United States v. Jackson

6 Citing cases

  1. City of Tulsa v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.

    75 F.2d 343 (10th Cir. 1935)   Cited 39 times

    It is a well-settled rule of construction that where there is, in an act or Constitution, a specific provision relating to a particular subject, such provision will govern in respect to that subject as against general provisions in the act or Constitution, although the latter standing alone would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates. Bailey v. Allan E. Walker, Inc., 55 App. D.C. 74, 2 F.2d 123, 125; Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 53 App. D.C. 173, 289 F. 571, 574; United States v. Zenith Radio Corp. (D.C. Ill.) 12 F.2d 614, 618; United States v. Mattio (C.C.A. 9) 17 F.2d 879, 880; In re Rouse, Hazard Co. (C.C.A. 7) 91 F. 96, 101; United States v. Jackson (C.C.A. 9) 143 F. 783, 787; Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. Great Northern R. Co. (C.C.A. 8) 25 F.2d 66, 68, 69. It is also a rule of construction that general and specific provisions in apparent contradiction may subsist together — the specific qualifying and constituting exceptions to the general.

  2. San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. United States Department of Interior

    1:11-cv-00952 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015)

    Plaintiffs also rely on an infrequently cited canon of statutory construction that stands for the proposition that, even if there is an irreconcilable conflict between two statutory provisions, the provision that is latest in sequence within the statute (i.e., the highest numbered) controls. See United States v. Jackson, 143 F. 783, 787 (9th Cir. 1906); see also United States v. Moore, 567 F.3d 187, 191 (6th Cir. 2009). The Court finds it unnecessary to rely on this canon, as there is no irreconcilable conflict in this case.

  3. United States v. Updike

    25 F.2d 746 (D. Neb. 1928)   Cited 13 times

    There appears to be a conflict between the two portions of the Revenue Act of 1926 which have been cited, and, in case of such repugnancy, the latter portion of the statute in the order of arrangement will control. United States v. Jackson (C.C.A.) 143 F. 783, 787; In re Richards (C.C.A.) 96 F. 935, 939. The objections to jurisdiction are not well taken.

  4. Town of Sheldon v. Sheldon Poor House Ass'n

    100 Vt. 122 (Vt. 1927)   Cited 8 times

    Mr. Endlich in his work on Interpretation of Statutes, paragraph 182, says: "It is impossible to will contradictions; and if two passages are irreconcilable, the earlier stands impliedly repealed by the latter"; and in the next paragraph he states the rule thus: "Where, in a statute, there are several clauses which present, as compared with each other, irreconcilable conflict, the one last in order of date or local position must, in accordance with this rule, prevail, and the other be deemed abrogated to the extent of such repugnancy; whether the conflicting clauses be sections of the same act, or merely portions of the same section." See also Sutherland Stat. Con. (2nd ed.) p. 349; Puffendorf's Rule stated in Potter's Dwarris on Stat. and Const., p. 132; United States v. Jackson (C.C.A.), 143 Fed. 783; In re Richards (C.C.A.), 96 Fed. 935; Howard v. Bangor, etc. Co., 86 Me. 378, 29 A. 1101; Harrington v. Rochester, 10 Wend. (N.Y.) 547, 553; Hand v. Stapleton, 135 Ala. 162, 33 So. 689; Van Horn v. State, 46 Neb. 62, 64 N.W. 365; Albertson v. State, 9 Neb. 429, 2 N.W. 742. It must be held, therefore, that the property in question is not exempt from taxation under the terms of defendant's charter, even as evidenced by the engrossed act.

  5. County Treasurer v. People

    34 Wyo. 189 (Wyo. 1926)   Cited 2 times

    Louis J. O'Marr and Gillette Clark for plaintiffs in error. Plaintiff in error proved diligence and care in depositing the money, and thereby complied with the conditions of her bond; 2401 C.S.; Sections 321 and 324 C.S.; State vs. Foster, 5 Wyo. 199; State vs. Gramm, 7 Wyo. 329; Roberts vs. Commissioners, 8 Wyo. 177; the latter section controls if inconsistency or repugnancy be found between said sections; 2 Sutherland's St. Con. 349; U.S. vs. Jackson, 143 Fed. 783; plaintiff in error was not an insurer of the funds; State vs. Gramm, supra; Wilson vs. People (Colo.) 34 P. 944; Overton vs. Copeland (Tenn.) 34 S.W. 427; the words, "safely keep" add nothing to the obligations; Roberts vs. Com. supra; the treasurer had no reason to suspect the insolvency of the bank, and acted honestly and with fidelity; 6 C.J. 1119; Wilson vs. People, supra; State vs. Walsen, (Colo.) 28 P. 1119; no depository was ever designated by the school board.

  6. American Radiator Company v. Hampson

    41 R.I. 87 (R.I. 1918)

    Petitioner's brief cites a number of cases, relating to construction of statutes, which well illustrate the application of the above rules of construction; we have examined them all and find them in point in support of these general rules; but it is not necessary to review them at length since they do not bear directly upon the particular facts of this case. See, U.S. v. Jackson, 143 Fed. 783; Turner v. State, 40 Ala. 21; Donohue v. Ladd, 31 Minn. 244; Nichols v. Halliday, 27 Wis. 406; Landrum v. Flannigan, 60 Kan. 436. We have no doubt as to the intention of the General Assembly, under the language of Chapter 257, Section 5, to provide for such service of notice as was made in the case at bar.