*1 527 Act, and, therefore, cause Uniform Stock Transfer appoint could no receiver. he While the factual situation ours, clear there differed from it is that the court to a came agree. conclusion with which we could not hand, ample authority directly sup On the other there is porting opinion, out the views set in this as heretofore ex pressed Daniel Chancellor F. in Hodson Wolcott v. Hod acting son, supra, by the Vice Chancellor in this case be Harvey Harvey, (7 Cir.,) 653; Rogers v. low. See 290 F. v. Guaranty Co., 123, Trust U.S. 53 S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. McQuillen 720; Register 89 A.L.R. v. National Cash Co., F.Supp. 53; (D.C.Md.,) (4 Cir.) 877; 112 F.2d affirmed Corporation Sylvania Industrial v. Estate, eld’s Lilienf (4 Cir.) 887,145, 132 F. 2d A.L.R. 612. Chancery of the Court of decree will be affirmed. Company, Du de E. I. Pont Nemours Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs. George R. S. Gilbert Clark, Elwood S. Pierce, Leach,
Levy County, Court Commissioners New Castle Al Plumbing Inspector bert B. for New Castle CONNOR, County Tidwell, Building Inspector and John F. County, New Castle
Defendants-Appellees. Supreme Court, May 5, 1952. Appeal, On *2 Tunnel, Justices, Herrmann, Wolcott sitting. Judge,
Hugh George Coulson, Morris, T. M. Morris and Steele, Arsht, appellant. Nichols and for Taylor,
William S. and Satterthwaite Clarence W. for appellees. Justice,
Wolcott, delivering opinion majority of the court: declaratory judgment
This anis action for a to the ef- building being appellant fect that a erected the on its property Hundred, County, in Mill Creek New Castle property purposes and, such, to be used industrial ex- empt Plumbing provisions from Building the and the County. Upon filing Codes New Castle of the amended complaint, agents appellees and their were restrained demanding appellant permits obtain under the building. codes in connection with the construction of its appellees complaint The moved to dismiss and to dis- restraining hearing, solve the order. After final the Vice judgment dissolving restraining Chancellor entered dismissing (See p. 313, and order action. ante. 85 A.2d 721.) judgment appeal From this has been taken. necessarily motion to
The dismiss admitted the allegations complaint. truth amended The fol lowing facts, therefore, may be taken as established for the purposes appeal. of this appellant, corporation, extensively-
The a Delaware engaged manufacturing selling products and chemical throughout foreign countries, the United States is, generally speaking, engaged in the industrial chemical objects purposes In order to business. further the of its business, appellant provide it is essential labora- tories, factories, warehouses, buildings and office for the use executive, clerical, employees. of its technical and The other performed by categories functions its of all indispensable each appellant’s to and from the indissoluble industry. activities in the chemical particular building appellant sought by appellees subject provisions to made to the of the Build- ing Plumbing County and the Codes of New Castle of- construction, sale, fice now under not for but for the appellant’s Engineering Department use of the in connec- appellant’s tion with its functions in the business.
Upon facts, appellant basis of these contends that involved in this cause falls within two of the ex- emptions provided enabling for in the statutes under which Building Plumbing promulgated by and the Codes were Levy County.1 Court of New Castle *4 pertinent judice they
In so far as are sub cause only the statutes similar. are concerned with the ex- We emption provisions appellant found in both seeks since bring exemptions. itself within two of Each those statute exemptions exceptions five contains or provisions. substantially These are follows: as (1) necessary operation Structures of farm lands;
(2) Properties incorporated city located within town; or Act, amended, 44, Vol. present Building is found in Code as The Delaware, Delaware, 84, 45, Laws Ch. Laws Ch. and Vol. amended, 44, Act, found in Vol. Laws Plumbing The Code Delaware,
Delaware, Ch. 112. and Vol. Laws Ch. (3) Properties purposes; used for industrial (4) Properties by built industrial concerns for the use sale; of their not for
(5) Properties by owned individuals who desire to do their work. own
Appellant argues it is now construct- ing provisions from the of the codes reason of exemptions Exemp- will numbered and 4. first consider tion 3.No. argues adjective
Appellant that the “industrial” means having to, with, pertaining relating to do to or connected production, industry with or the manufacture of com- and, such, sufficiently meaning modities has broad any property embrace of an industrial concern used in con- with generally. nection its business
Appellees argue adjective “industrial,” that the as used in consideration, synonymous the acts under with “manu- facturing” Exemption only buildings and that No. 3 covers properties actually manufacturing process. used in a Broadly speaking, appellees contend that factories are Exemption included in No. 3.
