United States v. Fisk
Supreme Court of the United States
The “Internal Revenue Act,” of 30th June, 1S64, “to provide ways and means for the support of government, and for other purposes,” declares, by its 99th section, as follows: “ All brokers and bankers doing business as brokers, shall be subject to pay the following duties and rates of duty upon the sales of merchandise, produce, gold and silver bullion, foreign exchange, promissory notes, stocks, bonds, or other securities, and shall also be subject to all the provisions of…
Read the full summary
The “Internal Revenue Act,” of 30th June, 1S64, “to provide ways and means for the support of government, and for other purposes,” declares, by its 99th section, as follows: “ All brokers and bankers doing business as brokers, shall be subject to pay the following duties and rates of duty upon the sales of merchandise, produce, gold and silver bullion, foreign exchange, promissory notes, stocks, bonds, or other securities, and shall also be subject to all the provisions of the act for making returns, assessments, and collection of the duties.” The ninth paragraph of the 79th section of the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice G-Kieb
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…
2Cited by90 opinions
- De Sylva v. BallentineSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- United States of America, and Cross v. Earth Sciences, Inc., and CrossCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979
- State v. RoqueSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- State Ex Rel. Caldwell v. Hooker, County JudgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- United States v. David H. MooreCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
85 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.