in cases of accidents or violations of the law; the name of the owner being easily ascertainable from the registration and through him the This is the purpose of the provision regarding registration in the title of the California statute and it has been held in another jurisdiction that to predicate a valid transfer upon registra(24) tion is a proper means to effect such a purpose. It is submitted that a provision in the Motor Vehicle Act making the validity of a transfer contingent upon the re-registration of the vehicle is properly within the scope of its title. The purpose of the constitutional provision is to prevent the legislature from embracing in the same bill incongruous matters which have no relation to the subject specified in (25) the title and so attract no attention. But such an inhibition should (23) "The reason assigned for the necessity of registration and licensing is that the vehicle should be readily identified in order to debar operators from violating the law and the rights of others and to enforce the laws regulating the speed, and to hold the operator responsible in cases of accident. The legislatures have deemed that the best method of identification, both as to the vehicle and the omer or operator, is by a number on a tag conspicuously attached to the vehicle. In case of any violation of law this furnishes means of identification, for, from the number, the name of the owner may be readily ascertained and through kim the operator. Such acts are not passed merely for the purpose of revenue but have for their object the protection of the public." Huddy on Automobiles (5th Ed.) p.113. (24) Swank v. Moisan, supra, n.5. (25) State v. Haun (1899)61 Kan.146,59 Pac.340; State v.Heege(1896)135 Mo.112,36 S.W.614. be liberally construed(26) and, as the legislature in its discretion has included this provision in unequivocal language in the act, the title should be construed as properly expressing the subject if possible. The language used in the title to the Motor Vehicle Act of 1923 is even broader in its scope. The title declares the Breed Act to be "an act to regulate the use and operation of vehicles upon the public highways and elsewhere; to provide for the registration and identification of motor vehicles---."(27) The act provides that upon the transfer of legal title to a duly registered vehicle, the legal owner and the transferee must properly indorse the certificate of ownership and place thereon the address of the transferee. This, together with the certificate of registration, the transferee must send to the division within ten days. Upon receipt of these the vehicle is registered and new certificates issued and "until said division shall have issued said new certificate of registration and certificate of ownership as hereinbefore provided, delivery of such vehicle shall be deemed not to have been (26) Ex parte Liddell (1892)93 Cal.633,29 Pac.251; Abeel v. Clark (1890) 84 Cal. 226,24 Pac. 383; California Trojan Powder Co. v. Garnsey (1918) 36 Cal.App.289,171 Pac.1078. A similar provision in the constitution of 1863 was held to be merely directory. In re Boston Mining & Milling Co. (1877)51 Cal.624; Washington v. Page(1854) 4 Cal. 388; Pierpont v. Crouch (1858) 10 Cal.315. The provisions of the present constitution, however, are expressly made to be "mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise." Cal.Const., ArtI,#22; and so the provision, though it is to be construed liberally, is now mandatory. Ex parte Liddell,supra. (27) Cal. Stats. 1923, p.517. |