In Winslow v. Morton 39 the court sums up the general principles touching implied repeals in the form of rules which it formulates as follows: (1) "That the law does not favor a repeal of an older statute by a later one by mere implication." (2) "The implication, in order to be operative, must be necessary, and if it arises out of repugnancy between the two acts, the later abrogates the older only to the extent that it is inconsistent and irreconcilable with it. A later and an older statute will, if it is possible and reasonable to do so, be always construed together, so as to give effect not only to the distinct parts or provisions of the latter, not inconsistent with the new law, but to give effect to the older law as a whole, subject only to restrictions or modifications of its meaning, when such seems to have been the legislative purpose. A law will not be deemed repealed because some of its provisions are repeated in a subsequent statute, except in so far as the latter plainly appears to have been intended by the legislature as a substitute." (3) "Where the later or revising statute clearly covers the whole subject-matter of antecedent acts, and it plainly appears to have been the purpose of the legislature to give expression in it to the whole law on the subject, the latter is held to be repealed by necessary implication.” Repeals by implication are not favored. This means that it is the duty of the court to so construe the acts, if 24 N. E. 647; McCarthy v. Mc. Carthy, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195; McConnell's Estate, 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 120. 39 118 N. C. 486, 491, 492, 24 S. E. 417. 40 Kinney v. Mallory, 3 Ala. 626; Cook v. Meyer Bros., 73 Ala. 580; Jackson v. State, 76 Ala. 26; Herr v. Seymour, 76 Ala. 270; Abernathy v. State, 78 Ala. 411; Gilmore v. State, 125 Ala. 59, 28 So. 382; State v. Watts, 23 Ark. 304; Banks v. Yolo County, 104 Cal. 258, 37 Pac. 900; Hilton v. Curry, 124 Cal. 84, 56 Pac. 784; Ex parte Dolan, 128 Cal. 460, 60 Pac. 1094; People v. Pacific Imp. Co., 130 Cal. 442, 62 Pac. 739; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195; Morris v. Hitchcock, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.) 565; Montgomery v. Board of Education, 71 Ga. 41; Central R. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 71 Ga. 461; Jensen v. Fricke, 133 Ill. 171, 24 N. E. 515; Cook County v. Gilbert, 146 Ill. 268, 33 N. E. 761; Trausch v. Cook possible, that both shall be operative." "When some office or function can by fair construction be assigned to both acts, and they confer different powers to be exercised for different purposes, both must stand, though they were designed County, 147 Ill. 534, 35 N. E. 477; Rich v. Chicago, 152 Ill. 18, 38 N. E. 255; People v. Raymond, 186 Ill. 407, 57 N. E. 1066; Quincy v. O'Brien, 24 Ill. App. 591; Reese v. Western Union Tel. Co., 123 Ind. 294, 24 N. E. 163, 7 L. R. A. 583; Central Iowa Ry. Co. v. Supervisors, 67 Iowa, 199, 25 N. W. 128; Lambe v. McCormick, 116 Iowa, 169, 89 N. W. 241; Stephens v. Ballou, 27 Kan. 594; Kansas City v. Kimball, 60 Kan. 224, 56 Pac. 78; Randall v. Butler County, 65 Kan. 20, 68 Pac. 1083; Elizabethtown, etc. R. R. Co. v. Elizabethtown, 12 Bush, 233; Saul v. His Creditors, 5 Martin (N. S.), 569, 16 Am. Dec. 212; Herbert's Succession, 5 La. Ann. 121; Desban v. Pickett, 16 La. Ann. 350; Nixon v. Piffet, 16 La. Ann. 379; Collins v. Chase, 71 Me. 