances theretofore made shall remain in force does not validate an ordinance which was void because unauthorized.-City of Red Wing v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 75 N. W. 223, 72 Minn. 240.

[d] (Minn. Sup. 1899) Gen. Laws 1893, c. 191, legalizing existing village ordinances and contracts in certain villages, is not within Const. art. 4, § 33, prohibiting special legislation regulating the affairs of a village, because not including villages incorporated by special charter, or villages of over 3,000 incorporated under Gen. Laws 1891, c. 146.-Flynn v. Water Co., 78 N. W. 106, 74 Minn. 180.

[e] (N. J. Sup. 1869) Legislative enactments which validate proceedings had by municipal corporations under their charters, notwithstanding irregularities apparent in them, have frequently received judicial sanction, and, even if made pending judicial proceedings, are not unconstitutional.-Walter v. Town of Union, 33 N. J. Law, 350.

5. Illegal Issue of Municipal Bonds.

[a] (U. S. Sup., Ariz., 1899) The fact that bonds of a municipality in a territory have been adjudged void because there was no power to issue them is immaterial, when they have been subsequently made valid by an act of congress giving such power.-Utter v. Franklin, 19 Sup. Ct. 183, 172 U. S. 416, 43 L. Ed. 498.

[b] (U. S. Sup., Iowa, 1866) Municipal bonds in aid of railways, illegal at the time of issuance, may be legalized by the legislature.-Rogers v. City of Keokuk, 14 Sup. Ct. 1162, 154 U. S. 546, 18 L. Ed. 74.

[c] (U. S. C. C. A., Kan., 1898) A special curative statute, legalizing bonds of a particular municipality, which are invalid only because of a defective or irregular exercise of the power conferred on the municipality to issue them, is not within the inhibition of Const. Kan. art. 2, § 17, that no special law shall be passed where a general law can be made applicable; nor of article 12, § 1, that the legislature shall pass no special laws conferring corporate powers. Springfield Safe-Deposit & Trust Co. v. City of Attica, 85 Fed. 387, 29 C. C. A. 214.

[d] (U. S. C. C. A., Tex., 1894) The legislature cannot validate county bonds issued in violation of constitutional provisions in force at the date of the validating act.-Quaker City Nat. Bank v. Nolan County, 66 Fed. 883, 14 C. C. A. 157.

[e] (Ind. Sup. 1898) The legislature has power, unless vested rights have intervened, to legalize by curative act bonds issued by a city for an unauthorized purpose.-Schneck v. City of Jeffersonville, 52 N. E. 212, 152 Ind. 204.

[f] (Tex. Civ. App. 1894) The issuance by county commissioners of bonds to erect a court house and jail at a place not then the county seat, but so made by a subsequent election, is legalized by Laws 1891, p. 30, validating the location of county seats established by such an election, on the ground that where a contract which a municipal corporation has attempted to make is invalid, for want of legislative authority, it is made valid by a subsequent grant thereof.-Ball v. Presidio County, 27 S. W. 702.

[g] (Va. Sup. 1895) The legislature may authorize a county or municipality to subscribe to the stock of a railroad company, and to issue bonds to pay for it; and, if the conditions precedent to the exercise of such power have not been complied with, the legislature can cure all irregularities by subsequent legislation.-Bell v. Railroad Co., 20 S. E. 942, 91 Va. 99.

6. Irregular Tax Proceedings.

[a] (Fla. Sup. 1884) Where an act of the legislature legalizes an assessment which has been declared illegal by the courts on account of want of power in the municipal government to impose such a tax, and the curative act confers power to levy the tax, such act is not unconstitutional, as retroactive.-City of Jacksonville v. Basnett, 20 Fla. 525.

[b] (Iowa Sup. 1889) A judgment declaring void the establishment of a local improvement because of lack of jurisdiction for want of a proper petition is no bar to subsequent proceedings to assess taxes to pay for such improvement under a curative act validating its establishment.-Richman v. Supervisors, 42 N. W. 422, 77 Iowa, 513.

