enacting clause in Indiana

1969The language of each indicates that all litigants required to give bond were intended to be included within the provisions in question.” This interpretation was reaffirmed by this court in the case of Pittman-Rice Coal Co., Inc. v. Hansen (1952), 122 Ind. App. 334, 342 , 102 N. E. 2d 387 , 104 N. E. 2d 758 ; and in the case of General Grain, Inc., Appellant, v. Pierre F. Goodrich, Appellee (1968), 142 Ind. App. 142 , 233 N. E. 2d 187 .

1969The language of each indicates that all litigants required to give bond were intended to be included within the provisions in question.” This interpretation was reaffirmed by this court in the case of Pittman-Rice Coal Co., Inc. v. Hansen (1952), 122 Ind. App. 334, 342 , 102 N. E. 2d 387 , 104 N. E. 2d 758 ; and in the case of General Grain, Inc., Appellant, v. Pierre F. Goodrich, Appellee (1968), 142 Ind. App. 142 , 233 N. E. 2d 187 .

1969This court made the following interpretation of this statute in the case of Jose v. Hunter (1916), 63 Ind. App. 298 , 124 N. E. 65, 66 , and spoke as follows: “It is, however, insisted by appellees that, even though such section be in force, the last provision thereof has ap plication to only such litigants as fall within the class before enumerated, viz., receivers, assignees, guardians, etc. It seems' to us that no such intention on the part of the Legislature is indicated, either by the language of the enacting clause, or the language of the act.

1969This court made the following interpretation of this statute in the case of Jose v. Hunter (1916), 63 Ind. App. 298 , 124 N. E. 65, 66 , and spoke as follows: “It is, however, insisted by appellees that, even though such section be in force, the last provision thereof has ap plication to only such litigants as fall within the class before enumerated, viz., receivers, assignees, guardians, etc. It seems' to us that no such intention on the part of the Legislature is indicated, either by the language of the enacting clause, or the language of the act.

1950Wayman v. Southard (1925), 23 U. S. 1 , 6 L.

1950Wayman v. Southard (1925), 23 U. S. 1 , 6 L.

1881In Russell v. The State, 50 Ind. 174 , this court said: ‘ ‘The law in relation to exceptions in a statute is, that if the exception be contained in a subsequent clause or statute, it is a matter of defence, and need not be negatived in the indictment.” This, we understand, is the settled rule of law on the subject now under consideration.

1881In Russell v. The State, 50 Ind. 174 , this court said: “The law in relation to exceptions in a statute is, that if the exception be contained in a subsequent clause or statute, it is a matter of defense, and need not be negatived in the indictment.” This, we understand, is the settled rule of law on the subject now under consideration.

1969The language of each indicates that all litigants required to give bond were intended to be included within the provisions in question.” This interpretation was reaffirmed by this court in the case of Pittman-Rice Coal Co., Inc. v. Hansen (1952), 122 Ind. App. 334, 342 , 102 N. E. 2d 387 , 104 N. E. 2d 758 ; and in the case of General Grain, Inc., Appellant, v. Pierre F. Goodrich, Appellee (1968), 142 Ind. App. 142 , 233 N. E. 2d 187 .

1969The language of each indicates that all litigants required to give bond were intended to be included within the provisions in question.” This interpretation was reaffirmed by this court in the case of Pittman-Rice Coal Co., Inc. v. Hansen (1952), 122 Ind. App. 334, 342 , 102 N. E. 2d 387 , 104 N. E. 2d 758 ; and in the case of General Grain, Inc., Appellant, v. Pierre F. Goodrich, Appellee (1968), 142 Ind. App. 142 , 233 N. E. 2d 187 .

1958Ayer v. Ewing (1952), 231 Ind. 1 , 106 N. E. 2d 441 , or if conditions or exceptions exist, in the enacting clause of the statute the pleader must negative the existence of such conditions or exceptions'in- order to state a cause of action. 5 Consistent with this reasoning the decision in the Gillespie case, supra, is grounded upon, the facts, first, that the statute [10-3904] is expressly made to apply to circumstances where railroad-' cars are permitted to “remain- standing” on crossings as contrasted with those which temporarily stand upon crossings in the current operation of the cars.

1958Ayer v. Ewing (1952), 231 Ind. 1 , 106 N. E. 2d 441 , or if conditions or exceptions exist, in the enacting clause of the statute the pleader must negative the existence of such conditions or exceptions'in- order to state a cause of action. 5 Consistent with this reasoning the decision in the Gillespie case, supra, is grounded upon, the facts, first, that the statute [10-3904] is expressly made to apply to circumstances where railroad-' cars are permitted to “remain- standing” on crossings as contrasted with those which temporarily stand upon crossings in the current operation of the cars.

1949State of Indiana v. Barrett (1909), 172 Ind. 169, 175 , 87 N. E. 7 ; McDougal v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 168, 169, 170 , 108 N. E. 524 ; McDaniels v. McDaniels (1945), 116 Ind. App. 322, 330 , 62 N. E. 2d 876 .

1949State of Indiana v. Barrett (1909), 172 Ind. 169, 175 , 87 N. E. 7 ; McDougal v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 168, 169, 170 , 108 N. E. 524 ; McDaniels v. McDaniels (1945), 116 Ind. App. 322, 330 , 62 N. E. 2d 876 .

1949State of Indiana v. Barrett (1909), 172 Ind. 169, 175 , 87 N. E. 7 ; McDougal v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 168, 169, 170 , 108 N. E. 524 ; McDaniels v. McDaniels (1945), 116 Ind. App. 322, 330 , 62 N. E. 2d 876 .

1949State of Indiana v. Barrett (1909), 172 Ind. 169, 175 , 87 N. E. 7 ; McDougal v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 168, 169, 170 , 108 N. E. 524 ; McDaniels v. McDaniels (1945), 116 Ind. App. 322, 330 , 62 N. E. 2d 876 .

1914Simpson v. State, ex rel. (1913), 179 Ind. 196 , 99 N. E. 980 .

1914Simpson v. State, ex rel. (1913), 179 Ind. 196 , 99 N. E. 980 .

1895This question has been answered in the negative by the case of Feibleman v. State, ex rel., 98 Ind. 516 , where the amendatory act was, by its title, directed to a section of an act which had been previously amended, but it contained a further direction, to wit, “being section 1418, of the Revised Statutes,” which section of the statutes was from the act so previously amending the original act.

1890The excepted cases are not incorporated into the body and substance of the enacting clause ; but are given as exceptions, and the instances are not specified in that, but in the subsequent sections." See Commonwealth v. Tuttle, 12 Cush. 502 ; Commonwealth v. Hill, 5 Gratt. 682 ; State v. Miller, 24 Conn. 522 ; United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 ; State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60 ; Fleming v. People, 27 N. Y. 329 ; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 .

1890The excepted cases are not incorporated into the body and substance of the enacting clause ; but are given as exceptions, and the instances are not specified in that, but in the subsequent sections." See Commonwealth v. Tuttle, 12 Cush. 502 ; Commonwealth v. Hill, 5 Gratt. 682 ; State v. Miller, 24 Conn. 522 ; United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 ; State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60 ; Fleming v. People, 27 N. Y. 329 ; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 .

1890The excepted cases are not incorporated into the body and substance of the enacting clause ; but are given as exceptions, and the instances are not specified in that, but in the subsequent sections." See Commonwealth v. Tuttle, 12 Cush. 502 ; Commonwealth v. Hill, 5 Gratt. 682 ; State v. Miller, 24 Conn. 522 ; United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 ; State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60 ; Fleming v. People, 27 N. Y. 329 ; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 .

1890The excepted cases are not incorporated into the body and substance of the enacting clause ; but are given as exceptions, and the instances are not specified in that, but in the subsequent sections." See Commonwealth v. Tuttle, 12 Cush. 502 ; Commonwealth v. Hill, 5 Gratt. 682 ; State v. Miller, 24 Conn. 522 ; United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 ; State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60 ; Fleming v. People, 27 N. Y. 329 ; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 .

1890The excepted cases are not incorporated into the body and substance of the enacting clause ; but are given as exceptions, and the instances are not specified in that, but in the subsequent sections." See Commonwealth v. Tuttle, 12 Cush. 502 ; Commonwealth v. Hill, 5 Gratt. 682 ; State v. Miller, 24 Conn. 522 ; United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 ; State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60 ; Fleming v. People, 27 N. Y. 329 ; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 .

1890The excepted cases are not incorporated into the body and substance of the enacting clause ; but are given as exceptions, and the instances are not specified in that, but in the subsequent sections." See Commonwealth v. Tuttle, 12 Cush. 502 ; Commonwealth v. Hill, 5 Gratt. 682 ; State v. Miller, 24 Conn. 522 ; United States v. Cook, 17 Wall. 168 ; State v. Abbey, 29 Vt. 60 ; Fleming v. People, 27 N. Y. 329 ; Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532 .

1890J., speaking for the court, said : “ On the other hand, it appears to us to be established, by a great preponderance of authority, that when an exception is not stated in the enacting clause otherwise than by merely referring to other provisions of the statute, it need not be negatived, unless necessary to a complete definition of the offence.” In Hart v. Cleis, 8 Johns. 41 , the court said : “ The action below was brought for a penalty incurred under the 6th section of the act concerning slaves and servants.

1875Colson v. The State, 7 Blackf. 590 ; Bouser v. The State , Smith Ind. 408; Brutton v. The State, 4 Ind. 601 ; Peterson v. The State, 7 Ind. 560 ; Dillon v. The State, 9 Ind. 408 .

1875Colson v. The State, 7 Blackf. 590 ; Bouser v. The State , Smith Ind. 408; Brutton v. The State, 4 Ind. 601 ; Peterson v. The State, 7 Ind. 560 ; Dillon v. The State, 9 Ind. 408 .

1875Colson v. The State, 7 Blackf. 590 ; Bouser v. The State , Smith Ind. 408; Brutton v. The State, 4 Ind. 601 ; Peterson v. The State, 7 Ind. 560 ; Dillon v. The State, 9 Ind. 408 .

1875Colson v. The State, 7 Blackf. 590 ; Bouser v. The State , Smith Ind. 408; Brutton v. The State, 4 Ind. 601 ; Peterson v. The State, 7 Ind. 560 ; Dillon v. The State, 9 Ind. 408 .