The decisions to which we are cited both sides are question. dispositive language not referred to We are appearing opinions dealing in comparable with somewhat problems statutory construction which the words “in- “industry” “manufacturing” dustrial” or are defined. We particularly helpful do think cases are these in the solu- problem except tion which are faced they we preciseness the lack indicate definition of the word consequent “industrial” and the for need the resolution of an apparent ambiguity exemptions in the contained in the that can statutes. most be said the authorities to point they cited on been is that demon- *5 that under some circumstances the strate word “industrial” may pertaining industry, to all of an that, mean facets
532 circumstances, may the actual
under other it mean factory. process think it of manufacture carried on in a scope exemption may plain that determined be solely by dictionary. reference to a necessity faced, therefore, with the
areWe construing In exemptions before us. two statutes statutory doing, give words a required to the we are so meaning light of their intent in the reasonable and sensible 655; Terry 126, Hoopes, 5 A.2d purpose. Petition 1 420, Apartment Springer, 22 A.2d Darling Del.Ch. Co. v. 25 object statutory 397, construction is A.L.R. 803. The meaning practical to a give, possible, if a sensible and may applied it in future cases as statute as a whole so that be present difficulty. court must without well as one Legisla guided necessarily by presumption that be unreasonable, unworkable did not intend an absurd or ture object sought If from the statute a to be result. as whole the general underlying statutory or the intent lan attained given guage ascertained, can it will effect the courts. be supra. Darling Apartment Springer, v.Co. determining meaning ambiguous statutory
In appreciation may language, an of the results which follow may, occasion, possible one construction or another on placed upon to the correct construction to be be conclusive as irrational, language, impractical since an or excessive Legis- presumably could not have been intended result 448, 298; State, Roland Park Co. v. 80 Md. 31 A. Com- lature. 792; People’s Peoples, 576, A.2d v. 345 Pa. monwealth Bray, 233; Holding v. 118 Conn. 173 A. St. Paul’s Co. Concord, 531, L.R.A., City 75 N.H. 75 A. v. Church portions exemptions no less than other (N.S.,) 910. Since application of the rule of are entitled to reason- a statute construction, particular construction of able appears adopted construction to be the when such will be legis- underlying in accordance only reasonable one give fixed, permanent will and certain intent which lative *6 easily Statutes, applied Jur., to cases. 50 Am. rule future 431; Langdon Doud, Allen, (Mass.,) v. §
Appellant argues that the statutes under consider derogation right ation are of its common-law to the free unhampered and, therefore, and use of should be strictly application, construed so as to narrow their while argue appellees designed promote that statutes safety public that, accordingly, health liberally as a whole statutes should be construed and the ex emptions operations in their narrowly confined pos as think sible. neither the so-called rules of strict or liberal problem construction are much aid in the before us. What ever the nature be, of the statute under may construction object primary of construction is to reach a result in con formity supposed policy of the statute. Once the policy determined, statute is the task of construction eased for result then need be tested the rules conformity of reasonableness and policy with the statute.
It any completely is difficult to arrive at satisfactory respect precise conclusion with to the intent with which the exemptions included we are concerned with. enabling designed promote Since acts are public safety, it health and is difficult to ascribe reason to the properties exclusion industrial it for would be unreason- they public able assume do not affect the health and and, safety therefore, required need to conform to the general plumbing and presumably standards de- signed safeguard public safety. health and Since, ob- viously, properties purposes used industrial can affect safety public properties health as well not used for purposes, industrial some other reason must have led to the properties operative exemption of such effect of the authority adopted pursuant to the codes contained in the type property. exempting statutes explanation that placed The most rational can be upon exemption purposes used for industrial designed and, industry thus, to favor at *7 County theory it New on tract to that the indus Castle growth county community. of trial benefit Legislature policy is in this not novel state. The has Such long county provided exemption prop from taxation of for designated “upon erty any in which located certain areas manufacturing improvements for the or other industrial em Code, erected.” ployment of labor shall be 1935 The § Delmar, by Del., 182, Laws Ch. of 45 of the Town Council of exempt “any 14, ¶6, is from taxation in Sec. authorized locating Town,” dustry contemplates pro within said which the number of its shall warrant such an vided ex City of emption. The Council of the New Castle is author Del., 163, ized, upon 37 Laws Ch. remit taxes levied of upon “any manufacturing new estate other in real improvements employment for the of labor” shall dustrial be authority upon is conferred been erected. same or have Georgetown, Del., by 25 Laws Town of Council Ch. of 1, Del., 192, 15, Laws 202, ¶2, Ch. Sec. Sec. and 36 of Smyrna authorized to from of tax Town Council any personal property manufacturing and “used in real ation * * * employing persons.” not less than six Other business shown of the favoritism industrial instances establishments foregoing cited,2 practice but the suffice to show the can be respect. this in Legislature mind, in policy of the it re- With Laws ton); Laws Ch. Delaware Del., ¶2 Laws of 21 Sec. Seaford); (Town [2] 746, E. Ch. of of 33 (Town g., Sec. Del., Del., Del., Laws 159, City); of Laws of 18 43 Laws Newport); 28 Sec. Ch. Ch. Ch. of of 24 Laws (Town Dagsboro); 175, 131, 21 Del., (Town Sec. Sec. Sec. Del., Del., of Ch. Laws 24 of Dover); XXVIII 31 128, Del., 43 Ch. Ch. of ¶6 (Town Laws Camden); 189, Sec. 161, (Town Ch. of 24 (Town Del., Sec. of 21 Sec. 209, 12 of Laws Del., Newark); (Town Sec. Ch. 43 of Delmar). (Town Ch. of (Town Laws 199, Clayton); 18 Del., 184, of (Town Sec. of Middletown); 19 of Sec. of Ch. Wyoming); Laws Del., 18 Milford); 43 28, of 195, (Town Laws Harring Ch. ¶2 of Sec. (City Del., 161, 33 18 of of 3, quires great same no effort that the to reach the conclusion policy exemption indus- dictated the “used for Building purposes” operation trial Plumbing urged opposition It this con- Codes. cannot against any clusion real that the not relieve does reading Building Plumbing burdens. A Codes require- sufficient to from their manifold show relief ments, inspections permit would be a favor. necessities Furthermore, permit fees this cause would amount $7,861.50. event, to a total of In are not concerned enabling with the wisdom either of the enactment stat- themselves, exemp- utes or of the inclusion within them of tions. It exemptions sufficient us conclude evidently we are concerned with intended in- to be an *8 conferring ducement or the of a favor. We think that legislative policy exemptions. establishes behind the the apparent policy the exemp Since embodied in the attracting industry, tions is that of not think we do that justified would unduly restricting qualifying judi be in by or interpretation cial this invitation. cannot believe that the Legislature intended to invite factories to Delaware. must components have considered the other of a modern industrial concern to be beneficial as to the local community factory being so, the itself. This we think the proper phrase the “properties construction of used for indus purposes” phrase trial should be that the prop includes all of an industrial indispensable erties concern essential and to operations indissoluble from the industrial con the Obviously, cern. under pleadings us, the state before building being appellant the constructed for the use Engineering Department of its falls within this definition. suggested It is it is as consistent with reason to properties exemption of used conclude that the for industrial purposes in the was included statutes under consideration as overcoming passage opposition a means of to the of the en- abling legislation. to ascribe We hesitate such motive to the Legislature in the of clear evidence that absence such was fact, think the fact re-
the actual but we that if that were legislation by industry opposition sult is If the same. to proportions had attained as to threaten de- such formidable statutes, likely opposition feat it would seem such only by complete exemption of the could been overcome industry. Therefore, properties if this view the used held, exemption must, purpose exemption behind or, accurately, light legislative intent, bar- in the more gain, properties held of an industrial be to embrace all operation. concern essential to statutory to tested This conclusion is be rule different construc- construction to the effect that one two adopted if it to reasonable re- will be will lead a more tions application of statute is sult as far as future concerned application Exemption To limit the than would the other. process purely in the to used actual of man- No. ufacturing difficulty to future would lead administra- interpretation Obviously, under such an tion of the law. nothing factory building exempt. used for else would be In however, question event, nonexemp- or wing added to such a concerned a be con- tion personnel executive in connection with the offices for tain difficulty experienced in operation, determin- plant wing ing appendage factory to a was whether such ex- separate subject empt was be considered as a structure provisions of the codes. Variations from one extreme *9 thought prob- of which would make the the can to other For example, even more difficult. of administration lem buildings include to or not to or lab- whether house testing materials, the of raw or for finished oratories storage garages of trucks used to deliver for the the finished loading warehouses, platforms sidings, on railroad product, closely integrally related to but not establishments or other part of conversion indispensable the of raw an materials to present many perplexing products, problems finished resolving on the their solution of depending for difficult fac- analysis easily the questions; and in last could result in tual arbitrary capricious of or exemption determinations non-exemption.
In view difficulties of of law administration adoption that would be inherent in an of the construction urged by appellees, to in line constrained hold legis- with the authorities we referred to and with the concerning policy exemptions, lative that being by appellant now constructed for the use its En- gineering Department ais pur- used for inudstrial meaning poses Exemption within the 3.No. respect
The result proper we have reached with to the given Exemption construction to be No. sup- 3 finds added port meaning proper Exemption from No. which appellant argues exempts property. agree also its doWe argument appellant’s with respect, this but we think exemptions necessarily two must be considered to- gether. meaning Each clarifies the other.
Exemption exempts properties by No. 4 built industrial employees for concerns the use of their and not for sale. The exemption Vice applied only Chancellor concluded that the properties by constructed industrial concerns for the use of employees their which use the themselves enjoyment or some benefit. He held that derive the use re- ferred to was not use for the benefit of the company but for benefit of the employees. individual agree with conclusions of the Vice Chan respect proper cellor language construction Exemption “Use,” as defined in No. Webster’s New In Dictionary, Edition, ternational Second contains connota deriving by personal benefit tions of or service the user him Dictionary, self, (Rawle’s in 2 Bouvier’s Law Rev.) 3rd page 3380, enjoys thing. one who “user” defined as This being Exemption so, it obvious No. 4 seems was intend apply ed made an available industrial con enjoyment personal cern use employees. country housing example, For clubs units erected *10 personal employees concern of its industrial for the use might fall within the under consideration. Exemption No. do not think this construction of respect to with the reached with conflicts conclusion Exemption exempts by in- properties No. which used an purposes indispensable concern indis- dustrial for to and from There is whether soluble its industrial activities. doubt by properties an industrial and owned concern made avail- personal employees for their to its use benefit would able Exemption No. 3. It at doubtful fall within is least whether type upon of does more than fall the the latter Hence, sphere Exemption the of periphery No. it would of Exemption the inclusion of 4 was obvious No. seem of realization of this made because doubt. Exemptions
The combined result 3 and Nos. property is, therefore, exempt all of an industrial general purposes, in furtherance concern used business particular property indispensable use of whether company’s activities, from indissoluble industrial designed or, promote friendly employee the use is whether and, indirectly relationships thus, further the welfare of the company. exemptions two construction is tested
If this result, its correctness is demon- reasonableness the rule of contrary respect Exemption with view No. If the strated. exemptions two effect of the in- adopted, the combined 3 is theory as a reasonable result for under defensible appellees’ If accepted, view have intended. Legislature to directly an property of industrial concern th,en process manufacture, actual connection used enjoyment company’s personal used provisions of codes. re- This be theory promotes that it explained on the pub- sult cannot safety classification since made with re- lic health corporation’s types bears varied spect to *11 no safeguarding safety. reasonable relation to health and Nor, light hand, on the other is such in the result reasonable apparent favoring of purpose exemptions, viz., the the industry types business, of other irra- over since such an tional property classification of the industrial concern’s way industry would offer little in the an inducement seeking County desiring initially locate New Castle and position regulatory to knów exact under various laws. In seeking determination, to make such a the industrial concern application would be faced with the same difficulties of exemptions as would be the encountered in the actual admin- istration of the law. necessity choosing
