Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marcus v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 3, 1953Published

1Dissent

Cohn and Van Vooehis, JJ.

(dissenting). If the legislative intent as expressed in a statute is clear and unambiguous, the title is not to be considered in its interpretation (People v. Molyneux, 40 N. Y. 113; People v. Willett, 164 App. Div. 1, affd. 213 N. Y. 368). The substance of a plain statute can neither be extended nor restricted by the language of the title (Matter of New York and Brooklyn Bridge, 72 N. Y. 527; McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N. Y., Book 1, Statutes [1942 ed.], §§ 123, 124). The same is true of the legislative history of a statute, which will not be allowed to control the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In re the Trustees of the New York & Brooklyn BridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  2. People v. . WillettNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
  3. People v. . MolyneuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
  4. People Ex Rel. Mitchell v. . SturgesNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  5. People v. WillettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API