Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Chaffraix v. Shiff
92 U.S. 214
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1875-10-15
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- recognizing that judicially modifying a statute improperly substitutes “the judicial for the legislative department of the government”
- "To limit this statute in the manner now asked for would be to make a new law, not to enforce an old one. This is no part of our duty."
- “Every man should be able to know with certainty when he is committing a crime.”
- “To limit this statute in the manner now asked for would be [to] make a new law, not to enforce an old one. This is no part of [the Court’s] duty.”
- “It would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.”
- court cannot “introduce words” into statute
Citator
Chaffraix v. Shiff is no longer good law, at least in part: overruled by United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 (1960). 154 later decisions cite it, 1 of them negatively.
- Authority status
- negative
- Cited by
- 154 opinions
- Negative treatment
- 1 citing opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
The court below decreed specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real estate, which expressly stipulated that the purchaser should not be bound to accept the sale if the titles were not good and valid. The title offered was that of a purchaser at a confiscation sale, to whom, after the sale, Surget, the person as whose property the land was confiscated, had released, without warranty. We decided, in Wallach et al. v. Van Riswich, supra, p. 202, that such a title is not a complete and valid one; that it is ineffective beyond the life of Surget; and that his release did not enlarge it. Decree reversed.