We are faced with the between produce which two alternatives two different results. We prefer making that result an effective of all in- property. easy dustrial It is of administration and a fur- appears underlying therance of what legislative be the policy. It is therefore reasonable and rational construction placed upon exemptions. reject urged to be the result by appellees contrary. which would be it, the exact Under administration the law in difficult, the future would be and furthermore classification of industrial concerns' types appear arbitrary of varied to be upon no reasonable connection property, based between the expressed industry, and purpose of the statutes. circumstances, such necessity Under faced with the choosing two one of results as one Legis- intended lature, accept prefer to appears one like- more legislative ly appealed to the mind as reasonable. foregoing, judgment in the forth set For the reasons dismissing the and dissolving cause Vice Chancellor and the restraining order will be reversed cause remand- proceedings further to take conform- instructions ed with opinion. ity with (dissenting) :
Tunnell,
Justice
majority that this is one of
agree
those un-
I
statutory
key
is am-
in which
word
fortunate instances
making
courts, therefore,
use of
biguous.
upon
It falls
avoiding
logic
law,
scrupulously
principles of
but
Legislature,
lying
province
within the
considerations
question
ambiguity.
specific
whether the
to resolve the
*12
der-
here
narrow
was
used
the
sense
word “industrial”
relating
manufacture,
simply
suggests,
to
or in its
ivation
including
sense,
incidental
all the allied and
broader
much
manufacturing
may engage.
concern
in which a
activities
put upon ambiguous
interpretation to be
The correct
language
commonly
by
statutory
indicated
the
is
and
nature
legislation involved. Modern courts still ob-
purpose of the
construction,
principle of
which was de-
basic
serve this
following
in 1584 in
:3
by Lord Coke
the
words
scribed
judges
always make
the office of all the
is
to
such con-
“And then
mischief,
remedy,
suppress
advance the
shall
and to
struction
and evasions for
invention
continuance of the mis-
suppress
subtle
commodo,
chief,
privato
pro
and to add force and life to the cure
and
remedy, according
intent of
makers of
true
the act
and
publico."
pro bona
in
purpose of one of the statutes here
The avowed
purpose
other,
clearly
of the
evident
volved,
and
therefore,
public. They,
safety of the
and
the health
protect
legislation
recognized
usually
generally
field of
within
lie
public
foradvancement
welfare.”
“laws
to as
referred
uniformly declared themselves bound to con
courts
liberally,
language
so as to effect
of such statutes
strue
legislative
intent to
fullest reasonable
humanitarian
420; Southerland, Statutory
Jur.,
Construc
Am.
50
extent.
6604, 7201,
Horack,
corollary
7202. A
Secs.
Ed.)
(3rd
tion
actually
construction,
amounts
liberal
rule of
statement,
provisos, exemptions
inverse
to its
coverage
strictly
must be
of such laws
con
exceptions to the
Crawford, Statutory
458;
Am.Jur.,
Construc
§
50
strued.
Co.,
p. 609;
v. Consolidated Fisheries
McComb
tion, §
Cir.,
Supp. 798,
3
For reasons which seemed sufficient to the General As- sembly, necessity protect safety health and was set aside in thought certain cases where it was to conflict with industry. interests of That decision was made in the ex- legislative ercise of the function. But extent to which safety health and were thus set aside was limited a word which can be taken in either of Therefore, owing two senses. to the nature of the reason for enactment statutes, it is judicial responsibility to be certain that the curtailment application of the statutes is no more severe than the *13 Assembly clearly General directed it to be. proposed building
Now the use of this is for Ac- offices. cordingly, apply if we rule, the above-stated we must hold that an office is not one used for pur- “industrial” poses. majority opinion
The holds that exceptions must be broadly says construed because of what it language mind must have had in when the adopted. was The intent, says, industry. it was to favor Hence, it reasons, the carry legislative way to out the best intent is to favor indus- possible. process This try reasoning as far as confuses the quantum. intent with of an its character Because there was industry help extent, an intent to some it does not follow help very was to it to the that the intent limit of possibility. suggested specifically It reason indicates that the exceptions two instant purpose of the was to attract in- new County. dustry New Castle But is into this reasoning of ra- legislative It could be the actual tionalization? intent bill, passage of the and thus to assure to pacify was industry which already County. was located in New Castle any But case, perceive I principle no established which would prompt speculate, us to majority opinion as the has done, upon type bargain presumed which would be have been placate sufficient to representatives of indus- try at Dover.
