Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

3

Eluded Defeated. The court will endeavor so to shape the meaning of a statute that it can neither be eluded' nor its purpuses defeated.'

The parts, and other laws and acts, together.— All its parts," and all acts,4 “though made at different times or even expired" or repealed,' and the entire system of laws,' and the common law, touching the same matter, must be taken together;' and,

9

Scam. 335; Quackenbush v. Danks, 1 passed at one session. Peyton v.
Denio, 128; Hastings v. Lane, 15 Me. Moseley, 3 T. B. Monr. 77.
134; Forsyth v. Marbury, R. M. Charl. * Le Roy v. Chabolla, 2 Abb. (U. S.)
324; Guard v. Rowan, 2 Scam. 499; 448; S. v. Stewart, 47 Mo. 382; P. v.
Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477, (5 Weston, 3 Neb. 312.
Am. D. 291;] Von Schmidt v. Hunt- 5 Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Loxdale,
ington, 1 Cal. 55; Mason v. Finch, 2 1 Bur. 445, 447; Coleman v. Davidson
Scam. 223; Alexander v. Worthing Academy, Cooke (Tenn.), 258.
ton, 5 Md. 471; Belleville R. R. Co. v. 6 Church v. Crocker, 3 Mass. 17, 21;
Gregory, 15 Ill. 20, [58 Am. D. 589;] Bank for Savings v. The Collector, 3
Stewart v. S., 13 Ark. 720; Buckner Wall. 495.
v. Street, 1 Dill. 248; Ryan v. Hoff. 7 McDougald v. Dougherty, 14 Ga.
man, 26 Ohio St. 109; White v. Blum, 674; ante, SS 7, 62, 64; Sv. Jack.
4 Neb. 555; P. u Strack, 3 Thomp. & son, 36 Ohio St. 281; (Cincinnati v.
C. 165, 1 Hun, 96; Morgan v. Perry, Conner, 55 Ohio St. 82, 44 N. E R.
51 N. H. 559; [S. v. MoNally (Ark.), 55 582; Crawfordsville v. Fletcher, 104
S. W. R. 1104.)

Ind. 97, 2 N. E. R. 243; S. v. Casteel,
1 2 Rol. 127; Dwar. Stat. (2d ed.) 568; 110 Ind. 174, 11 N. E. R. 219; Lutz v.
Moore v. Hussey, Hob. 93, 97; Magda- Crawfordsville, 109 Ind. 466, 10 N. E.
len College Case, 11 Co. 66, 736; Powl. R. 411; Viterbo v. Friedlander, 120
ter's Case, 11 Co. 29, 34a; Winter v. U. S. 707, 30 L ed. 776.]
Jones, 10 Ga. 190, (54 Am. D. 379;] 8 Post, SS 86, 88. (A statute using
Anonymous, 12 Co. 89.

common-law terms is presumed to 2 Thompson v. S., 20 Ala. 54; Cook use them in their common-law meanv. Hamilton, 6 McLean, 112.

ing. W. U. Tel. Co. v. Scircle, 103 Ind. 3 Post, 8 86; Bac. Abr., Statute, L. 2; 227, 2 N. E. R. 604; Heiskell v. BaltiAdams v. Woods, 2 Cranch, 336, 341; more, 65 Md. 125, 4 Atl. R. 116.) Com. v. Robertson, 5 Cush. 438; Ma- 91 Bac. Abr., Statute, I. 3; Dwar. gruder v. Carroll, 4 Md. 335; Torrance Stat. (2d ed.) 569; Duck v. Addington, v. McDougald, 12 Ga. 526; Ogden v. 4 T. R. 447, 450; Ex parte Drydon, 5 Strong, 2 Paine, 584; Brown T. R. 417, 419; Ailesbury v. Pattison, Wright, 1 Green (N. J.), 240; In re 1 Doug. 28, 30; Mendon v. Worcester, Murphy, Zab. 180; Van Riper v. 10 Pick. 235, 242; Goddard v. Boston, Essex Publio Road, 9 Vroom, 23; 20 Pick. 407, 409; Wilde u Com., 2 Albrecht v. S., 8 Tex. Ap. 313. In Met. 408; Howlett v. S., 5 Yerg. 144; reference to this rule it was observed Holland v. Makepeace, 8 Mass. 418, in Massachusetts that the revised 423; Holbrook v. Holbrook, 1 Pick. statutes were all passed at one time, 248, 254; S. v. Baldwin, 2 Bailey, 541; and so constitute one act. Com. v. S. v. Fields, 2 Bailey, 554; Thayer v. Goding, 3 Met. 130. Such is said also Bond, 3 Mass. 296; White v. Johnson, to be the rule respecting statutes 23 Miss. 88; Rex v. Morris, 1 B. & Ad.

V.

[ocr errors]

"5

if one part standing by itself is obscure, it may be aided by another which is clear.1

Prior law Mischief Remedy.— The interpreter should consider and take into the account what was the law before, which Coke says is “the very lock and key to set open the windows of the statute;": the mischief against which the law did not provide; the nature of the remedy proposed, and the true reason of the remedy. It has been said that we may learn the mischief“ from our knowledge of the state of the law at the time, and of the practical grievances generally complained of."

Public and private interests.- Great public interests will not needlessly be put at hazard by the interpretation; 6 and even private hardships will, when they may, be avoided.? And — 441; S. v. Wilbor, 1 R. L 199, (36 Am. do so when necessary to construe D. 245;] De Ormas Case, 10 Mart. doubtful language. U. S. v. Bowen, (La) 158, 172; P. v. Hart, 1 Mich. 467; 100 U. S. 508, 25 L. ed. 631; Cambria S. ^ Garthwaite, 3 Zab. 143; The Co. v. Ashburn, 118 U. S. 54, 30 L. ed. Harriet, 1 Story, 251; Scott v. Searles, 60; Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 1 Sm. & M. 590; S. v. Mister, 5 Md. 392, 29 L ed. 423; U. S. v. Averill, 130 11; U. S. v. Freeman, 3 How. (U. S.) U. S. 335, 32 L ed. 977; U. S. v. Lacher, 556; Hayes v. Hanson, 12 N. H. 284; 134 U. S. 624, 33 L. ed. 1080.] Berry v. S., 10 Tex. Ap. 315; Goodrich 32 Inst. 308. 1. Russell, 42 N. Y. 177; [Peterson v. 4 Heydon's Case, 3 Co. 7; Winslow Gittings, 107 Iowa, 306, 77 N. W. R. v. Kimball, 25 Me. 493; Pray v. Edie, 1056; U. S. v. Goldenburg, 168 U. S. 1 T. R. 313; Rex v. Hodnett, 1 T. R. 45, 42 L. ed. 394; Scaife v. Stovall, 67 96, 100; 1 Bl. Com. 87; Jortin r. SouthAla. 237; Freeman v. P., 4 Denio, 9, eastern Ry. Co., 3 Eq. Rep. 281, 1 Jur. 47 Am. D. 216; Hamilton v. Rath. (N. S.) 433, 31 Eng. L. & Eq. 320; P. v. bone, 175 U. S. 419; Heydon's Case, 3 Greer, 43 Ill. 213; Huffman v. S., 29 Fed. R. 76; Platt v. R. R. Co., 99 U.S. Ala. 40; Parkinson v. S., 14 Md. 184, 48, 25 L. ed. 424; Thornly v. U. 8., 113 [74 Am. D. 522.] U. S. 310, 28 L ed. 999; Lake Co. v. 6 Lyde v. Barnard, 1 M. & W. 101, Rollins, 130 U. S. 662, 32 L. ed. 1060.) 114. And see S. v. Smith, Cheves, 157.

i Rex v. Palmer, 1 Leach (4th ed.), 6 P. v. Illinois, etc. Canal, 3 Scam. 352, 355; Com. v. Slack, 19 Pick. 304; 153; Burbank v. Fay, 65 N. Y. 57; Crespigny v. Wittenoom, 4 T. R. 790. Van Loon v. Lyon, 4 Daly, 149; [S. v.

2 Ante, $ 6; Bac, Abr., Statutes, I 4; Garrett, 76 Mo. Ap. 295; Rector v. Dwar. Stat. (2d ed.) 563, 564. [Prior U. S., 92 U. S. 698, 23 L. ed. 690; Coo acts may be cited to solve but not to saw Co. v. S., 144 U. S. 550, 36 L. ed. create an ambiguity. Hamilton v. 537.] Rathbone, 175 U. S. 419; U. S. v. 7 Collins v. Carman, 5 Md. 503; Hirsch, 100 U. S. 33, 25 L. ed. 539; Broadbent v. S., 7 Md. 416; MetroU. S. v. Bowen, 100 U. S. 508, 25 L. ed. politan Asylum Dist. v. Hill, 6 Ap. 631. When the meaning in the re- Cas. 193; P. v. Hodgdon, 55 Cal. 72, vision is plain the court cannot con- (36 Am. R. 30;] Keeran v. Griffith, 34 sult the old statutes to see if congress Cal. 580. And see S. v. Bank of the has erred in the revision; but may State, 1 s. C. 63; Chapin v. Persse,

[ocr errors]

Public policy.- Considerations of public policy are always pertinent in the interpretation.' Title Preamble Outside of statute.— For these several

purposes, we may take into view, as already seen, what is said in the title and preamble; and may consult any other source: of a nature proper for the cognizance of the courts.

etc. Paper Works, 30 Conn. 461, [79 R. R. Co., 53 S. C. 448, 31 S. E. R. 334; Am. D. 263;] Pittsburg, etc. R. R. Co. South Park Com. v. Bank, 177 Ill. v. South West Pa. Ry. Co., 77 Pa. St. 234, 52 N. E. R. 365; Choctaw R. R. Co. 173; Randolph v. Middleton, 11 C. E v. Alexander, 7 Okl. 579, 52 Pac. R. Green, 543.

944; Re Boston Co., 51 Cal. 624; Ter. 1 Baxter v. Tripp, 12 R. I. 310; Mo v. Hopkins (Okl.), 59 Pac. R. 976. A bile v. Stein, 54 Ala. 23; Probasco V. recital of a fact in the title is conMoundsville, 11 W. Va. 501. And clusive. Hare v. Kennedy, 83 Ala. see 8. v. Clarke, 54 Mo. 17, [14 Am. R. 608, 3 S. R. 683. The operation of the 471; Yale v. New Haven, 71 Conn. act clear in its terms cannot be re316, 42 Atl. R. 87; Jersey Gas Co. v. strained by preamble. Tripp v. Goff, Consumers' Co., 40 N. J. Eq. 427, 2 15 R. I. 299, 3 Atl. R. 591.] Atl. R. 922; Glass v. Cedar Rapids, 68 3 U. S. v. Webster, Daveis (D. C.), 38 Iowa, 207.)

* Ante, SS 74–77; 1 Greenl. Ev., ? Ante, SS 44-51; [S. v. Robinson, 32 SS 4-6. Oreg. 43, 48 Pac. R. 357; Garriok v.

78

CHAPTER X.

PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION AND INTER

PRETATION.

8 83. All legislation, in a sense, prospective. There is a sense in which, in the nature of things, no legislation is or can be other than prospective. The records of the past cannot be reversed; the present can in no way deal otherwise than with itself and the future. But this is not the sort of view of things with reference to which we speak of prospective and retrospective legislation. In the practical sense,

Prospective and retrospective, defined.— As the terms aro commonly used in the law, prospective legislation is such as provides rules for facts thereafter to transpire; retrospective, for those which have partly or fully occurred. Prospective interpretation restricts the application of the new law to facts arising after its enactment; retrospective, applies it to the past and present facts as well as the future.

$ 83a. Distinctions - (Constitutional - Politic and probable — And the reverse).- Under our written constitutions, some forms of retrospective legislation are by their terms or construction forbidden;' and then a statute embodying it will be, to this extent, inoperative, and no question can arise as to what the legislature intended.? To be distinguished from these

1 Crim. Law, I $ 279; post, $ 85. Cold. 201; Cook v. Mutual Ins. Co., 53

2 Strong v. Clem, 12 Ind. 37, [74 Am. Ala 37; S. v. Doherty, 60 Me. 504; D. 200;] Logan v. Walton, 12 Ind. 639; Dubois v. McLean, 4 McLean, 486; Frantz v. Harrow, 13 Ind. 507; Strong Grammar School v. Burt, 11 Vt. 632; v. Dennis, 13 Ind. 514; Douglass v. Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. 477, [5 Pike, 101 U. S. 677; Hoagland v. Sacra- Am. D. 291;] Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. mento, 52 Cal 142; Dequindre v. 610; Union Iron Co. v. Pierce, 4 Bis. Williams, 31 Ind. 444; Lathrop v. 327; Houston v. Bogle, 10 Ire. 490; Brown, 1 Woods, 474; Hart v. S., 40 Lambertson v. Hogan, 2 Pa. St. 22; Ala 32, (88 Am. D. 752;] Finn v. Ahl v. Rhoads, 84 Pa. St. 319; (Purdy Haynes, 37 Mich. 63; Jordan v. v. R. R. Co., 56 N. E. R. (N. Y.) 508.] Wimer, 45 Iowa, 65; Brothers v. 8., 2

[ocr errors]

cases are those wherein, while a retrospective construction is not prohibited, it is a question whether or not the legislature meant its act to be so applied; and whether such application would accord with sound policy, and with the other rules of interpretation. Then it will be construed the one way or the other as these considerations require.

