3336

VETOES

In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the
Maryland Constitution, today I have vetoed Senate Bill 139.

This bill restricts the definition of installment sales
agreements to exclude a bona fide lease where the lessee has
no option at the termination of the contract to purchase or
hold title to the goods.

The Attorney General has advised me that the title of
this bill is defective and misleading and therefore does not
satisfy the requirements of Article III, Section 29 of the
Constitution. A copy of the Opinion of the Attorney General
is attached and should be considered a part of this veto
message.

For this reason I have decided to veto Senate Bill 139.

Sincerely,
Harry Hughes
Governor

May 14, 1981

Honorable Harry Hughes
Governor of Maryland
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404

Re: Senate Bill 139

Dear Governor Hughes:

This is to advise you that we have reviewed for
constitutionality and legal sufficiency Senate Bill 139, a
bill to amend the definition of "installment sale agreement"
for purposes of the Retail Installment Sales Law, Commercial
Law Article, §§ 12-601 through 12-636. Because of a defect
in the title of the bill, we are unable to approve it.

Article III, § 29 of the State Constitution provides,
in part, that every law shall embrace one subject, and "that
shall be described in its title." This requirement is
satisfied if the title fairly advises the Legislature and
the public of the real nature and subject of the
legislation. Baltimore Transit Co. v. Metropolitan Transit
Authority, 232 Md. 509, 521 (1963). While the title need
not be an abstract of the contents, Mayor and City Council
of Baltimore v. State of Maryland, 281 Md. 217, 225 (1977),
it must be sufficiently clear and comprehensive to
reasonably cover the provisions of the bill. Barrett v.
Clark, 189 Md. 116, 127 (1947). Moreover, the title may not
be misleading. Allied American Mutual Fire Insurance v.
Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 219 Md. 607, 614 (1959).