But, putting analysis prob- our aside entire first lem, upon general purpose statute, based us let briefly just exceptions. they consider Whether in- were bring industry serted into the law in order to new New into. County, deny, Castle I opposi- which do not or to overcome statutes, assert, tion to accomplish which I do not or to entirely purpose some different of which the court has no knowledge, agree this, upon that, all must as stated majority, exceptions “intended were to be an inducement conferring granting or the of a favor.” This of a favor is a type legislation euphemistically familiar referred to as “public grants,” might accurately but which more be termed grants.” “private Exclusive conveyances franchises and grants. public majority opinion lands are such notes an- example, it other where cites numerous instances permitted governmental various of our state has subdivi- concerns, usually new time, sions a limited payment tax. majority from the To the the al- many exemptions of these tax lowance of so seems to demon- jurisdiction has in that our some ap- strate blanket fashion encouraged principle‘of proved favors, such and, duty placed upon therefore,, has the courts to construe legislation ambiguous type in that terms in such manner already favor the favored group. further class or I can *14 Borrowing agree. a show of scholarship in no sense from Heydon’s Case, supra, I in should Lord Coke call such reason- sacrificing ing publicum invention” “subtle bonum privatum. commodum implications majority’s practical interpreta- The very seems to not wholesome. It mean tion are if the any group seeking wily representative of interest special
543 through get preference pushing in can foot the door his explained in two a bill which can be read or ways, may rely upon fully to different then he courts open the door. legal precedent
Nor an inter- does seem favor such pretation. ascertain, firmly I So far as can it is established ambiguities “public grants” law that all in such against here are to be construed beneficiaries Statutory special Southerland, Construction, favors. See 64; (3rd Ed.) Horack, 3, Chenango Bridge Vol. Ch. v.Co. Binghamton Bridge Co., 51, 51, 70 U.S. 18 L.Ed. Wall. 137. statutes, particular Tax illustration used in majority opinion, appear materially not to differ grants. public typical A other statement of the rule forms Judge sitting Avery, uttered in such cases was in the Con- Errors, Supreme necticut Court Town Woodstock v. Retreat, Inc., 52, 232, 125 Conn. A.2d 233: enforced, sovereignty, an act “Taxation is to be so far as it be, justice conveniently equality Exemptions, can to all. meritorious, grace, strictly matter how no must be con- They only strictly embrace strued. what within their terms.” C.J.S., Licenses, page Southerland, also § See Statutory Construction, (3rdEd.) Horack, § yet why there another
But reason interpretation urged by appellant accept. is difficult to If we are to construe appellant exception as do, would third have us the fourth embarrassment. There one is an was no need for the fourth already applied exception if the third to all the incidental enterprise. In espects of an an industrial effort to avoid this appellant says overlapping, that the exception obvious third “necessary applies to such activities as are to and indis- operations. Hence, industrial from” the argued, it is soluble “3,” under but office club for be, certainly or would not employees would be. the source this criterion what is
But indissolubil- determine, sponsored it is not ity? I can far as So *15 “test,” indeed, book. Such a so-called will not bear itself scrutiny. indispensable is or What is to a is not business only prestige previous recognition without the a deter as standard, any quality objective minative it but lacks cer tainty. necessary relative, subjec What is a business thing, portrayal tive that so in tones of absolute black oversimplification. white What one man would call in dispensable industry to an equally another shrewd indus folly. trialist would appellant denounce as The perhaps could survive, albeit handicap, owning under some without this or any building. other office Perhaps it could in some fashion manage legal department, without a pensions employees, for or of several other entities measures now in use. Yet probably all these items somebody are “in regarded as dispensable.” fact, But a matter as a clubhouse for em ployees building, corporate and an office property, superficial different in a sense; they relative must common, this vital they characteristic that are de signed promote company’s success of the business. Otherwise there is no excuse existence, for their and the right board