general repealing clause in Alabama

1983As we said in Ex parte Jones , 212 Ala. 259 , 102 So. 234 (1924), "Such a general repealing clause . . . does not operate as a repeal of any of the provisions of the [previous act], unless in conflict therewith.

1983As we said in Ex parte Jones , 212 Ala. 259 , 102 So. 234 (1924), "Such a general repealing clause . . . does not operate as a repeal of any of the provisions of the [previous act], unless in conflict therewith.

1983As said by this Court in Ogbourne v. Ogbourne , 60 Ala. 616 , `It is merely a legislative declaration of the necessary effect of the act, if the clause had not been inserted.' If, therefore there is a repeal, it is by implication, and it is well established that repeal by implication is never favored by the court." 212 Ala. at 261 , 102 So. at 235 .

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1990If, therefore there is a repeal, it is by implication, and it is well established that repeal by implication is never favored by the court.' " Sand Mountain Bank v. Albertville National Bank, supra , at 19, quoting Ex parte Jones , 212 Ala. 259 , 261 , 102 So. 234 , 235 (1924).

1990Our supreme court has held that a general repealing clause to the effect that all conflicting or inconsistent enactments are repealed "is in legal contemplation a nullity." Sand Mountain Bank v. Albertville National Bank , 442 So.2d 13 , 19 (Ala. 1983). " 'Such a general repealing clause . . . does not operate as a repeal of any of the provisions of the [previous act], unless in conflict therewith. . . .

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1911But if the meaning of the language used is uncertain, or the intent rests in inference, then construction or interpretation by courts is useful and proper. (13) Statutes may be-repealed by implication; the courts do not, however, favor such repeal, and if, by a fair and reasonable construction .of a later and former statute, the two can be reconciled, and each left to operate, that construction will he adopted. —Smith v. Speed, 50 Ala. 276 ; Iverson v. State, 52 Ala. 170 ; Enloe v. Reike, 56 Ala. 500 ; Parker v. Hubbard, 64 Ala. 203 ; Cook v. Meyer, 73 Ala. 580 ; Roberts v. Pippen, 75 Ala. 103

1911The repeal or modification of the existing laws is, of necessity, of the substance of the act of 1907, and which, to my mind, is repugnant to section 107 of the Constitution for failing to set out the substance of so much of said acts of 1879 and 1901 as. is repealed or altered by the act of 1907, and, as an original proposition, I would so hold, and which would be in conformity with the views-expressed by the-writer, and shared in by two other judges in the case of Tallassee v. Tooms, 157 Ala. 160 , 47 South. 308 .

1911The repeal or modification of the existing laws is, of necessity, of the substance of the act of 1907, and which, to my mind, is repugnant to section 107 of the Constitution for failing to set out the substance of so much of said acts of 1879 and 1901 as. is repealed or altered by the act of 1907, and, as an original proposition, I would so hold, and which would be in conformity with the views-expressed by the-writer, and shared in by two other judges in the case of Tallassee v. Tooms, 157 Ala. 160 , 47 South. 308 .