United States v. A. J. Woodruff & Co.

Second Circuit

United States v. A. J. Woodruff & Co.

175 F. 776, 99 C.C.A. 348, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4957

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1909

DocketNo. 96 (5,276)

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 175 F. 776 (United States v. A. J. Woodruff & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. A. J. Woodruff & Co., 175 F. 776, 99 C.C.A. 348, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4957 (2d Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

We will add a single observation to the opinion of Judge Racombe in the Circuit Court (168 Fed. 452), and that is as to the effect to be -given to section 215 of the tariff act of 1909 (Act Aug. 5, 1909, c. 6, § 1, Schedule D, 36 Stat. 34 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 686]), which was subsequently exiacted. This is the section corresponding to the one under consideration, namely, 208 of the act of 1897, and is so worded as to justify the construction which the government contends for. The act of 1909 repealed that part of the act of 1897 containing section 208. A statxxtox-y px-ovision, the meaning of which is not clear, should, of course, be construed with reference, not only to the whole statute, hut to contemporaneous and even [777]*777subsequently enacted .statutes in pari materia. Where, as in this case, the. statute repeals or replaces an earlier law, any change of language is more consistent with a change of intent than with the purpose of defining or declaring the meaning of the language of the earlier repealed statute. There is no proof of any intent upon the part of Congress, such as was made in the case of Mosle v. Bidwell, 130 Fed. 334, 65 C. C. A. 533, where both statutes continued in existence.

Judgment affirmed.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge.

We will add a single observation to the opinion of Judge Racombe in the Circuit Court (168 Fed. 452), and that is as to the effect to be -given to section 215 of the tariff act of 1909 (Act Aug. 5, 1909, c. 6, § 1, Schedule D, 36 Stat. 34 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 686]), which was subsequently exiacted. This is the section corresponding to the one under consideration, namely, 208 of the act of 1897, and is so worded as to justify the construction which the government contends for. The act of 1909 repealed that part of the act of 1897 containing section 208. A statxxtox-y px-ovision, the meaning of which is not clear, should, of course, be construed with reference, not only to the whole statute, hut to contemporaneous and even [777]*777subsequently enacted .statutes in pari materia. Where, as in this case, the. statute repeals or replaces an earlier law, any change of language is more consistent with a change of intent than with the purpose of defining or declaring the meaning of the language of the earlier repealed statute. There is no proof of any intent upon the part of Congress, such as was made in the case of Mosle v. Bidwell, 130 Fed. 334, 65 C. C. A. 533, where both statutes continued in existence.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. 776, 99 C.C.A. 348, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-a-j-woodruff-co-ca2-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack