Section 2304
- Citation
- Section 2304
- Parent Document
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 1968-03-27
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Brown v. Southall Realty Company, 237 A.2d 834 (1968)
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
- Section 2304
Full Text
876 charsTo this general rule, however, the courts have found exceptions. For the exception, resort must be had to the intent of the legislature, as well as the subject matter of the legislation. The test for the application of the exception is pointed out in Pangborn v. Westlake, 36 Iowa 546, 549, and approved in Miller v. Ammon, 145 U.S. 421, 426, 36 L.Ed. 759, 762, 12 Sup.Ct.Rep. 884, as follows: “We are, therefore, brought to the true test, which is, that while, as a general rule, a penalty implies a prohibition, yet the courts will always look to the subject matter of it, the wrong or evil which it seeks to remedy or prevent, and the purpose sought to be accomplished in its enactment; and if, from all these, it is manifest that it was not intended to imply a prohibition or to render the prohibited act void, the court will so hold and construe the statute accordingly.”