Ascher v. Edward Moyse & Co., 14,853

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtMCLEAN, J.
Citation57 So. 299,101 Miss. 36
PartiesASCHER & BAXTER v. EDWARD MOYSE & CO
Docket Number14,853
Decision Date29 January 1912

57 So. 299

101 Miss. 36

ASCHER & BAXTER
v.

EDWARD MOYSE & CO

No. 14,853

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 29, 1912


APPEAL from the chancery court of Hinds county, HON. G. G. LYELL, Chancellor.

Suit by Ascher & Baxter against Edward Moyse & Co. et al. From a decree dismissing the bill complainants appeal.

The appellants filed a bill in chancery on January 15, 1910, against the appellees Edward Moyse & Co., cotton brokers in New York City, the State Bank & Trust Company, a banking institution domiciled at Jackson, Miss., and M. A. Lewis, an alleged debtor of said Moyse. The gravamen of the bill is that, beginning on December 31, 1909, the appellants entered into various contracts for the purchase of future cotton from said Moyse; that it was never the intention of either party that actual cotton should be bought, sold, or delivered, but that it was a gambling contract, and was carried on by depositing margins against a decline in the market; that such margins were deposited with the State Bank & Trust Company of Jackson, Miss.; that the money so deposited was kept to the account of Moyse with the said State Bank & Trust Company, to be drawn against by Moyse, who carried out appellants' contracts on the New York Cotton Exchange. The bill further alleges that the appellants had deposited eight thousand dollars with said bank, and had remitted direct six hundred dollars from the time the dealings first began, and suit was brought for these amounts, which, it is claimed, they lost by said speculative future transaction. It is further alleged that six thousand, five hundred dollars of this amount is still in the hands of said bank, which amount the bill seeks to subject to the payment of appellants' claim.

Reversed and remanded.

Watkins & Watkins, for appellants, filed an elaborate brief covering all the points decided by the court contending that:

First. Repeals by implication are not favored.

Second. In order that an implied repeal may result the repugnancy appearing in the two statutes must be wholly irreconcilable; and the repugnancy must be clear, convincing, and follow necessarily from the language used. 26 Amer. and Eng. Ency. Law, p. 725.

Third. The repeal in any case will be measured by the extent of the conflict or inconsistency between the acts; and if any part of the earlier act can stand as not superceded or affected by the latter one, it will not be repealed.

Fourth. It is only in rare instances that an affirmative statute repeals a previous affirmative statute, but in such cases it is usually considered that the latter statute is cumulative, rather than exclusive. Ins. Co. v. Mortimer, 52 Kan. 784; Lewis and Sutherland on Statutory Construction.

Fifth. While it is ordinarily true that where an act is passed purporting to deal with the entire subject-matter covered by an earlier act or acts, still, if the last enactment contains a provision repealing all acts or parts of acts inconsistent therewith, then the repeal extends only to those acts or parts of such acts clearly inconsistent and irreconcilable with the provisions of the repealing act, and only to the extent of the conflicting provision. 26 Amer. Ency. Law, p. 719, sec. 2303, of the acts of 1908; Section 9 of the acts of 1908; Section 12 of the acts of 1908; Planters Bank of Mississippi v. State, 6 Smedes & Marshall, p. 628; White v. Johnson, 23 Miss. 68; Section 94 of the acts of 1822; Shelton v. Baldwin, 26 Miss. 439; Richards v. Patterson, 30 Miss. 583; Houss v. State, 41 Miss. 737; Raymond v. Fisher, 45 Miss. 151; Beard v. Leake County, 51 Miss. 542; Smith v. City of Vicksburg, 54 Miss. 615; Deaton v. Birchard, 59 Miss. 144; State v. Henry, 87 Miss. 125; Hearn v. Brogan, 64 Miss. 334; State v. Waldridge, 41 Am. St. Rep. 663 (Mo.); State v. Spencer, 164 Mo. 48; State v. Drexel, 105 N.W. 174; People v. Huntley, 71 N.W. 178; People v. Van Pelt, 90 N.W. 424; Express Co. v. City of Lexington, 83 Ky. 657; John Conners v. Iron Co., 54 Mich. 156; Holden v. Minnesota, 34 Law. Ed. 735; Simmons v. Bradley, 27 Wis. 769; Clay v. Allen, 63 Miss. 426; Kruse v. Kenneth, 81 Ill. 199; Jamison v. Walls, 167 Ill. 388; Pierce v. Foote, 113 Ill. 228; Exchange v. Mellon, 27 Ill.App. 556; Lester v. Buel, 49 Ohio State 240; McGraw v. Exchange, 85 Tenn. 572; Lemonius v. Mayer, 71 Miss. 514; Gray v. Robinson, 95 Miss. 1; Virden v. Murphy, 78 Miss. 515; Campbell v. Bank, 74 Miss. 526; Violet v. Margold, 27 So. 875; M. & O. Railroad Company v. Wimer, 49 Miss. 738; 36 Cyc., p. 1079; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268; Myers v. Marshall County, 55 Miss. 347; White v. Johnson, 23 Miss. 68; 26 Cyc., p. 1236; Thompson, Trustee, v. Bank, 85 Miss. 261; Railroad Company v. Adams, 81 Miss. 90; Edwards v. Lumber Co., 92 Miss. 568; Gray v. Robinson, 48 So. 226; Sprague v. Warren, 3 L. R. A. 679; Bartlett v. Collins, 83 Am. St. Rep. 932; Barnard Backus case, 52 Wis. 593; Rogers v. Marriatt, 59 Neb. 770; Dows v. Glassbell, 4 N.D. 261; Mohr v. Miesen, 47 Minn. 233; Waite v. Frank, 14 S.D. 634; Edwards v. Hoeffinghoff, 38 F. 639; Pratt & Company v. Ashmore, 224 Ill. 587; Ware Commission Co. v. The People, 209 Ill. 528; Williams v. Majors, 95 C. C. A. 187; Purvis v. Williams, 122 N.Y.S. 392; Heard v. Taylor, 181 N.Y. 233; Seller v. Leiter, 189 N.Y. 367; Christie Grain case, 198 U.S. 236; Logan v. Telegraph Co., 157 F. 582; Parker v. Moore, 125 F. 807; Board of Trade v. Kinsey, 130 F. 512; Cleage v. Ladley, 149 F. 346; Farnus v. Whitman, 187 Miss. 381; Ritcher v. Powe, 71 A. 421; Ward v. Vossburg, 31 F. 13; Bangs v. Hornick, 30 F. 97; Bailey v. Phillips, 159 F. 535; Richardson v. Shaw, 52 Law. Ed. 840; Booth v. Illinois, 48 Law. Ed. 623; Parker v. Otis, 47 Law. Ed. 323; Lacey v. Palmer, 31 L. R. A. 822; State v. Harboune, 40 L. R. A. 607; Bryan v. Telegraph Co., 157 F. 570; State v. Clayton, 138 N.C. 737.

