Samuel Freeman Miller

Name: Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court
Author: Samuel Freeman Miller

Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Samuel Freeman Miller. It explores elements such as statute, bill and approval.

Quotes from Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Samuel Freeman Miller, Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court

“ We are of opinion, therefore, on principle as well as authority, that whenever a question arises in a court of law of the existence of a statute, or of the time when a statute took effect, or of the precise terms of a statute, the judges who are called upon to decide it, have a right to resort to any source of information which in its nature is capable of conveying to the judicial mind a clear and satisfactory answer to such question; always seeking first for that which in its nature is most appropriate, unless the positive law has enacted a different rule. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court

“ In order to prevent their existence being brought to the test of proof by record, the principle was adopted that the court should take notice of them; and that the judges are to inform themselves in the best way they can.
This is confirmed by Sir Matthew Hale in his History of the Common Law. [3] Alluding to these statutes, of which there are many that are no longer to be found among the rolls, he says: 'An act of Parliament, made within the time of memory, loses not its being so, because not extant of record, especially if it be a general act of Parliament. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court

“ For of general acts of Parliament the courts of common law are to take notice without pleading them. And such acts shall never be put to be tried by the record upon an issue of nul tiel record, but it shall be tried by the court, who, if there be any difficulty or uncertainty touching it, or the right of pleading it, are to use for their information ancient copies, transcripts, books, pleadings, and memorials, to inform themselves, but not to admit the same to be put in issue by a plea of nul tiel record. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court

“ The first of these propositions assumes that no act of Congress can become a valid statute, unless some official written statement is found in it of the precise date when the President approved it, and that it is a part of the duty of the President to make this statement; a duty so important that unless made by him, and by no one else, all the previous proceedings of the two Houses of Congress, and the approval of the President, and his signature attesting that approval, are all vain and nugatory. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court

“ In point of morl force in producing conviction in the mind that a bill was signed on a given day, there may be often found stronger evidence than the date accompanying the signature. It is general experience that mistakes are often made in such dates. So well is this understood that the general rule of law that parol evidence cannot be received to contradict a written contract, does not apply to the date, which, though forming a part of the written instrument, may be contradicted whenever it is material to the issue to do so. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court

“ So that, if we can look to any of these sources of information, the court can have no doubt that the bill was in force as a statute at the time the duties on plaintiff's tea became chargeable.
The whole of the very able and ingenious argument of counsel for plaintiff rests on these two propositions, as stated in his own language: 'That the President alone can make the record which is to show the date of his approval ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Freeman Miller, Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court

“ Sedgwick on Statutes and Constitutional Law, 34.↑ 4 Institutes, 26.↑ Purdy v. The People, 4 Hill, 384; De Bow v. The People, 1 Denio, 9; Spangle v. Jacob, 19 Illinois, 283; Young v. Thomson, 14 Id. 297 ”

Samuel Freeman Miller

Summary

Quotes from Gardner v. The Collector — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Freeman Miller)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature