Hertz v. Woodman

Citations

• 218 U.S. 205
• 30 S. Ct. 621
• 54 L. Ed. 1001
• 1910 U.S. LEXIS 2016
• 5 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 5534

Syllabus

<p>Where, as in this case, the certificate sufficiently states both the question and the desire of the Circuit Court of Appeals for instructions so that it may make a proper decision, it conforms in substance to . the provisions of § 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826.</p> <p>The rule, of stare decisis tends to uniformity and consistency of decision but it is not inflexible, and it is within the discretion of a court to follow or depart from its prior decisions.'</p> <p>It is the practice of this court to affirm without opinion where the judgment under review is not decided to be erroneous by a majority of the court sitting in the cause.</p> <p>While the affirmance of a judgment by this court by a divided court is a conclusive adjudication between the parties, it is not an authority on the principles of law involved for the determination of other cases in this or in inferior courts; and this, although a different rule has been sanctioned in England.</p> <p>While an unqualified repeal of a law operates to destroy inchoate rights as a release of imperfect pbligations and as a remission of penalties and forfeitures dependent upon, the destroyed statute, § 13, Rev. Stat.,. based on § 4 of the act of February 25, 1871, c. 71, 16 Stat, 431, operates, unless the repealing act does not expressly or by implication exclude such operation, as a general saving clause for all repealing statutes and extends not only to penalties and forfeitures but to liabilities under the repealed statute. Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States, -208 TJ. S. 452.</p> <p>Upon the passing by death of a vested right to the immediate possession or enjoyment of a legacy or distributive share there was imposed by the inheritance tax provisions of the War Revenue Act of 1898 the tax or duty exacted upon every such right of succession which was saved by the saving clause of the repealing act of April 12,1902. Mason v. Sargent,• 104 U. S. 689, distinguished.</p> <p>Although in the st