“the term ‘ferry connections’ ... is not sufficient to put a reasonably intelligent person on notice that the powers of the [TBA] have purportedly become so enlarged, beyond the hmited powers it formerly possessed . . . .”
How later courts described this case
- “the term ‘ferry connections’ ... is not sufficient to put a reasonably intelligent person on notice that the powers of the [TBA] have purportedly become so enlarged, beyond the hmited powers it formerly possessed . . . .”
- noting that act did not mention “transportation system”
- one purpose of the subject-in-title rule is to prevent surprise or fraud
- statute authorizing acquisition of bridges and ferries
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*34
Robinson, J.
(dissenting) — I cannot concur in the foregoing opinion and decision. I will forego making a detailed statement of my reasons for so doing; for so many of the members of the court have approved the opinion that it is evident that no single judge could possibly hope or expect to overturn the result at which they have arrived, and an argumentative dissent would, therefore, amount to nothing more than a record of the writer’s personal' views which would be of no value or use to anyone.
, Furthermore, the frequent publication of purely personal views in the form of dissenting opinions, is one of the reasons why the members of the bar and both public and private libraries are finding it increasingly difficult to purchase and properly house the voluminous reports of the American appellate courts.
Jeffers and Millard, JJ., did not participate.