Bateman v. Colgan

Citations

• 111 Cal. 580
• 44 P. 238
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 626

Syllabus

<p>San Francisco Depot Act—Powers oe Harbor Commissioners—Politioal Code—State Building Law.—The San Francisco depot act of 1891 was not intended to confer any additional power upon the harbor commissioners, except the single one of enabling them to anticipate their revenues, and to create an indebtedness for the building of such depot, which the board, by reason of the restrictions of sections 2526 and 2527 of the Political Code, did not theretofore possess; and the provision of the act, that the commissioners should construct such depot “ iii the manner and method authorized by law,” refers to the provision of the Political Code governing the harbor commissioners, and not ■ to the general public buildings act of the state.</p> <p>Id.—Statutory Construction—Repeal by Implication—Special Act not Repealed by General Law.—The law does not favor a repeal by implication; and when two statutes treat of the same subject, one being special, and the other general, unless they are irreconcilably inconsistent, the latter, though the later in date, will not be held to have repealed the former, hut the special act will prevail in its application tcqthe subject matter, so far as coming within its particular provisions.</p> <p>Id.—Grant oe Implied Power— Employment op Architect.—Where power is given to perform an act, the authority to employ all necessary means to accomplish the end is implied by law; and the grant of power to construct a depot building implies power to employ an architect.</p>