Maxim 1.5.321
If an affirmative statute, which is introductive of a new law, direct a thing to be done in a certain manner, that thing shall not, even although there are no negative words, be done in any other manner.
Source: Cook v. Kelley, 12 Abb. Pr. 35, 36; Wharton, III-131
Difficulty 3/5 — Intermediate
Explanation
(English-origin maxim.) When a statute prescribes a specific method for performing an act, that method is exclusive — compliance by any other means is invalid even though the statute contains no express prohibition of alternatives.
Where this applies
- A state statute requires voter registration to be completed at the county clerk's office, and a court strikes down an online registration system because the law specified a particular manner and that manner is exclusive.
- A tax code mandates that property tax appeals be filed by certified mail, and an appeal submitted by email is rejected because the statute's prescribed method is the only valid one.
- A corporate bylaw requires that board elections be conducted by written ballot, and a verbal vote at a meeting is held invalid because the prescribed manner must be followed even without an explicit prohibition of alternatives.
Legal domains
Cite this maxim
NeCede Max. 1.5.321 — If an affirmative statute, which is introductive of a new law, direct a thing to be done in a certain manner, that thing shall not, even although there are no negative words, be done in any other manner. — Cook v. Kelley, 12 Abb. Pr. 35, 36; Wharton, III-131
Found an error? Suggest a correction →