de Kalb Smith v. County School Commissioners

Citations

• 81 Md. 513
• 32 A. 193
• 1895 Md. LEXIS 63

Syllabus

<p>Oyster Law — County Scraping Licenses — Repeal of Statute by Implication.</p> <p>The rule that if two statutes are plainly repugnant to each other, the later Act operates to the extent of the repugnancy as a repeal of the first, applies also to different sections of the same law.</p> <p>Under the Act of 1894, ch. 380, the Clerks of the Circuit Courts of the counties are required to pay to the Comptroller of the Treasury one-third of the amount received for permits to take oysters under scraping licenses, and not one-half of said amount.</p> <p>The Act of 1894, ch. 380, sec. 29, provides that one-third of the money received from the county oyster scraping licenses shall be paid into the Treasury of the State and placed to the credit of the “Oyster Fund.” Section 30 of said Act provides that all licenses not used shall be returned by the Clerks of the Courts to the Comptroller, and the said Clerks shall also pay to the Comptroller one-half of all moneys received for such licenses, which sum shall be paid to the credit of the “Oyster Fund.” Held, that the language of section 30 is too vague to repeal by implication the express provision of section 29, and that upon the whole Act the intention of the Legislature appeared to be that one-third of the county scraping licenses should be paid into the State Treasury.</p>