United States v. Fisk
Syllabus
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
Mr. Justice G-KIEB, delivered the opinion of the court.
In the construction of statutes, it is the duty of the court to ascertain the clear intention of the legislature. In order to do this, courts are often compelled to construe “ or”
as meaning “ and,”
and again “ and”
as meaning “ or.”
The purpose and intent of the legislature, in the amendment made to the ninth paragraph, was evidently not to change the correct definition given of the term “ broker,” and to make it mean that every man who sold his own stock was a broker, and liable to pay fifty dollars for a license. The obvious purpose of the amendment was to compel brokers to render an account of all sales made, whether for themselves or others, and to pay the duty on them. As is often the case in statutes, though the intention is clear, the words used to express it may be ill chosen.
The evil intended to be remedied by the amendment was transparent. If the amendment had been properly expressed, it should have been added as a proviso to the 99th section, which relates to the rates of duty to be paid on sales made in the stock-market by brokers or others licensed and *448 doing business as such, and in the preceding case the court have so construed it.
Now, a banker pays a much higher license tax than a broker, and is permitted to “prosecute or carry on” the business or profession of a broker without paying any further license; but if he prefers, he may not combine that business with his own. The 110th section prescribes the duties to be paid by a banker. It is not amended so as to require him to render an account of his purchases or sales of government stocks for himself. The case before us, therefore, presents no other question than the construction of the 99th section. It enacts that “all brokers and bankers doing business as brokers shall be subject to the following duties,” &c.
Now, in order to subject a banker to the duties prescribed by this section, we are asked to interpolate the important word “ not,”
and to construe it as including bankers who do not, as well as those who do transact “ business as brokers.”. This would not be a construction of the statute, but an amendment thereof in direct contradiction of its language. This we do not feel at liberty to make.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 13 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(observing that in ascertaining legislative intent, “courts are often compelled to construe ‘or’ as meaning ‘and,’ and again ‘and’ as meaning ‘or’ ”)
-
(construing “and” to mean “or” when not doing so would produce results that defy common sense)
-
(further noting that “[a]s is often the case in statutes, though the intention is clear, the words used to express it may be ill chosen”)
-
(“and” may be read as “or” when necessary to make statute consistent with legislative purpose)
-
(statement of Sen. David Pryor)
Cited by 81 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court2
- U.S. Courts of Appeals23
- Federal District Courts13
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- Federal Specialty Courts5
- Historical Federal Courts1
- Military Courts1
- State Highest Courts26
- State Appellate Courts4
- State Trial Courts1
- Territorial Courts4
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.