Commonwealth v. Vetterlein

Citations

• 21 Pa. Super. 587
• 1902 Pa. Super. LEXIS 414

Syllabus

<p>Statutes — Repeal—Implication—Repugnance.</p> <p>Repeals by implication are not favored. To warrant such construction there must be a manifest and total repugnance between the provisions of the old law and the new, sufficient to lead to the conclusion that the new was intended to abrogate the old. The more natural if not necessary inference in all such cases is that the legislature intended the new law to be auxiliary to and in aid of the purposes of the old.</p> <p>A later act treating a subject in general terms but not expressly contradicting the provisions of a former statute, is not to be construed as intended to affect the more particular and specific provisions of the earlier acts, unless such construction is alsolutely necessary.</p> <p>Statutes — Repeals—Mercantile appraisers — Appeals—Acts of April 11, 1862, P. L. 492, and May 2, 1899, P. L. 184.</p> <p>The act of April 11, 1862, providing that an appeal from an assessment of the board of mercantile appraisers must be taken within ten days, is not repealed by the act of May 2, 1899, which affirms the right of appeal, but is silent as to limitation of time.</p>