Green & Green, for appellees, filed an elaborate brief too long for publication. Citing Solomon v. Compress Co., 69 Miss. 326; Wilkins v. Riley, 47 Miss. 306; Merrill v. Melchoir, 30 Ib. 516; Cowan v. Assurance Company, 73 Miss. 328; Charles Campbell v. Bank, 74 Miss. 526; Isaac v. Silverburg, 87 Miss. 185; Hulman v. Johnson, Cowp. Rep. 343; Dibbrell v. Danridge, 51 Miss. 55; Shattuck v. Miller, 50 Miss. 386; Insurance Co. v. State, 86 Tex. (1893) 265; Sullivan v. Ammons, 48 So. 244; State v. Fragiacoma, 70 Miss. 802; State v. Hill, 70 Miss 110; McBride v. State, 70 Miss. 724; Sedgwick on Stat. and Const. Law 124; Davies v. Fairbairn, 3 How. U. S. R. 636; Dexter and Limerick Plank Road Co. v. Allen, 16 Bar. 15; Mobile & Ohio R. R. Co. v. Weiner, 49 Miss. 725; Vicksburg v. Insurance Company, 72 Miss. 70; French v. State, 52 Miss. 763; Laramie County v. Albany County, 92 U.S. 307; Board of Supervisors of Sumner County, 58 Miss. 619; Dill on Mun. Corp., sec. tion 126 et seq.; Ellis v. Paige, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 45; Sedgwick on Stat. Const. 366; Deaton v. Burchart, 59 Miss. 144; Clay County v. Chickasaw County, 64 Miss. ; Isaac v. Silverburg, 87 Miss. 185; Lienkauf Banking Co. v. Haney, 93 Miss. 619; Fellows v. Harris, 12 Smed. & M., 462; Hart v. Foundry Co., 72 Miss. 809, 17 So. 769; Zeller v. Leiter, 189 N.Y. 601; Zeltner v. Irwin, 25 N.Y. (App.Div.) 230; Sondheim v. Gilbert, 117 Ind. 78; Gilden v. Blair, 21 Wall. 241; Wayne County Savings Bank v. Low, 81 N.Y. 566; Hawley v. Bibb, 69 Ala. 52; Stix v. Matthews, 75 Mo. 961; Swann v. Swann, 21 F. Rep. 299; Burns v. R. R. Co., 113 Ind. 169; Flagg v. Baldwin, 38 N.J.Eq. 219, 48 Am. Rep. 308; Hyatt v. Bank, 8 Bush. 193; Milliken v. Pratt, 125 Mass. 374; Hull v. Spear, 50 N.H. 253; Champion v. Wilson, 64 Ga. 184; Gaylord v. Duryea, 69 S.W. 607; Postal Co. v. Lathrop, 33 Ill.App. 402; Berry v. Chase, 146 F. 625; Bease v. McLean, 199 Mass. 243; Sullivan v. Bank, 70 P. 163; Minzershemer v. Doolittle, 54 A. 611; Littleton v. Berlin Mills Co., 58 A. Rep. 877; Lescallett v. Commonwealth, 89 Va. 878; Scales v. State, 81 S.W. 949; Pearce v. Rice, 142 U.S. 28, 40, 35 L.Ed. 925, 930, 12 S.Ct. 130, 135; Pickering v. Cease, 79 Ill. 328, 330; Cothran v. Ellis, 125 Ill. 496, 16 N.E. 646; Richardson v. Shaw, 209 U.S. 365, 52 L.Ed. 835; Holcomb v. Kemper, 214 Ill. 458; Hallet v. Aggergaard, 114 N.W. 698; Harvey v. Merrill, 150 Mass. 1, 22 N.E. 49, 5 L. R. A. 200, 22 N.E. 49, 5 L. R. A. 200, 15 Am. St. Rep. 159; Tomblin v. Callen, 69 Iowa 229, 28 N.W. 573; Zeller v. Leiter, 99 N.Y.S. 624; Boyle v. Henning, 1212 F. 367; Chicago Board of Trade v. Christie G. and S. Co., 198 U.S. 249, 49 L.Ed. 1039; Cleage v. Laidley, 149 F. 351; Bearse v. McLean, 199 Mass. 243; Hooper v. Mickles, 39 So. 712; Farnum v. Whit man, 187 Mass. 381; Hacker v. Telegraph Co., 34 So. 902; Ling v. Malcom, 77 Conn. 517; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Bradford, 114 S.W. 686; Kingsburg v. Kirwan, 77 N.Y. 612; Miller v. Klovstad, 105 N.W. 167; Ponder v. Jerome Hill Cotton Co., 100 F. 373, 40 C. C. A. 416; Clews v. Jamison, 182 U.S. 461; Barnes v. Smith, 159 Mass. 344, 34 N.E. 403; Board of Trade v. Kinsey, 130 F. 507; Thompson v. Williamson, 58 A. 605; Kendall v. Fries, 58 A. 1090; Hacker v. Western Union Tel. Co., 34 So. 902; Drouilhet v. Pinkard, 42 S.W. 136; Boyd v. Hanson, 41 F. 174; Tel. Co. v. Little-john, 72 Miss. 1025; Beidler & Robinson v. Coe Commission Co., 13 N.D. 645; Waite v. Frank, 14 S.D. 633.