of provide directors would have no them. Dodge Ford Company, v. Motor Mich. 170 N.W. 3 A.L.R. 413. To hold that a clubhouse for is not necessary huge incident to a modern business concern finding be a of fact would difficult dangerous for courts and for boards directors. See cases collected in 3 A.L.R. majority opinion, principle in obedience to the re- quiring, possible, if applied such a construction be give meaning parts statute, will to all of a strives to establish exception some reason the existence of the fourth in the interpretation says, face of a broad of the third It one. summary, exceptions third and fourth com- were in order “to all of the bined of an industrial general used in furtherance of its pur- concern business * * legislative poses purpose if But truly was so why supposed simple, it that whoever drafted the statutes say why ? so exceptions lacked wit two And *16 thing? merely sought Now, if except if it were used one to “industrial,” interpretation the narrow of we see take things. exceptions applicable that two Be- the two become to ambiguous re- an word is included in a statute so as to cause quire judicial construction, that it not follow does statute poorly ordinary as a whole was so drawn that the rules of apply argument construction do not to it. This that exception simply fourth make inserted to sure was that periphery excepted, item on of the third be one would degree general incompetence in assumes a of draftsman- ship prepared I of the statutes which am not to concede. illogical majority suppose
To the it seems excepted buildings would have of the some corporation grasp and not others. I fail force judicial reasoning that if factories and facilities for the pleasure excepted, are then offices must neces- sarily excepted legislative have been as well. These are con- logic, If pure siderations. we were in the realm of we should very beginning, have been halted at the where the decision permit building super- was made to without safety vision as to the of their construction in order to insure many buildings possible. we shall have such If very exceptions inequity, themselves create an as must acknowledged eventually case, be to be the the instanc?s of inequality simply multiplied coverage if excep- tions is extended.
Appellant majority and the supposed make much of the difficulty enforcing the statutes if interpreta- the narrow adopted. tion of the word “industrial” majority opin- be gives examples problems ion several it is said would prove permissible most troublesome. It is to look at the alter- consequences interpretation native aid of an where, as here, ambiguous. the statute itself is If one alternative is sensible, absurd and the other the courts assume that Legislature intended 50 Am.Jur., the sensible result. § might here, for, although But that test is of no service there annoyances interpretation, under narrow there in- justice under absolutely broad one. An identical office location, in a similar but owned an insurance company bank, example, covered, would be while this exempt. Obviously courts, attempting one would be legislative intent, reconstruct should shrink from an in- terpretation type which would result in that of discrimina- system justice jurisprudence lightly tion. Under our is not surrendered to convenience. easy enforce,
Because a law will not be it does fol- *17 is, law, therefore, low that it nor if it is en- forced, likely “arbitrary such enforcement will be to be capricious.” the federal Fair One has to look at Labor Act career Standards to see how short its would have been weight. given if such a had been At consideration the last general variously count were fifteen worded there classes of coverage exemptions from the of that law. Yet the courts consistently generally applied liberally law have as applied, exceptions it and construed the could be as nar- rowly possible. enforcing any difficulty sug- has this law
Nor been gested problems constantly than is more serious aris- zoning. zoning municipal regulations ing field of In in the commonly made between “commercial” distinction buildings. usually there “industrial” distinctions upon in the based differences construction or use of the buildings question, rather than on in differences the man- money. far, however, their the owners make So ner which zoning laws, though administration of the difficulties of great, not been found to be insurmountable. reasons, independent therefore, separate and
For matter, my no sufficient answer which, in view of the has given, that we are here bound to construe I consider been my opinion sense. In in its narrow word “industrial” Chancery should have been judgment of the Court af- firmed.