McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York Annotated Volume 1 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: ...33 App. Div. 49, 53 N. Y. Supp. 531; 161 N. Y. 511, 56 N. E. 9. 13. Giles v. Lyon, 4 N. Y. 600; Cotheal v. Cotheal, 40 N. Y. 405; People v. Potter, 47 N. Y. 375; Ansonia Brass, etc., Co. v. New Lamp Chimney Co., 53 N. Y. 123, 13 Am. Rep. 476; Foote v. People, 56 N. Y. 321; In re New York, etc., Bridge, 72 N. Y. 527; People v. Hyde, 89 N. Y. 11; Hoey v. Gilroy, 129 N. Y. 132, 29 N. E. 85; Beekmun v. Third Ave. R. Co., 153 N. Y. 144, 47 N. E. 277; In re Humfreville, 154 N. Y. 115, 41 Q 60 General Rules allied to the general principle that all parts of a statute shall be read together. In fact, the two rules seem to be but little more than different expressions of the same canon of interpretation. Inconsistency in the same statute is thought to be contrary to the intent of the lawmakers, and hence it is to be avoided." Thus, generally a particular provision of an act is not to receive a special meaning at variance with the general purpose and spirit of the act." And the grammatical construction may be changed when the meaning is plain, and it is necessary to make the change to harmonize the provisions of the act." If there is an irreconcilable conflict between some of the provisions of the statute, it is the duty of the court to preserve the paramount intention, so far as it is consistent with the rules of the law, although this may lead to the rejection of some subordinate and secondary provision." The effort in every case must be to ascertain and carry out the intent of the legislature; and, where the use of certain words in a statute are inconsistent with that intention, it is the duty of the court to reject those words, when, by rejecting them, the clear intent of the legislature is carried out." When the...