Source or prior law:

L. 1862, ch. 46, art. 2, § 1, ¶ 24; L. 1864, ch. 69, § 2, ¶ 21; L. 1867, ch. 68, art. 3, § 2, ¶ 46; G.S. 1868, ch. 19, § 30, ¶ 46; L. 1871, ch. 62, § 11.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Requirement as to title of ordinance considered. City of Emporia v. Shaw, 6 Kan. App. 808, 810, 51 P. 237.

2. Ordinance relating to sale of intoxicating liquors held valid hereunder. Lincoln Center v. Linker, 7 Kan. App. 282, 285, 53 P. 787.

3. Title held sufficient to cover all places where intoxicants sold. Holton v. Bimrod, 8 Kan. App. 265, 267, 55 P. 505.

4. Failure of city to keep proper record of ordinances; estoppel. City of Troy v. A.&N. Rld. Co., 13 Kan. 70, 72.

5. Proof of ordinance by duly certified copy considered. City of Troy v. A.&N. Rld. Co., 13 Kan. 70, 72.

6. Title concerning animals at large includes unlawfully breaking into pound. Smith v. City of Emporia, 27 Kan. 528, 529, 531.

7. Title "to provide for a business license tax," held sufficient. McGrath v. City of Newton, 29 Kan. 364, 368.

8. Ordinance passed at special meeting of city council held valid. McGrath v. City of Newton, 29 Kan. 364, 368.

9. Tax levied before ordinance passed not validated by subsequent ordinance. Newman v. City of Emporia, 32 Kan. 456, 460, 4 P. 815.

10. Title of ordinance questioned under this section. Newman v. City of Emporia, 32 Kan. 456, 460, 4 P. 815.

11. Record need not show adoption of ordinance by sections. Downing v. City of Miltonvale, 36 Kan. 740, 14 P. 281.

12. Note appended to record showing publication; valid unless contrary shown. Downing v. City of Miltonvale, 36 Kan. 740, 14 P. 281.

13. Provision hereof for one subject, clearly expressed in title, mandatory. Stebbins v. Mayer, 38 Kan. 573, 576, 16 P. 745.

14. Ordinance concerning animals running at large; certain provisions held invalid. Stebbins v. Mayer, 38 Kan. 573, 576, 16 P. 745.

15. Provisions of this section are mandatory upon city council. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. City of Wyandotte, 44 Kan. 32, 38, 23 P. 950.

16. Ordinance containing two subjects void in toto. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. City of Wyandotte, 44 Kan. 32, 38, 23 P. 950.

17. Supreme court will not uphold either when two subjects covered. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. City of Wyandotte, 44 Kan. 32, 38, 23 P. 950.

18. Ordinance properly passed; mandamus to compel correction of records proper. Waterworks Co. v. City of Columbus, 46 Kan. 666, 673, 26 P. 1046.

19. Records incorrect; evidence admitted to show proper passage of ordinance. Waterworks Co. v. City of Columbus, 46 Kan. 666, 673, 26 P. 1046.

20. Surplusage in title will not render ordinance invalid. In re Thomas, Petitioner, 53 Kan. 659, 660, 37 P. 171.

21. Civil action; ordinance must be pleaded by language or substance. Watt v. Jones, 60 Kan. 201, 56 P. 16.

22. Judicial notice of ordinance not taken in civil action. Watt v. Jones, 60 Kan. 201, 56 P. 16.

23. Constitutional provision concerning title does not apply to city ordinance. Topeka v. Raynor, 61 Kan. 10, 58 P. 557.

24. Registration of dogs; taxation of owners included; ordinance void. City of Winfield v. Hackney, 87 Kan. 858, 859, 126 P. 1088.

25. Ordinance relating to condemnation of property; title held sufficient. DePriest v. City of Salina, 101 Kan. 810, 813, 168 P. 872.

26. Ordinance regulating moving of building construed as subject and title. Youmans v. City of Osawatomie, 118 Kan. 767, 236 P. 638.