434; Dugan v. Gittings, 3 Gill, 138; Higgins v. State, 64 Md. 419, 1 Atl. 876; Brown v. McCormick, 28 Mich. 215; Breitung v. Lindauer, 37 Mich. 217; Ryan's Case, 45 Mich. 173, 7 N. W. 819; State v. McCurdy, 62 Minn. 509, 64 N. W. 1133; Beck v. St. Paul, 87 Minn. 381, 92 N. W. 328; State v. Slover, 134 Mo. 10, 31 S. W. 1054, 34 S. W. 1102; Dawson County v. Clark, 58 Neb. 756, 79 N. W. 822; Williams v. Potter, 2 Barb. 316; Van Renssalaer v. Snyder, 9 Barb. 302, 308; People v. Deming, 1 Hilt. 271; Bowen v. Lease, 5 Hill, 221; State v. Monger, 111 N. C. 675, 16 S. E. 229; Walcott v. Skauge, 6 N. D. 382, 71 N. W. 544; Ex parte Van Hagan, 25 Ohio St. 426; Winters v. George, 21 Ore. 251, 27 Pac. 1041; Ladd v. Gambell, 35 Ore. 393, 59 Pac. 113; Street v. Commonwealth, 6 W. & S. 209; Brown v. County Com'rs, 21 Pa. St. 37; Hanover Borough's Appeal, 150 Pa. St. 202, 24 Atl. 669; Commonwealth v. De Camp, 177 Pa. St. 112, 35 Atl. 601; State v. Alexander, 14 Rich. 247; Ball v. Kirk, 37 S. C. 395, 16 S. E 151; State v. Beaufort, 39 S. C. 5, 17 S. E. 355; Co-Operative S. & L Ass'n v. Fawick, 11 S. D. 589, 79 N. W. 847; Hockaday v. Wilson, 1 Head, 113; Cate v. State, 3 Sneed, 120; State v. King, 104 Tenn. 156, 57 S. W. 150; Zickler v. Union Bank & T. Co., 104 Tenn. 277, 57 S. W. 341; Matter of Gannett, 11 Utah, 283, 39 Pac. 496; Davis v. Creighton, 33 Gratt. 696; Somers v. Commonwealth, 97 Va. 759, 33 S. E. 384; Augusta Nat. Bank v. Beard, 100 Va. 687, 42 S. E. 694; Harford v. United States, 8 Cranch, 109, 3 L. Ed. 504; Wood v. United States, 16 Pet. 342, 10 L. Ed. 987; Arthur v. Homer, 96 U. S. 137, 24 L. Ed. 811; Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596, 1 S. C. Rep. 434, 27 L. Ed. 251; Chew Heoug v. United States, 112 U. S. 536, 5 S. C. Rep. 255, 28 L. Ed. 770; Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206, 10 S. C. Rep. 527, 33 L. Ed. 879; Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682, 11 S. C. 41 State v. Dupuis, 18 Ore. 372, 23 Pac. 255. to operate upon the same general subject." "Considerations of convenience, justice and reasonableness, when they can be invoked against the implication of repeal, are always very potent." 43 "There must be such a manifest and total repugnance that the two enactments cannot stand." 44 "The earliest statute continues in force unless the two are clearly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other, or unless in the later statute some express notice is taken of the former plainly indicating an intention to repeal it; and where two acts are seemingly repugnant, they should, if possible, be so construed that the latter may not operate as a repeal of the former by implication." These expressions of opinion are supported by numerous cases.46 Rep. 222, 34 L. Ed. 832; Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46, 15 S. C. Rep. 532, 39 L. Ed. 614; United States v. Greathouse, 166 U. S. 601, 17 S. C. 701, 41 L. Ed. 1130; Smith v. Hick man, Cooke, 147; United States v. Twenty-five Cases of Cloth, Crabbe, 356, Fed. Cas. No. 16,563; Regina v. Inhabitants, 2 Q. B. 84. 147 Ill. 534, 35 N. E. 477; Rich v. 42 Woods v. Supervisors, 136 N.Y. 14, 46 N. E. 138; State v. Van Vliet, 403, 409, 32 N. E. 1011. 43 State 92 Iowa, 476, 61 N. W. 241; Lambe v. v. McCurdy, 62 Minn. McCormick, 116 Iowa, 169, 89 N. W. 509, 64 N. W. 1133. 44 Commonwealth v. De Camp, 177 Pa. St. 112, 35 Atl. 601. 