Stirman v. State
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Citation | 21 Tex. 734 |
| Parties | V. J. STIRMAN v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Although the law does not favor repeals by implication, yet a subsequent statute revising the subject matter of a former one, and intended as a substitute for it, though it contains no express words to that effect, will operate a repeal of the former, to the extent to which its provisions are supplied or repealed. 11 Tex. 144.
The act of January, 1840 (Hart. Dig. art. 2348), applies as well to implied as to express repeals.
Appeal from Henderson. Tried below before Hon. R. A. Reeves.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
R. F. Dunn, for appellant.
Attorney General, for appellee.
The appellant filed his application on the 5th May, 1858, in the district court of Henderson county, for a three hundred and twenty acre certificate of land as a settler in Mercer's colony, and the evidence being heard the application was refused.
It will not be necessary to consider the facts as a preliminary question on the subject of the jurisdiction of the court has been raised, which will dispose of the case.
It is urged in this court, though not suggested below by the appellee, that the district court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine such applications; that the power was vested in that court by the act of 30th August, 1856, but that act having been repealed by the act of December 17th, 1857, the power fell with the repeal, and could extend to no new application, although for the greater security certificates already granted were not to be affected by the passage of the repealing act.
But it may be said that the act of December 17th, 1857, only repealed the act of August 30th, 1856, leaving the statutes of 1854, 1852, and 1850, in full force.
But to this may be replied that the act of 1850 provides for the appointment of a commissioner, and gives no authority to the district court to hear the claims of colonists. That the act of 1854 makes no reference to the district court as the tribunal to issue the certificates; and if it did it may be regarded as a portion of the supplementary act of February 16th, 1852, which was the first act that conferred authority on the district court to hear such claims. The fifth section of this latter act was repealed by the act of 1854, and it will be found upon examination and comparison, that the whole subject matter of the acts of 1852 and 1854 were revised by the act of 1856; and that the latter act was intended as a substitute for both of the former acts. The first section of each of these three statutes is in effect an amendment of the 8th section of the act of 1850, and prescribes the facts to be offered by the applicant in proof. The second section of the acts of 1852 and of 1854, provides in substantially the same terms, that the district court shall hear and determine and award or refuse certificates, etc. The third section of both of these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- The State ex rel. Davis v. Ellison
-
Edmanson v. State
...is that the statute last enacted will control. In addition to the authorities already cited, I cite Bryan v. Sunberg, 5 Tex. 418; Stirman v. State, 21 Tex. 734; Etter v. M. P. Ry. Co., 2 Willson, Civ. Cas. Ct. App. § 58; Chiles v. State, 1 Tex. App. 27; Holden v. State, 1 Tex. App. 225; Dav......
-
State v. Mines.
...as well as to express repeals. So it has been held on similar statutes. End. Interp. St. § 476; Milne v. Huber, 3 McLean 212; Stirman v. State, 21 Tex. 734. See, also, Philips s Case, 19 Gratt. 485. Now, as I remarked above, section 20 of chapter 35 of the Code was broad and comprehensive a......
-
Thomas v. Groebl
...amendment. Section 36 of Article III of the Constitution of Texas; Article 10, Subdivision 7, Revised Civil Statutes of 1925; Stirman v. State, 21 Tex. 734; State Bank of Barksdale v. Cloudt, Tex.Civ.App., 258 S.W. 248; Sutherland's Statutory Construction, 3d Ed., Vol. 1, page 520, Sec. The......