pealed all acts and parts of acts theretofore enacted by the legislature of the territory or state "providing for the assessment and collection of taxes" in that state. This was held to refer to laws operating generally in all parts of the state and not to repeal an act on the subject applicable only to cities of the first class. Where the title of a repealing act describes the act to be repealed it need not be again described in the body of the act but may be referred to as "said act." 94 § 293. Errors and mistakes in express repeals.- A liquor tax law of New York passed in 1896 contained an express repeal of various acts including chapter 744 of the acts of 1895. This act related to a sewer in Rochester and was amended at the same session. Chapter 774 of the acts of 1895 was a liquor statute. The reference to chapter 744 was held to be a clerical mistake and the law was held not to be repealed.95 An act of Washington to provide for the reclamation of the state's granted school, tide, oyster and other lands contained an express repeal of an act relating to arid lands. The former act as passed did not relate to such lands, but it appeared that as introduced it embraced the arid lands, but the provisions relating to such lands were stricken out of the title and body of the act in course of its passage through the legislature. This was held to show that the legislature did not intend to deal with arid lands and that the repealing clause was left in by mistake and should be disregarded. The title of an act was to amend sections 643, 644, 646 and 647 of the code. The body of the act amended these sections and repealed sections 243, 244, 246 and 247. This was held to be a mistake, and the repealing clause was corrected by the title and 93 State v. Carson, 6 Wash. 250, 33 Pac. 428. 94 Savings Bank v. Burns, 104 Cal. 473, 38 Pac. 102. The body of the act was "section 1 of said act is hereby repealed." 95 McKee Land & Improvement Co. v. Williams, 63 App. Div. 553, 96 Howlett v. Cheetham, 17 Wash. 626, 50 Pac. 522. body of the act so as to repeal the same sections as were amended.97 "A clause in a statute purporting to repeal other statutes. is subject to the same rules of interpretation as other enactments, and the intent must prevail over literal interpretation." 98 An absolute repeal may be construed as a qualified or partial repeal, where other parts of the statute show such to have been the real intent.99 The revised codes of North Dakota included a new revenue law and expressly repealed a great number of acts including "chapter 132 of the laws of 1890." One section of this chapter out of a hundred or more provided for the of fice of district assessor in unorganized counties. If this section was repealed then there was no provision in the law for levying a tax in such counties and the whole revenue law was void. The new act referred to the office as an existing one and plainly intended that all property in the state should be taxed. It was held that the absolute repeal of the whole chapter should be qualified by excluding the section in question from its operation.1 98 Smith v. People, 47 N. Y. 330, 339; Home B. & L. Ass'n v. Nolan, 21 Mont. 205, 53 Pac. 738. 99 Id. 97 State v. Pierce, 51 Kan. 241, 32 To give effect to that purpose we Pac. 924. must limit the broad language of the repealing act, so that it will not defeat such purpose. Not having made provision in the new revenuelaw for the office of district assessor, and yet having clearly evinced a purpose that property in such territory should be assessed, and having in terms referred to that office and the district over which the jurisdiction of a district assessor extended, it does not admit of doubt. that it was never intended by the legislature that those provisions of chapter 132 relating to the office of district assessor, etc., should be repealed. To reach the contrary conclusion would be to impute to the legislature a deliberate intention. 1 State v. Morehouse, 5 N. D. 406, 67 N. W. 140. The court says: "It is manifest that the broad letter of this repealing act is in conflict with the whole spirit and purpose of the revenue law passed at the same time. As both cannot stand, it is obvious that we must give effect to that which expresses the true legislative purpose. It is too plain for argument that one of the great purposes of the legislation was to provide for the assessment of prop erty throughout the entire state. § 294. Effect of a statute and its repeal upon the common law. A statute inconsistent with the common law repeals the common law so far as it is inconsistent. "If the legislature undertakes to provide for the regulation of human conduct in respect to a specific matter or thing already covered by the common law, and parts of which are omitted from the statute, such omission may be taken generally as evidence of the legislative intent to repeal or abrogate the same." But an intention to change the rule of the common law will not be presumed from doubtful statutory provisions; the presumption is that no such change is intended unless the statute is explicit and clear in that direction. The common law will be held no further abrogated than the clear import of the language used in the statute requires. An act provided that any person who shall keep a disorderly house shall on conviction thereof be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than three hundred dollars or by imprisonment not less than ten days or more than six months. The keeping a disorderly house was a to pass an unconstitutional law, for its violation of the state constitution would be palpable if it left a portion of the territory of the state without any legislation authoriz. ing the levy and collection of taxes therein. Moreover, we must not ignore the public mischief which would result from such a construction of the statute as would defeat taxation, not only in these unorganized townships, but throughout the entire state. In a doubt ful case, such consideration should have great weight; but we do not regard this case as at all doubt ful." p. 410. Compare People v. Wilmerding, 136 N. Y. 363, 32 N. E. 1099, which is stated in section 288, note 69. 80 N. W. 585, 76 Am. St. Rep. 877; Hill v. Ginn, 2 Penn. (Del) 174, 43 Atl. 608. 3 In re Lord & Polk Chemical Co., 7 Del. Ch. 248, 44 Atl. 775. 4 McClelland v. Hammond, 12 Colo. App 82, 54 Pac. 538; McCarthy v. McCarthy, 20 App. Cas. (D. C.) 195; Bozarth v. Largent, 128 IIL 95, 21 N. E. 218; Deatherage v. Rohrer, 78 Ill. App. 248; Commonwealth v. Illinois Cent. R. R. Co., 104 Ky. 366, 47 S. W. 258; Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 Atl. 700; Forrester v. Boston, etc. Min. Co., 21 Mont. 544, 55 Pac. 229, 353; People v. Palmer, 109 N. Y. 110, 16 N. E 529; Smith v. Railroad Co., 182 Pa. St. 139, 37 Atl. 930. 5 Id.; Fitzgerald v. Quann, 109 N. 2 Berger v. Berger, 104 Wis. 282, Y. 441, 17 N. E. 354. common-law offense punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court, without limit. It was held that the statute did not repeal the common law as to past offenses, and a person convicted before the act took effect was sentenced after it took effect to a fine of $1,200 and imprisonment for thirteen months and the judgment sustained. The repeal of a statute which abrogates the common law revives the common law, even though there is a statute that the repeal of a repealing act shall not revive the act repealed. So the repeal of an act declaratory of the common law leaves the common law in force." 8 295. Miscellaneous points and cases.-The mere reference to a repealed act or section as still in force, or the supposition or assumption on the part of the legislature that such act or section remains in force, does not affect the repeal or restore the law.10 Where a provision which excepts a class or specified localities from the operation of the act is repealed, the law operates generally over the excepted class or localities. The enacting clause of a statute belongs no 7 Mathewson V. Phoenix Iron Foundry, 20 Fed. Rep. 281; State v. Rollins, 8 N. H. 550; Gray v. Obear, 54 Ga. 231; Lowenberg v. People, 27 N. Y. 336. See Boismare v. His Creditors, 8 La. 315. 46 6 Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 Compare State v. Morehouse, 5 N. Atl. 700. D. 406, 67 N. W. 140. In the case first cited the court says: But even if congress had supposed that that section was still the law, when, as a matter of fact, it had been repealed, it would make no difference in this consideration. The question is, was said § 354 repealed by the act of 1878? That is a judicial question, to be determined by the courts, upon a proper construction of that section and subsequent legislation upon the same subjectmatter, and is not for the legisla tive branch of the government to determine." p. 27. 8 Beavan v. Went, 155 Ill. 592, 41 N. E. 91, 31 L. R. A. 85; Baum v. Thoms, 150 Ind. 378, 50 N. E. 357, 65 Am. St. Rep. 368. 9 Hanlon v. Partridge, 69 N. H. 88, 44 Atl. 807; Chippewa Falls v. Hop kins, 109 Wis. 611, 85 N. W. 553; Matter of Steinway, 31 App. Div. 70, 52 N. Y. S. 343. 10 District of Columbia v. Hutton, 143 U. S. 18, 12 S. C. Rep. 369, 36 L. Ed. 60; People v. Wilmerding, 136 N. Y. 363, 32 N. E. 1099. 11 Heinssen v. State, 14 Colo. 228, 23 Pac. 995; Bauen County Court v. Knislow, 9 Ky. L. R. 108; Pushor v. Morris, 53 Minn. 325, 53 N. W. more to the first section of a statute than to the other sections, and a repeal of the first section does not leave the other sections without such clause.12 A freeholders' charter framed in accordance with the constitution is held to repeal prior inconsistent laws." A statute forbade the sale of liquors within three miles of an orphans' home. It was held that the burning of the home and the temporary removal of the inmates to a place five miles distant did not suspend the operation of the act. An act imposing upon three cities the duty of maintaining a bridge is not repealed by an act consolidating them into one, but the obligation passes to the new corporation.15 The mere omission of an act from a revision was held not to repeal it.16 Where a town voted for license under a general local option law, a prohibitory act applicable to the precinct including the town was held to be repealed as to such town." Where a law is revised and certain provisions omitted, which had been declared invalid, a repeal of all inconsistent laws cannot be construed as a re-enactment of the omitted provisions, on the ground that they are not inconsistent. Where one section is dependent upon another, a repeal of the latter destroys both.19 An amendment to a section or statute is not necessarily repealed by a repeal of the section or statute amended. A joint resolution of congress passed July 7, 1898, annexed the Hawaiian Islands and provided that the municipal legislation of the Islands, not inconsistent with the resolution, nor contrary to the constitution of the United States nor to any 143; Grand Isle v. Milton, 68 Vt. 234, 35 Ati. 71. 12 Pearce v. Vittum, 193 Ill. 192, 61 N. E. 1116. 13 Ex parte Sparks, 120 Cal. 395, 52 Pac. 715. 14 State v. Barringer, 110 N. C. 525, 14 S. E. 781; State v. Eaves. 106 N. C. 752, 11 S. E. 370, 8 L. R. A. 259. 15 Winters v. George, 21 Ore. 251, 27 Pac. 1041. 16 State v. Meek, 26 Wash. 405, 67 Pac. 76. 17 Lafferty v. Hoffman, 99 Ky. 80, 35 S. W. 123, 32 L. R. A. 203. 18 Vance v. Vandercook County, 170 U. S. 438, 18 S. C. Rep. 645, 42 L. Ed. 1111. 19 Stony Creek v. Kabel, 144 Ind. 501, 43 N. E. 559. 20 State v. Young, 30 S. C. 399, 9 S. E. 355; State v. Whitesides, 30 S. C. 579, 9 S. E. 661. |