Statutory Construction: Reading Exception into Penal Statute

1921 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW of the fact that his legal title is not similarly restricted. See 2 TIFFANY, REAL PROPERTY, [2nd Ed.], Sec. 400; Tallmadge v. East Rizer Bank, 26 NX. Y. 105; Knapp v. flall, 20 N. Y. Supp. 42; Lowrance v. Woods, 54 Tex. Civ. App. 233; Chapin v. Dougherty, I65 Ill. App. 426; Allen v. Detroit, 167 Mich. 464. Naturally, the courts cannot define precisely what circumstances will be adequate to put a purchaser upon inquiry as to the existence of a general plan. In Tallmadge v. East River Bank, supra, the court said, "The uniformity of the position of all the houses on St. Mark's Place was probably sufficient alone to put the defendant on inquiry," and in the principal case the court said, "That (the uniform style of the houses) alone was, in .ay judgment, enough to put the defendant to inquiry." In both of these cases, however, there were other facts indicating the existence of a general plan. In Bradley v. Walker, 138 N. Y. 291, where the buildings in the restricted area were generally set back eight feet from the street, though parts of some of them encroached upon the space to be left open, the court said, regarding their uniform position, "But he (the defendant) was not bound to know from that circumstance that there was any binding agreement in reference to the open space." It is doubtful whether mere uniformity in style or in position should be sufficient to charge a party with notice of a general building plan. A better rule would seem to be that the uniformity of the houses in a restricted area is but one of the circumstances to be considered in determining whether a reasonable man would have been put upon inquiry. Uniformity in style or position might be so distinct as to have this effect.
doi:10.2307/1277129 fatcat:2ymwrdo6bfdehk2anwcea5onje