241; Kansas City v. Kimball, 60 Kan. 224, 56 Pac. 78; Randall v. Butler County, 65 Kan. 20, 68 Pac. 45 People v. Raymond, 186 Ill. 407, 1083; State v. Casimere, 43 La. Ann. 57 N. E. 1066. 46 The following are some of the more important cases: City Council v. National B. & L. Ass'n, 108 Ala. 336, 18 So. 816; People v. Pacific Imp. Co., 130 Cal. 442, 62 Pac. 739; Lovelace v. Tabor Mines & Mills Co., 29 Colo. 62, 66 Pac. 892; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195; Jensen v. Fricke, 133 Ill. 171, 24 N. E. 515; Cook County v. Gilbert, 146 Ill. 268, 33 N. E. 761; Trausch v. Cook County, 442, 9 So. 438; Moore v. Minneapolis, 43 Minn. 418, 45 N.W. 719; State v. McCurdy, 62 Minn. 509, 64 N. W. 1133; State v. Stratton, 136 Mo. 423, 38 S. W. 83; Reinhardt v. Fritzoche, 69 Hun, 565, 23 N. Y. S. 958; Ackerson v. Supervisors, 72 Hun, 616, 25 N. Y. S. 196; People v. House of Refuge, 22 App. Div. 254, 47 N. Y. S. 767; Winslow v. Morton, 118 N. C. 486, 24 S. E. 417; Pease v. Ryan, 7 Ohio C. C. 44; Winters v. George, 21 Ore. 251, 27 Pac. 1041; One statute is not repugnant to another unless they relate to the same subject and are enacted for the same purpose. "It is not enough that there is a discrepancy between different parts of a system of legislation on the same general sub Co-operative S. & L. Co. v. Fawick, 11 S. D. 589, 79 N. W. 847; Matter of Gannett, 11 Utah, 283, 39 Pac. 496; University of Utah v. Richards, 20 Utah, 457, 59 Pac. 96, 77 Am. St. Rep. 928; Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46, 15 S. C. Rep. 532, 39 L. Ed. 614. In the following cases the question was a less important factor, but in each one the statutes in question were reconciled and there was held to be no repeal by implication: State v. Styles, 121 Ala. 363, 25 So. 1015; Johnson v. State, 132 Ala. 43, 31 So. 493; Capron v. Hitchcock, 98 Cal. 427, 33 Pac. 431; Malone v. Bosch, 104 Cal. 680, 38 Pac. 516; Nickey v. Stearns Ranches Co., 126 Cal. 150, 58 Pac. 459; Santa Cruz Rock Pav. Co. v. Lyons, 133 Cal. 114, 65 Pac. 329; Rathvon v. White, 16 Colo. 41, 26 Pac. 323; Canfield v. Leadville, 7 Colo. App. 453, 43 Pac. 910; Windom County Sav. Bank v. Himes, 55 Conn. 433, 12 Atl. 517; Bissell v. Dickerson, 64 Conn. 61, 29 Atl. 226; Gilbert v. Morgan, 18 D. C. Rep. (7 Mackey), 296; Hope v. Johnston, 28 Fla. 55, 9 So. 830; Ex parte Pells, 28 Fla. 67, 9 So. 833; Tampa v. Solomonson, 35 Fla. 446, 482, 17 So. 581; Georgia Southern & Fla. R. R. Co. v. George, 92 Ga. 760, 19 S. E. 813; Wilder's Sons Co. v. Walker, 98 Ga. 508, 25 S. E. 571; National Bank of Augusta v. Augusta Cotton Comp. Co., 104 Ga. 403, 30 S. E. 888; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Peoria, 156 Ill. 420, 40 N. E. 967; Canal Com'rs v. Sanitary Dist., 191 Ill. 326, 61 N. E. 71; Johnson v. People, 202 IIL 53, 66 N. E. 877; Neatherly v. People, 24 Ill. App. 273; Swigart v. People, 50 Ill. App. 181; S. C. affirmed, 154 Ill. 284; McGillen v. Wolff, 83 Ill. App. 227; White v. Wagar, 83 Ill. App. 592; S. C. affirmed, 185 Ill. 195; Bridge & Structural Iron Works Union v. Sigmund, 88 Ill. App. 344; Leeschke v. Miller, 100 Ill. App. 137; Allen v. Salem, 10 Ind. App. 650, 38 N. E. 425; Indianapolis v. Morris, 25 Ind. App. 409, 58 N. E. 510; Cedar Rapids, L. F. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Elseffer, 84 Iowa, 510, 51 N. W. 27; Sherman v. Des Moines, 100 Iowa, 88, 69 N. W. 410; Kansas Breeze Co. v. Edwards, 55 Kan. 630, 40 Pac. 1004; Adam v. Stephens, 88 Ky. 443, 11 S. W. 427; Commonwealth v. Pulaski County, 92 Ky. 197, 17 S. W. 442; Farson v. Board of Com'rs, 97 Ky. 119, 30 S. W. 17; O'Mahoney v. Bullock, 97 Ky. 774, 31 S. W. 878; Commonwealth v. Basham, 101 Ky. 170, 40 S. W. 253; Fidelity & Dep. Co. v. Commonwealth, 104 Ky. 579, 49 S. W. 467; Raubold v. Commonwealth, 21 Ky. L. R 1125, 54 S. W. 17; Murphy v. Louisville, 24 Ky. L. R. 1574, 71 S. W. 934; Kirk v. Robison, 25 Ky. L. R. 1633; State v. Police Jury, 45 La. Ann. 47 People v. Burtleson, 14 Utah, 258, 47 Pac. 87. 48 ject; there must be a conflict between different acts on the same specific subject." " When there is a difference in the whole purview of two statutes apparently relating to the same subject, the former is not repealed.19 Such is the gen 249, 11 So. 948; Portland R. R. Extension Co., Appellants, 94 Me. 565, 48 Atl. 119; Gans v. Carter, 77 Md. 1, 25 Atl. 663; Frostburg Min. Co. v. Cumberland, etc. R. R. Co., 81 Md. 28, 31 Atl. 698; Lake Superior Ship Canal, Ry. & L. Co. v. Aplin, 79 Mich. 351, 44 N. W. 616; Dowling v. Salliotte, 83 Mich. 131, 47 N. W. 225; Merriman v. Peck, 96 Mich. 603, 53 N. W. 1021; People v. Kinney, 110 Mich. 97, 67 N. W. 1089; Wayne County Sup'rs v. Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 33, 69 N. W. 83; Crane v. Circuit Judge, 111 Mich. 496, 69 N. W. 721; People v. Huntley, 112 Mich. 569, 71 N. W. 178; In re Bushey, 105 Mich. 64, 62 N. W. 1036; State v. Rieger, 59 Minn. 151, 60 N. W. 1087; State v. Anderson, 63 Minn. 208, 65 N. W. 265; Brown v. Heron Lake, 67 Minn. 146, 69 N. W. 710; State v. Holt, 69 Minn. 423, 72 N. W. 700; Kretzschmar v. Meehan, 74 Minn. 211, 74 N. W. 41; Louisville, N. O. & Tex. Ry. Co. v. State, 66 Miss. 662, 6 So. 203, 14 Am. St. Rep. 599, 5 L. R. A. 132; Jones v. Melchior, 71 Miss. 115, 13 So. 857; Kansas City v. Smart, 128 Mo. 272, 30 S. W. 773; State v. Summers, 142 Mo. 586, 44 S. W. 797; Albany v. Gilbert, 144 Mo. 224, 46 S. W. 157; Boone 48 Commonwealth v. De Camp, 177 Pa. St. 112, 116, 35 Atl. 601. 49 The King v. Downs, 3 T. R. 569; Bowen v. Lease, 5 Hill, 221, 225; United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. Co. Home Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anthony, 68 Mo. App. 424; Kirkpatrick v. Mo., K. & T. Ry. Co., 71 Mo. App. 263; Springfield v. Hubbel, 89 Mo. App. 379; Lamar v. Adams, 90 Mo. App. 35; Chadwick v. Tatem, 9 Mont. 354, 368, 23 Pac. 729; In re Board of Pub. Lands & Buildings, 37 Neb. 425, 55 N. W. 1092; Hopkins v. Scott, 38 Neb. 661, 57 N. W. 391: Holt Co. Bank v. Holt County, 53 Neb. 827, 74 N. W. 259; State v. Cobb, 44 Neb. 434, 62 N. W. 867; Beatrice Paper Co. v. Beloit Iron Works, 46 Neb. 900, 65 N. W. 1059; Rhea v. State, 63 Neb. 461, 88 N. W. 789; State v. Donnelly, 20 Nev. 214, 19 Pac. 680; State v. Tyrrell, 22 Nev. 421, 41 Pac. 145; School Dis. trict v. Prentiss, 66 N. H. 145, 20 Atl. 931; Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cem. Co., 58 N. J. L. 168, 33 Atl. 396; Bush v. Del., L. & W. R. R. Co., 166 N. Y. 210, 59 N. E. 838; Quinn v. New York, 68 App. Div. 175, 74 N. Y. S. 89; People v. Pugh, 57 Hun, 181, 10 N. Y. S. 684; People v. Vosburgh, 76 Hun, 562, 28 N. Y. S. 208; State v. Columbia George, 39 Ore. 127, 65 Pac. 604; Wm. Wilson & Son's Silversmith Co.'s Estate, 150 Pa. St. 285, 24 Atl. 636; Ferguson v. Pittsburgh, 159 Pa. St. 435, 28 Atl. 118; Hampe v. Traction Co., 165 546, 24 L. Ed. 1082; United States v. Gear, 3 How. 120, 11 L. Ed. 523, 838; Miller v. Edwards, 8 Colo. 528, 9 Pac. 632. |