Erie v. Bootz
| Decision Date | 28 October 1872 |
| Citation | 72 Pa. 196 |
| Parties | Erie <I>versus</I> Bootz. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Erie county: No. 137, to October and November Term 1871.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
J. R. Thompson and J. H. Walker (with whom was E. Babbitt), for plaintiff in error.
C. B. Curtis and J. C. Marshall (with whom was F. F. Marshall), for defendants in error.
The opinion of the court was delivered, October 28th 1872, by SHARSWOOD, J.
The question presented for our determination upon this record lies within a very narrow compass. The general principles of the law upon the subject of the implied repeal of statutes are well settled by the decisions, and indeed are not in dispute. Implied repeals are not favored. If two statutes can stand together, the posterior does not abrogate the prior. This is indeed but the application of a general canon of interpretation — that the whole course of legislation, like the whole of a deed or other instrument of private parties, is to be so construed that every part and every word shall have its effect, if it consistently can, and thus the will of the legislature be completely carried into execution. It follows clearly that the Act of April 10th 1864, Pamph. L. 672, repealed no part of the Act of May 1st 1861, Pamph. L. 614. Under these two acts there were two modes provided by which streets in the city of Erie could be ordered to be paved by the municipal authorities: First, upon the petition of the majority of the owners of property fronting on the street, according to the Act of 1861, and second, by a vote of two-thirds of the members of each branch of the councils, by the Act of 1864, without any petition. Both these modes were then subsisting, when the Act of April 2d 1868, Pamph. L. 610, was passed, which provided that the mayor and councils should have power * * * to make pavements * * * whenever the majority of the owners of property on both sides and facing the streets should petition for the same, and not otherwise; except where the ordinance directing the same should provide for payment of the cost thereof out of the general funds of the city. This section was certainly repugnant to and therefore repealed the provision of the Act of 1864 on the subject, unless perhaps where the exception applied, which it is not necessary now to decide. Had this section been without the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Allentown v. Wagner
...Pa. 581; Millvale Boro. v. Evergreen Ry Co., 131 Pa. 1; Pottstown Borough, 117 Pa. 538; Craig v. First Presby. Church, 88 Pa. 42; Erid v. Bootz, 72 Pa. 196; Dewhurst v. of Allegheny, 95 Pa. 437. Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Smith, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ. OPINION ORLADY, J......
-
Commonwealth ex rel. Schweyer v. Wunch
...to the appointment and collection of the taxes are different in the two acts does not raise an implication of intention to repeal: Erie v. Bootz, 72 Pa. 196; Bank Com., 10 Pa. 442; Brown v. County Com., 21 Pa. 37; Wright v. Vickers, 81 Pa. 122; Seifried v. Com., 101 Pa. 200; Osborne v. Ever......
-
Telerent Leasing Corp. v. Progressive Med. Imaging PLC
...which instructs that a document “is to be so construed that every part and every word shall have its effect.” City of Erie v. Bootz, 72 Pa. 196, 199 (1872); see also Burdon Cent. Sugar Ref. Co. v. Payne, 167 U.S. 127, 142, 17 S.Ct. 754, 756, 42 L.Ed. 105 (1897) (“[T]he contract must be so c......
-
Newbold v. Pennock
...On the repeal of act of 1862: Barber's Case, 86 Pa. 392; Seifried v. Com., 101 Pa. 200; Morrison v. Fayette Co., 127 Pa. 110; Erie v. Bootz, 72 Pa. 196; Marlin Waters, 127 Pa. 77; Com. v. McCandless, Treasurer, 21 W.N. 162. On sufficiency of statement: Act of March 21, 1806, § 5; Morgan v. ......