Carpenter v. Hutchison

Citations

• 243 Pa. 260
• 90 A. 154
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 612

Syllabus

<p>Appeals — Awards of arbitrators — Bail—Statutes—Repeal—Acts of March 21,1849, P. L. 216; March 20,1845, Section 1, P. L. 188; April 25,1850, P. L. 569; May 19,1897, P. L. 67 — Foreign corporations.</p> <p>1. Eepeal of statutes by implication is not favored and unless done in express terms, the presumption is always against an intention to repeal. A presumption to repeal an earlier by a later statute can only arise when the two statutes are irreconcilable, or the intention is clearly expressed. There must be a clear repugnancy between the two statutes to justify the court in declaring •that the one repeals the other.</p> <p>2. The 12th section of the Act of April 25, 1850, P. L. 569, construing the Act of March 20, 1845, P. L. 188, which provides that in appeals from awards of arbitrators the appellant shall give bail for the costs only, does not repeal the Act of March 21, 1849, P. L. 216, providing that in appeals by foreign corporations in actions brought in a court of record, the bail shall, be for the debt, interest and costs. The Acts of 1845 and 1850 apply exclusively to appeals by domestic corporations.</p> <p>3. The Act of May 19, 1897, P. L. 67, repealed only so much of the Act of 1849 as relates to writs of error and appeals taken to the Supreme and Superior Courts. It does not affect the Act of 1849 in so far as it relates to appeals to the Court of Common Pleas from the awards of arbitrators.</p> <p>4. In an action to recover from sureties the amount of a bond given by a foreign corporation to secure the payment of debt, interest and costs on an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from an award of arbitrators, the affidavit of defense alleged that the •bond was illegal in that it was taken for the debt, interest and costs whereas it should have been taken for the costs only. The court made absolute plaintiff’s rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Held, no error.</p>