Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Interpretation Statutes 1917
Interpretation Statutes 1917
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The University of Pennsylvania Law Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.*
(207)
14215 U. S. 679.
ITEven the rule that a statute adopted from another state is adopted
with the construction previously put upon it in that state, is not of un-
qualified operation. It does not apply where the act adopted is of a common
type, variously construed in various states. Valjago v. Carnegie Steel Co.,
226 Pa. 514.
1o I Cox 327.
18a IO0 U. S. II5. -Strong quotes from Bacon's Abridgement: "A statute
ought upon the whole to be so construed that if it can be prevented, no
cause, sentence, nor word shall be superfluous, void or insignificant."