[c] (Ky. App. 1896) Void assessments of town taxes on land cannot be cured by legislation after the institution of suits to enjoin their collection.— Turner v. Town of Pewee Valley, 38 S. W. 143, 100 Ky. 288; Nock v. Same, Id. [d] (N. Y. Sup. 1890) The legislature has power to ratify and relevy void

taxes, and the power includes the interest as well as the amount of the tax originally.-Van Deventer v. Long Island City, 10 N. Y. Supp. 801, 57 Hun,

590.

[e] (N. Y. Sup. 1890) Where tax proceedings are otherwise valid, the failure of the assessors to make and attach to the rolls the affidavit required by law is an irregularity which may be cured by a subsequent act.-In re East Ave. Baptist Church, 11 N. Y. Supp. 113, 57 Hun, 590.

[f] (N. Y. Sup. 1896) In the city of Brooklyn, where a vacant tract owned by a nonresident was assessed as resident land to a fictitious person, and taxed as such, the defect was jurisdictional, and a retroactive statute could not validate the tax without a reassessment.-Hagner v. Hall, 42 N. Y. Supp. 63, 10 App. Div. 581.

[g] (N. Y. Sup. 1898) Laws 1862, c. 385, tit. 7, § 72, as amended by Laws 1890, c. 294, providing that assessments for street paving shall be valid notwithstanding irregularity in the proceedings, and authorizing the council to correct irregularities and collect the assessment, does not ratify proceedings that are without jurisdiction.-Conde v. City of Schenectady, 51 N. Y. Supp. 854, 29 App. Div. 604.

[h] (N. Y. Sup. 1898) Laws 1895, c. 1015, providing that no tax assessment or water rate theretofore levied, in reference to property in the city of Brooklyn, should be held invalid by reason of two or more lots being valued or assessed as one parcel, or that such tax or rate had been levied upon two or more lots as one parcel, was within the constitutional power of the legislature and is valid.-Smith v. City of Brooklyn, 52 N. Y. Supp. 974, 32 App. Div. 223. [i] (N. D. Sup. 1896) Laws 1891, c. 104, declaring a tax previously levied by the state board of equalization without authority as valid as if made by the legislative assembly, as provided by law, is valid.-Shuttuck v. Smith, 69 N. W. 5, 6 N. D. 56.

7. Defective Incorporation.

[a] (Ill. Sup. 1890) The illegality of corporate acts because of the invalidity of the act of incorporation is cured by a statute which recognizes the corporate existence of the company by amending its charter, and also recognizes its right to substitute stone or gravel for plank upon a road already constructed. Snell v. City of Chicago, 24 N. E. 532, 133 Ill. 413, 8 L. R. A. 858. [b] (Md. Sup. 1892) A special act recognizing a corporation as a valid, existing one, and authorizing it to exercise corporate_rights, cures all charter defects in its original certificate of organization.-Koch v. Railway Co., 23 Atl. 463, 75 Md. 222, 15 L. R. A. 377.

[c] (Wis. Sup. 1898) The legislature can legalize the incorporation of defectively incorporated villages, and ratify their corporate acts, where no vested rights are affected.-State v. McGovern, 76 N. W. 593, 100 Wis. 666.

8. Defective Organization of School District.

[a] (Iowa Sup. 1869) The legislature has the power to pass a curative act legalizing the defective organization of a school district already in existence under the general law authorizing the creation of independent school districts. State v. Squires, 26 Iowa, 340.

9. Irregularity in Execution of Instrument.

[a] (Ark. Sup. 1884) Retrospective legislation is not prohibited by the constitution, and healing laws may be passed confirming previous conveyances and curing defects which arise out of some technical informality in their execution or acknowledgment.-Johnson v. Richardson, 44 Ark. 365.

[b] (Ark. Sup. 1895) The legislature may validate deeds invalid for failure of the parties to comply with some statutory requirement.-Pelt v. Payne, 30 S. W. 426, 60 Ark. 637.

[e] (Fla. Sup. 1892) A legislature has power, in the absence of any inhibiting constitutional limitation, and except as against prior vested rights, to cure by retroactive legislation defective acknowledgments of deeds in all cases where the purpose of the acknowledgment is the admission of the instrument acknowledged to record, or its use in evidence.-Summer v. Mitchell, 10 South. 512, 29 Fla. 179, 14 L. R. A. 815.

