Weiss v. Swift & Co.

Citations

• 36 Pa. Super. 376
• 1908 Pa. Super. LEXIS 173

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional law — Title of act — Sales of provisions — Eggs—New obligations or Habilites — Act of May 4, 1889, P. L. 87.</p> <p>The Act of May 4, 1889, P. L. 87, entitled “An Act relating to sale of provisions by description,” is not defective in title, because the title does not specify the several articles of merchandise commonly understood as being comprehended within the term “provisions,” to which the act relates.</p> <p>The act applies tó a sale of eggs, inasmuch as eggs are “provisions” as that term is commonly understood when spoken of as the subject of sale.</p> <p>If new duties, obligations or liabilities are directly imposed by, or arise out of a legislative enactment, it is not necessary that the title should specifically and expressly show it, nor indicate what changes in law in those particulars will occur when the statute goes into operation.</p> <p>The Act of May 4, 1889, P. L. 87, entitled “An Act relating to the sales of provisions by description,” and creating “an implied contract or undertaking that the goods are merchandise, are sound and fit for household consumption,” is not defective in title because it does not give notice of the new and additional contractual liability imposed on the vendor upon a sale of food products to a middleman, who buys not for consumption, but for the purpose of sale to others.</p> <p>Statutes — Construction—Things enumerated — Things ejusdem generis.</p> <p>When certain things are enumerated in a statute and then a phrase is used which may be construed to include other things, it is generally confined to things ejusdem generis; but in applying this principle of construction, and in determining what things are ejusdem generis, regard must be had to the general subject to which the act relates. Things which plainly belong to the same class when one subject is being considered might belong to an entirely different class when considered with reference to another subject. The rule would be absurd if under the head