Summary

Rutgers v. Waddington (1784)

“ But when a law is expressed in general words, and some collateral matter, which happens to arise from those general words, is unreasonable, there the judges are in decency to conclude, that the consequences were not foreseen by the legislature; and therefore they are at liberty to expound the statute by equity, and only quoad hoc to disregard it.
When the judicial make these distinctions, they do not control the legislature; they endeavor to give their intention its proper effect.
”
Source: Wikisource

Rutgers v. Waddington (1784)

“ The design of courts of justice in our government from the very nature of their institution, is to declare laws, not to alter them. Whenever they depart from this design of their institution, they confound legislative and judicial powers. The laws govern where a government is free; and every citizen knows what remedy the laws give him for every injury. But this cannot be the case where courts, if they deem a law to be unreasonable, may set it aside. Here, however plainly the law may be in his favor, he cannot be certain of redress until he has the opinion of the court. ”
Source: Wikisource

Rutgers v. Waddington (1784)

“ From what has been said we think that no one can doubt of the meaning of the law. It remains to inquire whether a court of judicature can consistently, with our Constitution and laws, adjudge contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of a statute. That the Mayor's Courts have done so in this case we think is manifest from the aforegoing remarks. That there should be a power vested in courts of judicature, whereby they might control the supreme legislative power, we think is absurd in itself. Such power in courts would be destructive of liberty, and remove all security of property. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature