were in the nature of grants and that the earlier sections were to be first satisfied." Where a statute expresses first a general intent, and afterwards an inconsistent particular intent, the latter will be taken as an exception from the former and both will stand.52 § 269 (154). Repeal by revision.- Revision of statutes implies a re-examination of them. The word is applied to a restatement of the law in a corrected or improved form. The restatement may be with or without material change. A revision is intended to take the place of the law as previously formulated. By adopting it the legislature say the same thing, in effect, as when a particular section is amended. by the words "so as to read as follows." The revision is a substitute; it displaces and repeals the former law as it stood relating to the subjects within its purview. Whatever of the old law is restated in the revision is continued in operation as it may operate in the connection in which it is re-enacted. In Bartlet v. King," Dewey, J., said: "A subsequent statute revising the whole subject-matter of a former one, and evidently intended as a substitute for it, although it contains no express words to that effect, must on principles of law, as well as in reason and common sense, operate to repeal the former.” 54 Though a subsequent statute be not repugnant in all its provisions to a former, yet if it was clearly intended to prescribe the only rule which should govern, it repeals the for 51 Link v. Jones, 15 Colo. App. 281, 62 Pac. 339. 52 Stockett v. Bird, 18 Md. 484; De Winton v. Mayor, 26 Beav. 533; Dahnke v. People, 168 Ill. 102, 48 N. E. 137, 39 L. R. A. 197; Ex parte Joffee, 46 Mo. App. 260; Rodgers v. United States, 185 U. S. 83, 22 S. C. Rep. 582, 46 L. Ed. 816: In re Rouse, Hazard & Co., 91 Fed. 96, 33 C. C. A. 356. 53 12 Mass. 545. 54 Rogers v. Watrous, 8 Tex. 62, 63 Am. Dec. 100; King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395, 1 S. C. Rep. 312, 27 L. Ed. 60; Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Embury, 67 Barb. 261; Ellis v. Paige, 1 Pick. 45; Berkshire v. Miss. etc. Ry. Co., 28 Mo. App. 225; Lyon v. Smith, 11 Barb. 124; Smith v. Nobles Co., 37 Minn. 535, 35 N. W. 383. mer statute. Without express words of repeal a previous statute will be held to be modified by a subsequent one, if the latter was plainly intended to cover the subject embraced by both, and to prescribe the only rules in respect to that subject that are to govern.56 Where a provision is amended by the form, "to read as follows," the intention is manifest to make the provision following a substitute for the old provision and to operate exclusively in its place. Does a revision import that it shall displace the last previous form; that it is evidently intended as a substitute for it; that it is intended to prescribe the only rule to govern? In other words, will a revision repeal by implication previ ous statutes on the same subject, though there be no repug 55 Rogers v. Watrous, 8 Tex. 62, 63 Am. Dec. 100; Industrial School District v. Whitehead, 13 N. J. Eq. 290; Bryan v. Sundberg, 5 Tex. 418; Mulligan v. Cavanagh, 46 N. J. L. 45, 49; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 617, 22 L. Ed. 429; State v. Stoll, 17 Wall. 425, 21 L. Ed. 650; United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 20 L. Ed. 153; Board of Commissioners v. Potts, 10 Ind. 286; State v. Wilson, 43 N. H. 419, 82 Am. Dec. 163; Water Works Co. v. Burkhart, 41 Ind. 364; Farr v. Brackett, 30 Vt. 344; Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206, 10 S. C. Rep. 527, 33 L. Ed. 879; Giddings v. Cox, 31 Vt. 607; State v. Kelley, 34 N. J. L. 75; Pingree v. Snell, 42 Me. 53; Fayette County v. Faires, 44 Tex. 514; Sacramento v. Bird, 15 Cal. 294; State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501; Dexter & Limerick P. R. Co. v. Allen, 16 Barb. 15; Bracken v. Smith, 39 N. J. Eq. 169; Andrews v. People, 75 Ill. 605; Daviess v. Fairbairn, 3 How. 636, 11 L. Ed. 760; Red Rock v. Henry, 106 U. S. 596, 1 S. C. Rep. 434, 27 L. Ed. 251; People v. Brooklyn, 69 N. Y. 605; Cook County Nat. Bank v. United States, 107 U. S. 445, 2 S. C. Rep. 445, 27 L. Ed. 537; Dillon v. Bicknell, 116 Cal. 111, 47 Pac. 937; Callam v. District of Columbia, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 271; Lambkin v. Pike, 115 Ga. 827, 42 S. E. 213, 90 Am. St. Rep. 153; Monroe County v. McDaniel, 68 Miss. 203, 8 So. 645; State v. Order of Elks, 69 Miss. 895, 13 So. 255; State Revenue Agent v. Hill, 70 Miss. 106, 11 So. 789; School District v. Eckert, 84 Miss. 417, 87 N. W. 1019; State v. Camden, 58 N. J. L. 515, 33 Atl. 846; Camden v. Varney, 63 N. J. L. 325, 43 Atl. 889. 56 Tracy v. Tuffly, 134 U. S. 206, 10 S. C. Rep. 527, 33 L. Ed. 879. 57 United States v. Barr, 4 Sawy. 254, Fed. Cas. No. 14,527; United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 95, 20 L. Ed. 153; Knox v. Baldwin, 80 N. Y. 610; Goodno v. Oshkosh, 31 Wis. 127; State v. Ingersoll, 17 id. 631; State v. Beswick, 13 R. L. 211; ante, § 237. nance? The authorities seem to answer emphatically, Yes. The reasonable inference from a revision is that the legis lature cannot be supposed to have intended that there should be two distinct enactments embracing the same subject-matter in force at the same time, and that the new statute, being the most recent expression of the legislative will, must be deemed a substitute for previous enactments, and the only one which is to be regarded as having the force of law.58 In case of an act "to revise, amend and 58 Smith v. State, 1 Stew. 506; State v. Whitworth, 8 Port. 434; Wilkinson v. Ketler, 59 Ala. 306; Ogbourne v. Ogbourne's Adm'r, 60 Ala. 616; Hatchett v. Billingslea, 65 Ala. 16; Carmichael v. Hays, 66 Ala. 543; Scott v. Simons, 70 Ala. 352; Sawyers v. Baker, 72 Ala. 49; Werborn v. Austin, 77 Ala. 381; Wood v. State, 47 Ark. 488, 1 S. W. 709; Wilson v. Massie, 70 Ark. 25, 65 S. W. 942; Inman v. State, 65 Ark. 508, 47 S. W. 558; Hanley v. Sixteen Horses, 97 Cal. 182, 32 Pac. 10; Huffman v. Hall, 102 Cal. 26, 36 Pac. 417; San Diego County v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 108 Cal. 46, 40 Pac. 1052; Dillon v. Bicknell, 116 Cal. 111, 47 Pac. 937; Mack v. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130, 58 Pac. 372; People v. Ames, 27 Colo. 126, 60 Pac. 346; Husbands v. Talley, 3 Penn. (Del.) 88,47 Atl. 1009; Fulton v. District of Columbia, 2 App. Cas. (D. C.) 431; Callan v. District of Columbia, 16 App. Cas. (D. C.) 271; United States v. MacFarland, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 120; Jernigan v. Holden, 34 Fla. 530, 16 So. 413; Culver v. Third Nat. Bank, 64 Ill. 528; People v. Board of Education, 166 Ill. 388, 46 N. E. 1099; Canal Com'rs v. East Peoria, 179 Ill. 214, 53 N. E. 633; People v. Thornton, 186 Ill. 162, 57 N. E. 841; State Board of Health v. Ross, 191 Ill. 87, 60 N. E. 811; Washington Heights v. Moffatt, 57 Ill. App. 269; State Board of Health v. Ross, 91 Ill. App. 281; Keep v. Crawford, 92 Ill. App. 587; Lawson v. De Bolt, 78 Ind. 563; Thomas v. Butler, 139 Ind. 245, 38 N. E. 808; Warford v. Sullivan, 147 Ind. 14, 46 N. E. 27; State v. Studt, 31 Kan. 245, 1 Pac. 635; State v. Countryman, 57 Kan. 815, 48 Pac. 137; Gorham v. Luckett, 6 B. Mon. 154; Broaddus v. Broaddus, 10 Bush, 299; Commonwealth v. Mason, 82 Ky. 256; Commonwealth v. Watts. 84 Ky. 537, 2 S. W. 123; Smith v. Mattingly, 96 Ky. 228, 28 S. W. 503; Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 95 Ky. 334, 25 S. W. 265; Patterson v. Commonwealth, 99 Ky. 610, 5 S. W. 765; Long v. Stone, 19 Ky. L. R. 246, 39 S. W. 836; Barnard v. Gall, 43 La. Ann. 959, 10 So. 5; Towle v. Marrett, 3 Greenlf. 22, 14 Am. Dec. 206; Knight v. Aroostook R. R. Co., 67 Me. 291; Dugan v. Gittings, 3 Gill, 138; Mayor, etc. v. Groshen, 30 Md. 436; Montel v. Consolidated Coal Co., 39 Md. 164; Goodenow v. Buttrick, 7 Mass. 140; Ellis v. Paige, 1 Pick. 43; Ashby, Appellant, 4 Pick. 21, 23; Commonwealth v. Cooley, 10 Pick. 37; Commonwealth consolidate the laws for the incorporation of ecclesiastical bodies," it was held that the use of the word "consolidate" indicated very clearly that the purpose of the legislature v. Kelliher, 12 Allen, 480; Pratt v. Street Commissioner, 139 Mass. 559, 2 N. E. 675; Shannon v. People, 5 Mich. 71, 85; Attorney-General v. Parsell, 100 Mich. 170, 58 N. W. 839; Graham v. Muskegon County Clerk, 116 Mich. 571, 74 N. W. 729; Attorney-General v. Commissioner of Railroads, 117 Mich. 477, 76 N. W. 69; Rundlett v. St. Paul, 64 Minn. 223, 66 N. W. 967; School District v. Eckert, 84 Minn. 417, 87 N. W. 1019; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 278; Myers v. Marshall Co., 55 Miss. 344; Gibbons v. Brittenum, 56 Miss. 232; State v. Order of Elks, 69 Miss. 895, 13 So. 255; State Rev. Agent v. Hill, 70 Miss. 106, 11 So. 789; Smith v. State, 14 Mo. 147; State v. Woodson, 128 Mo. 497, 31 S. W. 105; Proc tor v. Cascade County, 20 Mont. 315, 50 Pac. 1017; State v. Bemis, 45 Neb. 724, 64 N. W. 348; Thorpe v. Schooling, 7 Nev. 15; State v. Rogers, 10 Nev. 250. 21 Am. Rep. 738; Leighton v. Walker, 9 N. H. 59; Mersereau v. Mersereau County, 51 N. J. Eq. 382, 26 Atl. 682; Roche v. Jersey City, 40 N. J. L. 257; State v. Trenton, 56 N. J. L. 469, 29 Atl. 183; State v. Camden, 58 N. J. L 515, 33 Atl. 846; Camden v. Varney, 63 N. J. L. 325, 43 Atl. 889; Tafoya v. Garcia, 1 N. M. 486; Heckman v. Pinkney, 81 N. Y. 211; Matter of New York Institution, 121 N. Y. 234, 24 N. E. 378; People v. Carr, 36 Hun, 488; Eagan v. Rochester, 68 Hun, 331, 22 N. Y. S. 955; People v. Upson, 79 Hun, 87, 29 N. Y. S. 615; Mairs v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 73 App. Div. 265, 76 N. Y. 838; People v. Police Com'rs, 79 App. Div. 82, 79 N. Y. S. 710; People v. Cleary, 13 Misc. 546, 35 N. Y. S. 588; State v. Seaborn, 4 Dev. 305; Little v. Cogswell, 20 Ore. 345, 25 Pac. 727; Strickland v. Geide, 31 Ore. 373, 49 Pac. 982; Continental Ins. Co. v. Riggen, 31 Ore. 336, 48 Pac. 476; Ex parte Ferdon, 35 Ore. 171, 57 Pac. 376; Reed v. Dunbar, 41 Ore. 509, 69 Pac. 451; Commonwealth v. Crowley, 1 Ashm. 179; Fenner v. Luzerne County, 167 Pa. St. 632, 31 Atl. 862; Matter of Emsworth Borough, 5 Pa. Supr. Ct. 29; Davis v. Carew, 1 Rich. 275; Laurens v. Crawford, 55 S. C. 594, 33 S. E. 728; State v. Welbers, 11 S. D. 86, 75 N. W. 820; Smith v. Hickman's Heirs, Cooke (Tenn.), 326; Furman v. Nichol, 3 Cold. 439; Mayor v. Dearmon, 2 Sneed, 120; Terrell v. State, 86 Tenn. 523, 8 S. W. 212; State v. Butcher, 93 Tenn. 679, 28 S. W. 296; Puckett v. Springfield, 97 Tenn. 264, 37 S. W. 2; Maxwell v. Stuart, 99 Tenn. 409, 42 S. W. 34; Bryan v. Sundberg, 5 Tex. 418; Stirman v. State. 21 Tex. 734; Anderson v. Levyson, 1 Tex. App. 520; Etter v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 2 Tex. App. 48; Harold v. State, 16 Tex. App. 157; Stebbins v. State, 22 Tex. App. 32; Dickinson v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. App. 472, 41 S. W. 759, 43 S. W. 520; Bartch v. Meloy, 8 Utah, 424, 32 Pac. 694; Boston Nat. Bank v. Atkins, 72 Vt. 33, 47 Atl. 176; State v. Carron Hill Coal Co., 4 Wash. 422, 30 Pac. 728; Baer v. Choir, 7 was to collect in one act all the law relating to the subject.59 In all cases of repeal by revision the absence of express words of repeal is unimportant.60 § 270. As a general rule whatever is excluded from the revised act is repealed.-The purport of the numerous cases cited in the last section is that where a statute is revised, or a series of acts on the same subject are revised and consolidated into one, all parts and provisions of the former act or acts, that are omitted from the revised act, are repealed. "Even although the provisions of unrepealed leg Wash. 631, 32 Pac. 776, 36 Pac. 286; McMaster v. Advance Thresher Co., 10 Wash. 147, 38 Pac. 760; Cochran v. King County, 12 Wash. 518, 41 Pac. 922; Leavitt v. Chambers, 16 Wash. 353, 47 Pac. 755; Burlander v. Railway Co., 26 Wis. 76; Simmons v. Bradley, 27 Wis. 689; Gilbank v. Stephenson, 30 Wis. 157; Moore v. Railroad Co., 34 Wis. 173; Oleson v. Railway Co., 36 Wis. 383; State v. Campbell, 44 Wis. 529; Schneider v. Staples, 66 Wis. 167, 28 N. W. 145; Smith v. Eau Claire, 78 Wis. 457, 47 N. W. 830; Dane County v. Reindahl, 104 Wis. 302, 80 N. W. 438; United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546, 24 L. Ed. 1082, 1085; Cook County Nat. Bank v. United States, 107 U. S. 445, 2 S. C. Rep. 561, 27 L. Ed. 537; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529, 2 S. C. Rep. 704, 27 L. Ed. 424; District of Columbia v. Hutton, 143 U. S. 18, 12 S. C. Rep. 369, 36 L. Ed. 60; United States v. Ranlett, 172 U. S. 133, 19 S. C. Rep. 114, 43 L. Ed. 293; The Paqueta Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 20 S. C. Rep. 290, 44 L. Ed. 320; United States v. Warwick, 51 Fed. 280; Kent v. United States, 68 Fed. 536; Kent v. United States, 73 Fed. 680, 19 C. C. A. 642, 38 U. S. App. 554; Rogers v. Nashville, etc. Ry. Co., 91 Fed. 299, 33 C. C. A. 517; United States v. Cheeseman, 3 Sawyer, 424, Fed. Cas. No. 14,790. 59 Graham v. Muskegon County Clerk, 116 Mich. 571, 573, 74 N. W. 729. 60 People v. Board of Education, 166 Ill. 388, 46 N. E. 1099; Canal Commissioners v. East Peoria, 179 Ill. 214, 53 N. E. 633; State v. Countryman, 57 Kan. 815, 48 Pac. 137. 61 The following are especially in point: Husbands v. Tally, 3 Penn. (Del.) 88, 47 Atl. 1009; Jernigan v. Holden, 34 Fla. 530, 16 So. 413; Washington Heights v. Moffatt, 57 Ill. App. 269; Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 95 Ky. 334, 25 S. W. 265; Smith v. Mattingly, 96 Ky. 228, 28 S. W. 503; Patterson v. Common wealth, 99 Ky. 610, 5 S. W. 765; Barnard v. Gall, 43 La. Ann. 959, 10 So. 5; State v. Order of Elks, 69 Miss. 895, 13 So. 255; State Revenue Agent v. Hill, 70 Miss. 106, 11 So. 789; Mairs v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 73 App. Div. 265, 76 N. Y. S. 838; State v. Welbers, 11 S. D. 86, 75 N. W. 820; Terrell v. State, 86 Tenn. 523, |