RAINEY v. W.R. GRACE & CO.(1914)
[231 U.S. 703, 704] Mr. William H. Gorham for Mary F. Rainey
No appearance for W. R. Grace & Company.
Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
This case is here on certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit. The facts stated show that the appellant caused fifty or more copies of the apostles on appeal in an admiralty case to be printed under the 1st section of the act of Congress of February 13, 1911 ( 36 Stat. at L. 901, chap. 47, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 275). The appeal was taken from the district court of the United States for the western district of Washington, and the copies of the apostles were printed and indexed under a rule of that court adopted June 13, 1911, in pursuance of the act of February 13, 1911. In due time the appellant filed one of the printed copies, certified by the clerk, and under the seal of the court below, in the circuit court of appeals, and moved that court to here the case without the payment by the appellant of the fees of the clerk of the circuit court of appeals for indexing the record, as prescribed by 9 of rule 23 of that court, and without the payment by the appellant of the fees of the clerk for indexing the record and distributing copies, as provided in that section. Section 9 provides:
On this statement the circuit court of appeals certifies to this court two questions, namely:
The answer to these question requires a construction of the act of Congress of February 13, 1911, which is, in part, as follows:
And a construction of the act requires a consideration of prior statutes on the subject. On February 19, 1897 (29 Stat. at L. 536, chap. 263, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 557, Congress passed an act amending the circuit court of appeals act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 826, chap. 517, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 547), providing:
This is the charge provided for in rule 23 of the circuit court of appeals referred to in the certificate.
Before the passage of the act of February 13, 1911, the clerks of the district and circuit courts charged for a transcript of the record in preparing the case for review in the circuit court of appeals, which transcript was usually written or typewritten, and not required to be printed, the fee for such service being fixed ( 828, Rev. Stat. U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 635). The printing was done under the supervision of the clerk of the circuit court of appeals after the allowance of appeal or writ of error under the regulations above set forth.
In this state of the law, Congess came to deal with the subject in the act of February 13, 1911. The act is entitled: 'An Act to Diminish the Expense of Proceedings on Appeal and Writ of Error or of Certiorari;' and especially when read in the light of the report of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the House, which accompanied its introduction into that body, shows that its main purpose is to reduce the expense of records upon which cases may be taken to and considered in the circuit courts of appeals and this court. This was to be accomplished by dispensing with a written or typewritten transcript of the record of the lower court, and substituting therefor a certified copy of the printed record, other copies of which should be available for use in the further consideration of the case in the appellate courts. With these ends in view the act provides that the appellant or plaintiff in error shall cause to be printed under such rules as the lower court (the circuit or district court) shall pre- [231 U.S. 703, 708] scribe, and shall file in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of appeals, twenty-five printed transcripts of the record. The form in which the transcript shall be printed, the act provides, shall be prescribed by this court, which, on March 13, 1911, made the following order:
Section 2 of the act provides for the use of such printed transcripts of the record, should the case be taken from the circuit court of appeals to this court. The evident purpose of the act is therefore, among other things, to save expenses incurred under the former system in printing records, the clerks' fees for supervising, etc.
In view of this history of the legislation and its manifest purposes we think that, when the court below by its rule had, as in the present case, provided for the printing and indexing of the record, which had been done, and the printed transcript had been filed under the statute with the clerk of the circuit court of appeals, no fee for the like service can be charged by the clerk of the circuit court of appeals. To permit this would be subversive of the purposes of the statute and a continuance of the system which the act was designed to change.
It is true that there is no express repeal of the act of [231 U.S. 703, 709] February 19, 1897, granting authority to this court to fix the fees in the circuit courts of appeals, under which the rule referred to in the certificate was adopted, and under which it is contended by the clerk of the circuit court of appeals he is entitled to a fee for indexing, etc., and under which rule, if the clerk performs any of the services designated, he is entitled to the entire fee (Bean v. Patterson, 110 U.S. 401 , 28 L. ed. 190, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 23). It is equally true that repeals by implication are not favored, and that it is only in cases of clear inconsistency that a later act will be held to repeal a former one on the same subject. We think that in the present case clear inconsistency exists, and that the rule invoked in the certificate of the circuit court of appeals cannot stand consistently with the act of Congress of February 13, 1911, on the same subject. See King v. Cornell, 106 U.S. 395 , 27 L. ed. 60, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 312.
It may also be true that the supervision by clerks of the circuit courts of appeals will tend to uniformity of printing, better indexing, and consequent greater facility in hearing cases upon appeal and writ of error. But Congress, with full authority, has regulated the matter, and it is the duty of the courts to enforce the legislation with a view to effecting the purposes for which it was enacted.
We are therefore of the opinion that the later act, that of February 13, 1911, repeals the table of fees as to the fees of the clerk of the circuit court of appeals in the case mentioned under the facts certified. It follows that the first question certified by the Circuit Court of Appeals must be answered in the affirmative, and the second question also in the affirmative so far as the fee in question to the clerk of the Circuit Court of Appeals is involved.
It is so ordered.