Bartlett v. MorrisBartlett v. Morris
At thе trial of this case, in the Circuit court, the lessor of the plaintiff claimed title to the land in controversy, under the provisions of an act of an act of the general assembly of this State, which is in these words:
“An act for the benefit of Elizabeth Morris.
“ Sec. 1. Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of*267 Representatives of the State of Alabama, in general assembly convened, That Elizabeth Morris, an alien of Mobile county, be, and she is hereby, authorised to inherit, and have and hold, such of the estates of her late uncle James D. Wilson, as she might have inherited by law, had she nоt been an alien ; and that the same shall not escheat to the State. — Approved 9th January, 1836.”
It was shewn in evidence, that Wilson was an alien, and and that he diеd seized and possessed of the land. The lessor of the plaintiff was also an alien, as was her father and mother, — the latter being the sister of Wilson, The Circuit cоurt instructed the jury, that although Wilson was an alien, and the lessor of the plaintiff was also an alien, yet, that by virtue of the recited ait, such alien-age did not preclude iter f.om recovering the land sued for. If an error was committed by giving this instruction to the jury, it will be unnecessary to examine the other questions presented on the rеcord, because their determination in favor of the lessor of the plaintiff will. not aid her, as her title depends solely on the act.
Some difference of opinion has been expressed by counsel, as to the rules of construction, applicable to statutes of this description, — the defendant insisting, that when they operate as grants, they ought to be strictly construed, and that nothing can be taken -under them by intendment or implication : — the adverse party contending, that they should be expounded with the utmost liberality, so as to completely effect the beneficial object contemplated. We, however, are not аware of any rules defined by the law for the interpretation of private statutes, other than, or different from those, which are useful to ascertain the
If circumstances might exist, under which every wprd of this act can have an effectual operation, then it is certain, that there is nothing doubtful or obsсure in its terms, and the general assembly must be presumed to have contemplated the existence of such circumstances, before the act can tаke effect. No principle is more firmly established, or rests on more secure foundations, than the rule which declares, when a law is plain and unambiguous, whethеr it be expressed in general or limited terms, the legislature shall be intended to mean what they have plainly expressed, and consequently no room is left for сonstruction — (U. States vs. Fisher,
If Wilson, when he died was a citizen, possessed of inheritable estates; if the lessor of the plaintiff was the alien daughter of a citizen mоther, and the latter be a sister of Wilson, born since eighteen hundred and two, and whom he had survived : and there being no remote heirs to him, on whom the law cast the desceut: then every word of this act would have effect. It would be for the benefit oí Elizabeth Morris; by it, she would be author-ised to-inherit, and have and hold, such of the estates of her dеceased uncle, as she might have inherited by law, had she not been an alien : and the same would not then escheat to the State — (2 Kent’s Com. 45.) This is given as an illustration of one case only, but it is supposed
All the doubt thrown around this case, arises from the facts disclosed at the trial, and not from any uncertainty of the statute. The lessor of the plaintiff, unable to bring herself within the conditions required by the act, claims to have it сonstrued to suit the circumstances shown, and give her the estate : this cannot be: resort is not permitted to extrinsic facts, to ascertain the meaning of a statute otherwise clear; for if so, the same words, under variant circumstances, might receive different constructions; and what would be law, when, applied to оne individual, might cease to be so, when applied to another.
If it is admitted, that the statute is uncertain and ambiguous, the construction contended for. by the lessоr of the plaintiff cannot be supported. The whole force of the argument rests on the assumption, that as the act is entitled for her benefit, it should recеive such an exposition, as will advance her interest. In aid of this, it is insisted that the concluding words of the act can have no effect under the circumstancеs disclosed, unless the estate is given to her, as it will otherwise remain as a waif, to be seized by the first lord of the soil who chooses' to assert his dominion over the derelict domain. The terms used by the act, import an intention to confer a benefit, in one event only : if the lessor of the plaintiff would have been entitled to the lаnd, if born a citizen, - or not an alien, then the State permits her to take it, notwithstanding her alienage: it is nothing more than a removal of the defect, or want of inheritable blood:
Nothing, then, remains to support the pretensions of the lessor of the plaintiff, save the title of the act, and this has by no means the controlling influence which is claimed for it. In England, the title of a statute is not to be regarded in construing it, because it is no part of the statute— (Ld. Raymond, 77.) In this country, it has been held, when a statute is ambiguous, and its intention is to be ascertаined by construction, its title claims a degree of notice, and should receive its due share of consideration — (U. States vs. Fisher et al. 2 Crunch. 358.) So, also, the title cannot control the words of an act, although it may furnish some aid in showing what was the mind of the legislature — (United States vs. Palmer,
It is conceded, (which, indeed, could not be properly controverted,) that Wilson could transmit no estate by descent, еven to a citizen.
Our conclusion, then, is, that the act recited did not cause a transmission of the title held by Wilson, at his death, to the land in controversy, to the lessor of the plaintiff; and the judgment of the Circuit court is reversed, and, if desired, the cause will be remanded.