State ex rel. Moran v. Washburn, 21967

• Decision Date: 17 February 1955
• Docket Number: No. 21967,21967
• Citation: 112 A.2d 897,19 Conn.Supp. 316
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. John T. MORAN v. Frank L. WASHBURN et al.

Page 897

112 A.2d 897

19 Conn.Supp. 316

STATE ex rel. John T. MORAN v. Frank L. WASHBURN et al.

No. 21967.

Superior Court of Connecticut, New Haven County, at Waterbury.

Feb. 17, 1955.

Victor M. Gordon and Benjamin M. Chapnick, New Haven, for plaintiff.

Luke H. Stapleton, Cheshire, for defendants.

DEVLIN, Judge.

This is an action in the nature of quo warranto in which the relator, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, seeks to test the legality of the appointment of the police commissioners, the chief of police and a patrolman in the town of Cheshire.

On May 27, 1954, at a special town meeting, the following resolution was adopted: 'Be It Resolved: That a police commission be established for the Town of Cheshire for the purpose of organizing and maintaining a police department in said town in accordance with Section 656 to Section 661, inclusive as amended or as the same may be amended, of the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, revision of 1949. a. Such Board shall consist of five electors, all of whom shall be resident taxpayers of said Town. At the next election the town shall elect two members of such Board to serve for a term of two years, and three members to serve a term of four years, and that each biennial election thereafter, a member shall be elected for a term of four years to succeed each member whose term has expired.'

The board of selectmen held a meeting on June 5, 1954, and the minutes disclose: 'The following were appointed Police Commissioners from the 5th day of June 1954 until the next Town Election in October 1955: Richard Carroll, James H. Darcey, Robert J. McCormack, R. Blake Russell, Frank L. Washburn.' Subsequent to this, and about October 4, 1954, the board appointed the respondent John McNamara as chief of police, and thereafter he appointed respondent Vincent Maddaloni, Jr., to act as policeman and patrol officer of the town.

The plaintiff claims the action taken by the town meeting on May 27, 1954, in establishing a board of police commissioners, was null and void and of no force and effect because it was based on General Statutes, §§ 656-658, which had been repealed a year prior to the meeting. It is also claimed that the action of the board in appointing the chief of police under General Statutes, § 517, was void for the same reason and also that no vacancy had ever existed within the meaning of the statute. The respondents claim the statutes in question, §§ 656, 657 and 658, were never repealed but were in fact amended by §§ 207c, 526c and 208c of the 1953 Supplement to the General Statutes.

The call for the special town meeting referred to the establishment of a police commission for the purpose of organizing and maintaining a police department in said town, 'in accordance with Section 656 to Section 661, inclusive, as amended, or as the same may be amended, of the General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, revision of 1949.' The first question presented is whether General Statutes, §§ 656, 657 and 658, were repealed by § 209c of the 1953 Supplement to the General Statutes or whether §§ 207c, 526c and 208c are simply amendments. Section 209c is very specific. It states: 'Sections 656 to 658, inclusive, are repealed. (Effective May 14, 1953.)'

It is a well-established principle that a valid legislative enactment which contains an express provisions repealing a particular act or a part of an act is effectual to establish a repeal of the law it describes. The chief value of an express repeal is the fact that it generally leaves no uncertainty as to whether the statutes or parts of statutes designated have been repealed. 1 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d Ed.) § 2008. Respondents claim that this does not apply where similarly worded statutes are enacted at the same time; that this came about through an act passed in 1951 authorizing the secretary of state to recodify certain election laws; that the codification did not change the law but simply arranged the sequence and omitted some obscure language in an attempt to clarify the sections involved; that what in form looked like a repeal was in fact merely an amendment; and that if the contention of the plaintiff is correct any police commission created under this section would likewise be illegally created and the legislature could never have intended to dissolve commissions established since 1949. The plaintiff denies these claims and contends there was a complete change in the law of a substantial nature and there was also a repeal by implication.

It is a familiar rule that when a later statute is exclusive, that is, when it covers the whole subject to which it relates, it will be held to repeal by implication all prior statutes on the matter, whether they are general or special. Hutchison v. City of Hartford, 129 Conn. 329, 332, 27 A.2d 803; State v. Maioffes, 118 Conn. 199, 201, 171 A. 625; Walsh v. City of Bridgeport, 88 Conn. 528, 534, 91 A. 969. Especially is this true where the later statute is necessarily repugnant to the former. Lake Garda Co. v. LeWitt, 126 Conn. 588, 589, 13 A.2d 510. This occurs when both cannot be reconciled or reasonably construed together. Leete v. Griswold Post, 114 Conn. 400, 405, 158 A. 919; State v. Giant's Neck Land & Improvement Co., 116 Conn. 119, 122, 163 A. 651.

Reading § 656 with § 207c, it is apparent...