[d] (N. C. Sup. 1897) Acts 1893, c. 293, curing defective probates of deeds

in certain cases, is not invalid, as between the parties to deeds defectively probated, because retrospective.-Barrett v. Barrett, 26 S. E. 691, 120 N. C. 127, 36 L. R. A. 226.

[e] (Tenn. Sup. 1841) It is within the competency of the legislature to pass an act to cure the defective probate of written instruments; and, whether the provisions relate to the future or the past, they affect the remedy, and not the right.-Hughes v. Cannon, 2 Humph. 589.

10. Irregularity in Record of Instruments.

[a] (N. C. Sup. 1897) Acts extending the time for the registration of conveyances of land, which include deeds of gift, are within the discretion of the legislature. Spivey v. Rose, 26 S. E. 701, 120 N. C. 163.

[b] (Tenn. Sup. 1814) The legislature has the constitutional right to validate imperfect and irregular registrations by subsequent laws.-Jackson v. Dillon's Lessee, 2 Overt. 261.

11. Defective Sales.

[a] (Ind. Sup. 1855) It was competent for the legislature, under the constitution of 1816, to legalize by a retrospective enactment a sale of an infant's land made under an order of the probate court without appraisement.-Davis v. Bank, 7 Ind. 316.

[b] (Ky. App. 1864) The acts of 1861 and 1862, authorizing the confirmation of defective sales of infants' real estate, do not operate to impair the obligation of contracts or to devest vested rights, and are constitutional.— Thornton v. McGrath, 1 Duv. 349.

[c] (Md. Sup. 1890) The legislature has no power to validate by retroactive legislation a judicial sale of real estate which was void for want of jurisdiction in the court to make it; at least, not without making provision for compensating the owners of the property.-Roche v. Waters, 19 Atl. 535, 72 Md. 264, 7 L. R. A. 533.

[d] (Miss. Sup. 1881) The statute which makes deeds conclusive evidence of title five years after sales of land for levee taxes is valid to the extent of curing the failure of a collector to give a bond required by statute alone, and not by the constitution.-Powers v. Penny, 59 Miss. 5.

[e] (Tex. Civ. App. 1895) Act May 2, 1893, validating previous sales of land by executors under powers in wills probated in other states, and not probated in Texas, is a proper exercise of legislative power.-De Zbranikov v. Burnett, 31 S. W. 71, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 442.

[f] (Wash. Sup. 1893) As the administration of an estate is a proceeding in rem, the legislature may validate sales previously made, without a compliance with the statutory requirements that a petition be filed and citation issued. -Ackerson v. Orchard, 35 Pac. 605, 7 Wash. 377.

12. Irregularities in Judicial Proceedings.

[a] (Ill. Sup. 1857) A void procedure cannot be made valid by a subsequent law of the legislature.-McDaniel v. Correll, 19 Ill. 226.

[b] (Ind. Sup. 1862) The legislature may by a curative act validate the proceedings of a term of court holden without authority of law.-Walpole v. Elliott, 18 Ind. 258.

[c] (Ind. Sup. 1892) Where judicial proceedings are void because of an entire absence of notice to a property owner, a subsequent statute assuming to validate such proceedings is invalid.-Commissioners v. Fahlor, 31 N. E. 1112, 132 Ind. 426.

[d] (N. Y. Sup. 1898) Laws 1896, c. 649, validating defective proceedings to obtain authority to maintain street surface railroads, is not a local or private statute, within the prohibition of Const. art. 3, § 18, though it may affect but one railroad company in the state. In re Buffalo Traction Co., 49 N. Y. Supp. 1052, 25 App. Div. 447.

13. Defective Establishment of Highways.

[a] (Iowa Sup. 1896) The legislature may legalize any defect in proceedings to improve a street if the defect or want of compliance with the law relates to a requirement which might have been dispensed with in the first instance. -City of Clinton v. Walliker, 68 N. W. 431, 98 Iowa, 655.

[b] (Mont. Sup. 1898) Pol. Code 1895, § 2600, providing that all highways