73

§ 261. Same-Acts relating to officers, their election, appointment, removal, fees, compensation, etc.—A statute providing a new mode of filling an office by election or appointment repeals by implication prior laws fixing a different mode. A statute provided for the election by the people of U. of "a street commissioner to superintend the streets, roads and bridges of said city." This was held to repeal prior laws authorizing the city council to elect ten street commissioners. An act authorizing the city council by a two-thirds vote to remove any city officer for any of fense against the character or duty of his office is not repealed by a subsequent act providing for the removal of public officers by the circuit court because of drunkenness, on complaint of any citizen, nor by an act providing for their impeachment and removal on an accusation by the grand jury. The acts all being affirmative may be construed together as providing cumulative remedies.

73

A later act fixing the salary or fees of an officer repeals a prior act fixing a different salary or fees. A statute fixing the annual salary of a public office at a sum certain, without limitation as to time, is not abrogated or suspended by subsequent enactments which merely appropriate a less amount for the services of that office for particular fiscal years, and which contain no words that expressly or by clear implication modify or repeal the previous law." A law fixing the fees of an officer for certain services does not repeal a prior

73 Pavey v. Utter, 132 Ill. 489, 24 N. E. 77; State v. Howe, 28 Neb. 618, 44 N. W. 874; Browne v. Cuming County, 31 Neb. 362, 47 N. W. 1050; Hendrix's Account, 146 Pa. St. 285, 23 Atl. 435; Commonwealth v. Taylor, 159 Pa. St. 451, 28 Atl. 348.

74 Eaton v. Burke, 66 N. H. 306, 22 Atl. 452.

76 Pierpont v. Crouch, 10 Cal. 315; Humer v. Cumberland County, 4 Pa. Dist. Ct. 588; Eckerd v. Perry County, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 284; Price v. Blair County, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 313; McAllister v. Armstrong County, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 766. See Leitzel v. Centre County, 6 Pa. Dist. Ct. 208

77 United States v. Langston, 118 U. S. 389, 6 S. C. Rep. 1185, 30 L. Ed.

75 State v. Noblesville, 157 Ind. 164. 31, 60 N. E. 704.

law fixing his fees for other services.78 An act fixed the salary of the supreme court reporter at $600 a year. A later act of 1891 fixed the salary of the secretary of state at $2,400 a year and an act of 1893 made the secretary of state ex officio supreme court reporter. The later acts were held not to repeal the earlier, and the secretary of state was held entitled to both salaries.79 Prior acts gave to county commissioners a per diem and mileage. An act of 1890 provided that they should receive five dollars a day for each day employed in the discharge of their duties. It was held that the provision for mileage was repealed. An act gave to a judge of the supreme court, holding court in any county, "mileage at the rate of twenty cents per mile, in going from his residence to the place where said court is held, and returning therefrom, as his expenses incurred for and on account of travel incurred for the benefit of said county." A later act provided that county officers, jurors, witnesses and all other parties that may be entitled to mileage from the several counties should be entitled to collect mileage at the rate of fifteen cents per mile for the distance actually traveled and no more. This was held not to repeal the former act, as the mileage allowed the judges was intended to cover other expenses than travel. A provision that the compensation of an officer shall not be increased or diminished during the term for which he was elected or appointed is not repealed by an act authorizing an increase in the compensation of aldermen and an ordinance making such increase. A statute provided that the state should be deemed a party defendant in every suit for divorce, and that the district attorney should be allowed a fee of ten dollars for defending for the state, to be paid by the plaintiff on

78 Randall v. Butler County, 65 Kan. 20, 68 Pac. 1083.

79 State v. La Grave, 23 Nev. 373, 48 Pac. 674.

80 State v. Beman, 15 Wash. 24, 45 Pac. 652.

81 Power v. County Com'rs, 7 Mont. 82, 16 Pac. 658.

82 Council Bluffs v. Waterman, 86 Iowa, 688, 53 N. W. 289.

commencing the suit. A later act relating to court fees and the fees of other officers provided that the fees specified should be in lieu of all fees which parties had theretofore been required to pay clerks, sheriffs, and all other officials, and that "no other fees than those herein before recited shall hereafter be exacted." District attorneys were not referred to in the act, and it was held not to repeal the provision for his fee in divorce suits.83

§ 262. Same-Acts relating to municipal corporations. An act to incorporate the city of Pineville repeals by implication the charter of the town of Pineville. An act which incorporates the territory of four municipalities into one as a city repeals the charters of the separate municipalities. An act providing for the construction of local improvements by one mode of procedure is not repealed by a later and more comprehensive act providing for their construction by a different mode of procedure. Two acts were passed at the same session, and by their terms to take effect on the same day; one provided for the organization of towns whenever a majority of the legal voters of any congressional township containing twenty-five legal voters should petition; the other was a provision that no town shall be vacated, nor any town with an area of thirty-six sections or less be divided or have any part stricken therefrom, without first submitting the question to the electors of the town. It was held that they could stand together; the former conferring a power in general terms and the latter imposing a limitation. An act which gave a remedy for damages by a change of grade was held not to be repealed

97

83 State v. Moore, 37 Ore. 536, 62 1126; Hanover Borough's Appeal, Pac. 26. 150 Pa. St. 202, 24 Atl. 669; West 84 Smith v. Critcher, 92 Ky. 586, 18 Chester Alley, 160 Pa. St. 89, 28 Atl. S. W. 521.

85 South Morgantown v. Morgantown, 49 W. Va. 729, 40 S. E. 15.

86 Job v. Alton, 189 Ill. 256, 59 N. F. 622, 82 Am. St. Rep. 448; Hand v. Fellows, 148 Pa. St. 456, 23 Atl.

506; Palo Alto Road, 160 Pa. St. 104, 28 Atl. 649; Beltzhoover Borough v. Beltzhoover's Heirs, 173 Pa. St. 213, 33 Atl. 1047.

87 Supervisors v. Board of Commissioners, 12 Minn. 403.

by a later act which provided for local improvements in general and for the assessment of the damages and benefits resulting therefrom.88 An act authorizing cities to construct and maintain water-works does not repeal a prior act authorizing the organization of companies to supply munici palities with water.89 "An act to revise and amend the tax laws of the city of Louisville," related to the revenue to meet the ordinary expenses of the city. This was held not to repeal provisions of the charter which provided how the city might contract debts beyond the ordinary revenues.90 A grant to a city of the power to build bridges was held not to take away the power of the county to build bridges within the city for county purposes.91

§ 263. Same-Acts relating to taxation, revenue, bonds, assessments, etc.- An act providing a new mode of levying special assessments was held not to repeal a former law on the subject, but to afford a cumulative remedy. An act exempting school and church property from any and all taxes and assessments is not repealed by a subsequent act providing in a general way for special assessments for local improvements.93 A law imposing a limit of indebtedness upon counties and municipalities is not repealed by a later law which authorizes the incurring of a debt for certain purposes. A law authorizing counties to issue bonds to the amount of two per cent. of the assessed valuation for various purposes, including the construction and repair of roads and bridges, was held to be repealed as

94

88 Seaman v. Washington, 172 Pa. St. 467, 33 Atl. 759; Bowers v. Braddock, 172 Pa. St. 596, 33 Atl. 759; Hopkins v. Braddock, 172 Pa. St. 605, 34 Atl. 580.

89 White v. Meadville, 177 Pa. St. 643, 35 Atl. 695, 34 L. R. A. 567. 90 Frantz v. Jacob, 88 Ky. 525, 11 S. W. 654.

91 Skinner v. Henderson, 26 Fla. 121, 7 So. 464, 8 L. R. A. 55

92 West Chicago Park Com'rs v. Farber, 171 Ill. 146, 49 N. E. 427; Greensboro v. McAdoo, 112 N. C. 359, 17 S. E. 178.

93 District of Columbia v. Sisters of Visitation, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 300.

94 Beck v. St. Paul, 87 Minn. 381, 92 N. W. 328.

96

22 98

to the latter purpose by an act authorizing the issue of bonds for such purpose to the amount of one per cent. An act imposing a privilege tax for state revenue purposes does not repeal a prior act imposing such tax for municipal purposes. But the contrary is true where an act of the former nature declares that the tax imposed by it shall be in lieu of all other taxes except ad valorem taxes. A law imposed a privilege tax of $200 a year for each company represented upon the privilege of opening and establishing an insurance office or agency for foreign insurance.companies. This was held not to be repealed by a later law imposing a tax of two and one-half per cent. on the gross premium receipts of foreign insurance companies "in lieu of all other taxes." An act of 1897 forbade the sale of cigarettes. A revenue act of 1899 imposed a privilege tax on the sale of cigarettes, not sold in violation of the criminal law. latter was held not to repeal the former so as to make the sale of cigarettes legitimate. A law authorizing counties to levy a tax for the support of the poor was held to be repealed by a subsequent law authorizing counties to levy not exceeding three mills on the dollar for county purposes, the support of the poor being a county purpose.1 A law providing a new mode of apportioning the state tax repeals the former law on the subject. A city charter authorized the issue of $125,000 of bonds for the construction of three certain bridges. A later act authorized the city to issue $75,000 of bonds for three certain bridges, two of which were the same as two of those specified in the charter. The later act was held not to repeal the former, but to be cumulative, and it was held the city could issue $200,000 of bonds for

95 Murphy v. County Com'rs, 73 Minn. 28, 76 N. W. 951.

96 Burke v. Memphis, 94 Tenn. 692, 30 S. W. 742.

97 Memphis v. Am. Express Co., 102 Tenn. 336, 52 S. W. 172.

98 Memphis v. Carrington, 91 Tenn. 511, 19 S. W. 673.

99

The

99 Blaufield v. State, 103 Tenn. 593, 53 S. W. 1090.

1 Oregon Short Line v. Standing, 10 Utah, 452, 37 Pac. 687.

2 State v. Linn County, 25 Ore. 503, 36 Pac. 297.