U.S. Supreme Court
Rainey v. W. R. Grace & Co., 231 U.S. 703 (1914)
Rainey v. W. R. Grace & Company
Submitted December 9, 1913
Decided January 5, 1914
231 U.S. 703
A statute the evident purpose of which is to save expense in litigation will be construed in the light of this manifest purpose.
Repeals by implication are not favored, and only in cases of clear inconsistency will a later act be held to repeal an earlier one on the same subject, but if there is clear inconsistency, as in this case, the earlier act cannot stand. King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395.
Even if it might be true that the earlier act prescribed the better rule, where Congress, having full authority, has acted, it is the duty of the courts to enforce the legislation with a view of effecting the purpose for which it was enacted.
When the appellant in a cause in admiralty causes to be printed and presented to the circuit court of appeals under the Act of February 13, 1911, printed copies of the apostles on appeal, each of which contains a printed index of the contents thereof and is prepared and printed under a rule of the lower court adopted in pursuance of the said act, the circuit court of appeals is authorized to hear and determine the cause on such copies and to dispense with the requirement of the payment of fees to its clerk by the appellant as prescribed by its rules and which are the same as those prescribed by this Court under the Act of February 19, 1897.
The first section of the Act of February 13, 1911, sets aside by implication chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
the provision of the fee bill prescribed by this Court so far as it relates to the fee to the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeal for indexing the record when the same has already been properly printed and indexed in pursuance of a rule of the lower court.
The facts, which involve the construction of the acts and rules of court regulating fees of clerks of the circuit courts of appeals for indexing records on appeal, are stated in the opinion.