Argued orally by W. H. Watkins, for appellant, and Garner W. Green, for appellee.

MCLEAN, J. SMITH, J., dissenting.

OPINION [57 So. 300]

[101 Miss. 42] MCLEAN, J.

Upon the very threshold of the discussion of the questions presented by [57 So. 301] this record, we express our unbounded appreciation of the exceedingly able arguments, both [101 Miss. 43] oral and printed, made and submitted by counsel for both appellants and appellees. These briefs and arguments have been of inestimable value, not only in diminishing the labors of this court, but in simplifying what otherwise might be regarded as a difficult question.

The first question...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Tiley v. Grenada Building & Loan Ass'n, 25480
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1926
    ...v. Patterson, 30 Miss. 583; McAfee v. Southern, 36 Miss. 669; Madison County v. Stewart, 74 Miss. 160, 20 So. 857; Ascher v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299; Gilmore v. J. Lindsey, 103 Miss. 468, 60 So. 580; Holly Springs v. Marshall County, 104 Miss. 752, 61 So. 703; Darnell v. Johnson, 10......
  • Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 30445
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1933
    ...2 How. 837; Mitchell v. Wells, 37 Miss. 235; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill, 50 So. 248; Ascher & Baxter v. Edward Moyse & Co., 57 So. 299, 101 Miss. 36; Bothwell 4. Buckbee, 275 U.S. 274, 72 L.Ed. 277; Union Trust Co. v. Glosman, 245 U.S. 412, 62 L.Ed. 368; Augusta Bank v. Earle, 13 P......
  • Rather v. Moore, 32644
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 19, 1937
    ...statute, will presume that the Legislature was familiar with prior statutes. State v. Traylor, 100 Miss. 544, 56 So. 521; Ascher v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299. The Laws of 1934 for the first time since the original enactment of depository guaranty into the jurisprudence of this State s......
  • Stingily v. City of Jackson, 24970
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 8, 1925
    ...must be very clear; that they are not favored and will not be indulged if there is any other reasonable construction. Asher v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 36; 25 R. C. L., 914, 921. A familiar rule of statutory construction is that significance and effect shall, if possible, be accorded to every secti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Rather v. Moore, 32644
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • April 19, 1937
    ...statute, will presume that the Legislature was familiar with prior statutes. State v. Traylor, 100 Miss. 544, 56 So. 521; Ascher v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299. The Laws of 1934 for the first time since the original enactment of depository guaranty into the jurisprudence of this State s......
  • Tiley v. Grenada Building & Loan Ass'n, 25480
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1926
    ...v. Patterson, 30 Miss. 583; McAfee v. Southern, 36 Miss. 669; Madison County v. Stewart, 74 Miss. 160, 20 So. 857; Ascher v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 36, 57 So. 299; Gilmore v. J. Lindsey, 103 Miss. 468, 60 So. 580; Holly Springs v. Marshall County, 104 Miss. 752, 61 So. 703; Darnell v. Johnson, 10......
  • Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Delta & Pine Land Co., 30445
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1933
    ...How. 837; Mitchell v. Wells, 37 Miss. 235; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill, 50 So. 248; Ascher & Baxter v. Edward Moyse & Co., 57 So. 299, 101 Miss. 36; Bothwell 4. Buckbee, 275 U.S. 274, 72 L.Ed. 277; Union Trust Co. v. Glosman, 245 U.S. 412, 62 L.Ed. 368; Augusta Bank v. Earle......
  • Stingily v. City of Jackson, 24970
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1925
    ...must be very clear; that they are not favored and will not be indulged if there is any other reasonable construction. Asher v. Moyse, 101 Miss. 36; 25 R. C. L., 914, 921. A familiar rule of statutory construction is that significance and effect shall, if possible, be accorded to every secti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT