Duggar v. Mobile & Gulf Nav. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Duggar v. Mobile & Gulf Nav. Co.

140 So. 614, 224 Ala. 359, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 578

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 17, 1932

Docket1 Div. 708.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 140 So. 614 (Duggar v. Mobile & Gulf Nav. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Duggar v. Mobile & Gulf Nav. Co., 140 So. 614, 224 Ala. 359, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 578 (Ala. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

If it be conceded that the Act of Congress of March 4,1915, § 12 (38 Stat. 1169), had the effect of repealing the limitation upon the Act of Cong. June 7,1872 (17 Stat. 262), which was provided by the Act of Cong. June 9, 1874 (18 Stat. 64), as was held in Burns v. Fred L. Davis Co. (C. C. A.) 271 F. 439, and that such repealing statute continued in effect until the adoption of the present United States Code, that concession does not show error in the result reached by the Court of Appeals of Alabama in this case.

As pointed out in that opinion, by the adoption of the United States Code by Act approved June 30, 1926 (44 Stat. 777), the provisions of the act of 1874, and of March 4, 1915, were re-enacted — the former as 46 USCA § 544, the latter as 46 USCA § 601. So that, by thus re-enacting the provisions of the act of 1874 along with that of March 4,1915, the former was made a restriction upon the effect of the latter, just as it had been held to be a restriction upon the act of 1872 (Inter-Island Nav. Co. v. Byrne, 239 U. S. 450, 36 S. Ct. 132, 60 L. Ed. 362) whose provisions were merely extended by the act of 1915 to include fishermen. So that, whatever may have been the status of the law from March 4, 1915, to June 30, 1926, the date of the adoption of the code, and though it be as affirmed in the Burns Case, supra, we agree that, after the adoption of the Code, both sections 544' and 601 of 46 USCA became operative, and the former was a limitation on tlie latter.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and1 KNIGHT, JJ., concur.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FOSTER, J.

If it be conceded that the Act of Congress of March 4,1915, § 12 (38 Stat. 1169), had the effect of repealing the limitation upon the Act of Cong. June 7,1872 (17 Stat. 262), which was provided by the Act of Cong. June 9, 1874 (18 Stat. 64), as was held in Burns v. Fred L. Davis Co. (C. C. A.) 271 F. 439, and that such repealing statute continued in effect until the adoption of the present United States Code, that concession does not show error in the result reached by the Court of Appeals of Alabama in this case.

As pointed out in that opinion, by the adoption of the United States Code by Act approved June 30, 1926 (44 Stat. 777), the provisions of the act of 1874, and of March 4, 1915, were re-enacted — the former as 46 USCA § 544, the latter as 46 USCA § 601. So that, by thus re-enacting the provisions of the act of 1874 along with that of March 4,1915, the former was made a restriction upon the effect of the latter, just as it had been held to be a restriction upon the act of 1872 (Inter-Island Nav. Co. v. Byrne, 239 U. S. 450, 36 S. Ct. 132, 60 L. Ed. 362) whose provisions were merely extended by the act of 1915 to include fishermen. So that, whatever may have been the status of the law from March 4, 1915, to June 30, 1926, the date of the adoption of the code, and though it be as affirmed in the Burns Case, supra, we agree that, after the adoption of the Code, both sections 544' and 601 of 46 USCA became operative, and the former was a limitation on tlie latter.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and1 KNIGHT, JJ., concur.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 614, 224 Ala. 359, 1932 Ala. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duggar-v-mobile-gulf-nav-co-ala-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack