repealing clause in Michigan

1960Owen, v. Joyce, supra, we held that the special act providing that the hoard of supervisors might fill vacancies in the office of road commissioner was not repealed by a later general act which provides for the filling of vacancies and appointments ■ of county offices by the probate court, county clerk and prosecuting attorney, the later act not containing a repealing clause.

1960Owen, v. *316 Joyce, supra , we held that the special act providing that the board of supervisors might fill vacancies in the office of road commissioner was not repealed by a later general act which provides for the filling of vacancies and appointments of county offices by the probate court, county clerk and prosecuting attorney, the later act not containing a repealing clause.

1960We quoted the following: “ ‘ “An act will not be construed to repeal or modify earlier legislation, if, giving such effect to the act, an apparent purpose would appear to disturb an established system of written law, covering a vital field in our system of government.” 25 RCL, Statutes, § 169, p 919. “ ‘ “The principle that the law does not favor repeals by implication is of especial application in the case of an important public statute of long standing, which should be shown to be repealed either expressly, or by a strong and necessary implication.” 25 RCL, Statutes, § 169, p 920. * * * “ ‘

1960We quoted the following: "`"An act will not be construed to repeal or modify earlier legislation, if, giving such effect to the act, an apparent purpose would appear to disturb an established system of written law, covering a vital field in our system of government." 25 RCL, Statutes, § 169, p 919. "`"The principle that the law does not favor repeals by implication is of especial application in the case of an important public statute of long standing, which should be shown to be repealed either expressly, or by a strong and necessary implication." 25 RCL, Statutes, § 169, p 920. * * * "`"When

1960We quoted the following: “ ‘ “An act will not be construed to repeal or modify earlier legislation, if, giving such effect to the act, an apparent purpose would appear to disturb an established system of written law, covering a vital field in our system of government.” 25 RCL, Statutes, § 169, p 919. “ ‘ “The principle that the law does not favor repeals by implication is of especial application in the case of an important public statute of long standing, which should be shown to be repealed either expressly, or by a strong and necessary implication.” 25 RCL, Statutes, § 169, p 920. * * * “ ‘

1960We quoted the following: "`"An act will not be construed to repeal or modify earlier legislation, if, giving such effect to the act, an apparent purpose would appear to disturb an established system of written law, covering a vital field in our system of government." 25 RCL, Statutes, § 169, p 919. "`"The principle that the law does not favor repeals by implication is of especial application in the case of an important public statute of long standing, which should be shown to be repealed either expressly, or by a strong and necessary implication." 25 RCL, Statutes, § 169, p 920. * * * "`"When

1930The distinction has been pointed out herein and was recognized in Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. 613, 618 , which he cites: “Hartung v. People ( 22 N. Y. 95 ), was still fresh in the recollection of legislators, in which it was held that by a change in the law defining the crime and providing for the punishment of murder — effected by an amendment of the prior law instead of, as in this case, by a new statute applicable only to future offenses — the prior law had been abrogated, *358 and persons although, convicted under it could not be punished. ’ ’ The people have somewhat stressed the absence

1930The distinction has been pointed out herein and was recognized in Mongeon v. People, 55 N. Y. 613, 618 , which he cites: “Hartung v. People ( 22 N. Y. 95 ), was still fresh in the recollection of legislators, in which it was held that by a change in the law defining the crime and providing for the punishment of murder — effected by an amendment of the prior law instead of, as in this case, by a new statute applicable only to future offenses — the prior law had been abrogated, *358 and persons although, convicted under it could not be punished. ’ ’ The people have somewhat stressed the absence

1915Much reliance is placed by the appellees upon the case of McCullough v. Virginia, 172 U. S. 102 (19 Sup. Ct. 134).

1906Laws, and that, as .the first-named section was enacted last, without a repealing clause, it will not have that effect, counsel citing Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Aid Ass’n, 126 N. Y. 450 ; Davis v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor, 165 N. Y. 159 ; McKinley v. Insurance Co., 26 N. Y.

1906Laws, and that, as .the first-named section was enacted last, without a repealing clause, it will not have that effect, counsel citing Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Aid Ass’n, 126 N. Y. 450 ; Davis v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor, 165 N. Y. 159 ; McKinley v. Insurance Co., 26 N. Y.

1906Laws, and that, as .the first-named section was enacted last, without a repealing clause, it will not have that effect, counsel citing Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Aid Ass’n, 126 N. Y. 450 ; Davis v. Supreme Lodge Knights of Honor, 165 N. Y. 159 ; McKinley v. Insurance Co., 26 N. Y.

1904The language used in Blackwood v. Van Vleit, 30 Mich. 118 , seems apropos here.

1894See Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 ; Lewis v. Stout, 22 Wis. 234; In re Henderson’s Tobacco, 11 Wall. 652 .

1894See Gaston v. Merriam, 33 Minn. 271 ; Lewis v. Stout, 22 Wis. 234; In re Henderson’s Tobacco, 11 Wall. 652 .

1886This act provides that— “ Any railroad company organized under this act, receiving freight for transportation, shall be entitled to the rights, and be subject to the liabilities, of common carriers, except as herein otherwise provided; but no such company shall be suffered to lessen or abridge its common-law liability as a common carrier, unless by an agreement, to be signed by both parties thereto.” The repealing clause of this statute repeals the general act of 185o; the act supplementary thereto of 1863; the act supplementary to the act of 1855, approved March 27,1867; another act, to compe

1886This act provides that— “ Any railroad company organized under this act, receiving freight for transportation, shall be entitled to the rights, and be subject to the liabilities, of common carriers, except as herein otherwise provided; but no such company shall be suffered to lessen or abridge its common-law liability as a common carrier, unless by an agreement, to be signed by both parties thereto.” The repealing clause of this statute repeals the general act of 185o; the act supplementary thereto of 1863; the act supplementary to the act of 1855, approved March 27,1867; another act, to compe

1886This act provides that— “ Any railroad company organized under this act, receiving freight for transportation, shall be entitled to the rights, and be subject to the liabilities, of common carriers, except as herein otherwise provided; but no such company shall be suffered to lessen or abridge its common-law liability as a common carrier, unless by an agreement, to be signed by both parties thereto.” The repealing clause of this statute repeals the general act of 185o; the act supplementary thereto of 1863; the act supplementary to the act of 1855, approved March 27,1867; another act, to compe