Court Opinion

ID: 9828258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:14:32.042676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:46.653466
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing and to Certify.
The appellee, in its motion for rehearing, contends that our discussion of the condition of the law merchant, prior to the adoption of the Negotiable Instruments Law, in this state, is pointless, and does not justify our holding “a plain statute void.” The writer regrets his inability to make clear the meaning of the court. We did not intend to hold any statute void. We were trying to ascertain its meaning. Subdivision 4 of section 119 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is broad enough in its general terms to permit a discharge by novation, though there be no writing expressing the agreement of the parties, since novation was a recognized method of discharging a simple contract for the payment of money. The question then was whether this method of discharge provided by this subdivision of section 119 was limited by the provisions of section 122, which provided for the discharge by express renunciation. It 'was by no means plain to us that section 122 applied to release by novation, which character of release might be implied, and need not be by express language, as we pointed out in our former opinion. In case of doubt as to the meaning of a statute it is always permissible to examine into the history and condition of the law as it existed prior to the enactment of the statute. The language of section 122 suggested that the lawmakers were dealing with a particular character of discharge, distinct entirely from other recognized methods of discharge, such as novation. For this reason we thought the examination we made as to the prior law was necessary. It confirmed the impression which the mere reading of the statute suggests, and convinced us that this provision of the law was intended to apply to a technical express release or renunciation — another and distinct recognized means of discharging a note. We therefore adhere to our former conclusion.
On the motion to certify we will say that under present provisions of the statute the Supreme Court appears to have jurisdiction of this case on writ, of error, and no necessity for certification exists. Laws 1923, p. 110, and article 1521, R. S.