Mikell v. Mikell

134 S.E.2d 630, 219 Ga. 550, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 318
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 10, 1964
Docket22256
StatusPublished

This text of 134 S.E.2d 630 (Mikell v. Mikell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mikell v. Mikell, 134 S.E.2d 630, 219 Ga. 550, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 318 (Ga. 1964).

Opinion

Duckworth, Chief Justice.

Provisions germane to the general subject matter embraced in the title of an Act, and which are designed to cany into effect the purpose for which it was passed, even though not expressed in the caption otherwise than by the use of the words “and for other purposes,” may be constitutionally enacted therein, and it is not subj ect to attack as violative of Code Ann. § 2-1908 (Const, of 1945, Art. Ill, Sec. VII, Par. VIII) as containing matter different from what is expressed in the title. Martin v. Broach, 6 Ga. 21 (50 AD 306); Board of Public Education &c. of Americas v. Barlow, 49 Ga. 232; Black v. Cohen, 52 Ga. 621; Butner v. Boifeuillet, 100 Ga. 743 (28 SE 464); Burns v. State, 104 Ga. 544 (30 SE 815); Inter-city Coach Lines, Inc. v. Harrison, 172 Ga. 390, 394 (157 SE 673). Certainly the proviso in the Act of 1962, which is an amendment to the Code section relating to the capacity of persons to contract for marriage, as amended, to raise the legal age limits of applicants, is not unconstitutional because it states that no age limitations shall apply in case of pregnancy on the part of the female even though the purpose of the amendment is stated in the caption to raise the age limit generally. It follows that the lower court did not err in overruling the motion to dismiss the petition for divorce based upon the ground that the marriage contract is void since the defendant was under age and could not have married the petitioner except for the Act which is here attacked as being unconstitutional.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cooper v. Hills Bros.
50 A.D. 304 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)
Martin v. Broach
6 Ga. 21 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1849)
Board of Public Education v. Barlow
49 Ga. 232 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1873)
Black v. Cohen
52 Ga. 621 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1874)
Butner v. Boifeuillet
28 S.E. 464 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)
Burns v. State
30 S.E. 815 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1898)
Inter-City Coach Lines Inc. v. Harrison
157 S.E. 673 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 S.E.2d 630, 219 Ga. 550, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mikell-v-mikell-ga-1964.