$ 84. Rule for interpretation, in general.- In the absence of any special indication or reason, and as the common rule, a statute will not be applied retrospectively, even where there is no constitutional impediment. Some of the cases appear to

[ocr errors]

Sturgis v. Hull, 48 Vt. 302; Bald. man v. Hapgood, 10 Mass. 437, 439; win v. Newark, 9 Vroom, 158; Wil. Somerset v. Dighton, 12 Mass. 383, son v. Red Wing School Dist., 22 385; Medford v. Learned, 16 Mass. Minn. 488; Ballard v. Ward, 89 Pa. 215; Van Rensselaer v. Livingston, St. 358.

12 Wend. 490; Ex parte Graham, 13 2 Reg. v. Vine, Law Rep. 10 Q. B. Rich. 277; S. v. Scudder, 3 Vroom, 195; Reed v. Rawson, 2 Litt. 189; 203; Taylor v. Mitchell, 57 Pa. St. 209; Wilder v. Lumpkin, 4 Ga. 208; Cook Moon v. Durden, 2 Exch, 22; Reg. v. V. Sexton, 79 N. C. 305, Austin v. Ipswich Union, 2 Q. B. D. 269; In re Stevens, 24 Me. 520; Miller v. Moore, Suche, 1 Ch. D. 48, 50; Western 1 E. D. Smith, 739; Bronson v. New. Union R. R. Co. v. Fulton, 64 Ill. 271; berry, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 38; Smith v. Reg. v. Gratrex, 12 Cox C. C. 157, 2 Kibbee, 9 Ohio St. 563; Johnson v. Eng. Rep. 210; Reis v. Graff, 51 Cal. Johnson, 26 Ind. 441; Annable v. 86; P. v. O'Neil, 51 Cal. 91; P. v. Patch, 3 Pick. 360, 363; Miller v. Kinsman, 51 Cal. 92; P. v. McCain, Miller, 16 Mass. 59; S. v. Wolfarth, 51 Cal. 360; P. v. Peacock, 98 IIL. 172; 42 Conn. 155; S. v. Wilmington, etc. Gardner v. Lucas, 3 Ap. Cas. 582, R. R. Co., 74 N. C. 143; S. v. Smith, 600, 601, 603; (Westheimer v. Good38 Conn. 397; Perry v. Com., 3 Grat. kind (Mont.), 60 Pac. R. 813; Berg v. 632; Bensley v. Ellis, 39 Cal. 309. Berg (Ky.), 48 S. W. R. 432; Cassard

3 Cases cited ante, SS 82, 83a; also v. Tracy, 52 La. An. -, 27 S. R. 368; Eakin v. Raub, 12 S. & R. 330; Saund. Commercial Bank v. Eastern Co., 51 ers v. Carroll, 12 La. An. 793; Brown Neb. 766, 71 N. W. R. 1024; McIntosh v. Wilcox, 14 Sm. & M. 127; Briggs v. Johnson, 51 Neb. 33, 70 N. W. R. v. Hubbard, 19 Vt. 86; S. v. Bradford, 522; Wright v. Railroad Co., 80 Fed. 36 Ga. 422; Dewart v. Purdy, 29 Pa. R. 260; Knight v. Burnham, 90 Me. St. 113; Hopkins v. Jones, 22 Ind. 294, 38 Atl. R. 168; Northwestern Co. 310; Seamans v. Carter, 15 Wis. 548, v. Seaman, 80 Fed. R. 357; S., Joachim [82 Am. D. 696;] P. v. San Francisco, v. Point Claire Co., 24 Can. S. C. 21 Cal. 668; Jarvis v. Jarvis, 3 Edw. 486; Todd v. Commissioners, 104 Ch. 462; Head v. Ward, 1 J. J. Mar. Mich. 480, 64 N. W. R. 496; Scott v. 280; U. S. v. Starr, Hemp. 469; Au. Scott, 148 N. Y. 588, 42 N. E. R. 1079; rora and Laughery Turnpike v. Holt- McCless v. Meekins, 117 N. C. 34, 23 house, 7 Ind. 59; S. v. Atwood, 11 S. E. R. 99; Re Chapman, 73 L. T. R. Wis. 422; Reynolds v. S., 1 Kelly, 222; 658; Re Collateral Tax, 88 Me. 587, P. v. San Francisco, 4 Cal. 127; Whit- 34 Atl. R. 530; Peabody v. Stetson,

« AnteriorContinuar »