Nissley v. Lancaster County

Citations

• 27 Pa. Super. 405
• 1905 Pa. Super. LEXIS 73

Syllabus

<p>Statutes — Repeal—Implied repeal — Local laws.</p> <p>The result of the eases relating to the question of the implied repeal of local laws may be summed up as follows: First, the rule that a general statute does not repeal by implication a local act with different or inconsistent provisions, is still the prevailing rule. Secondly, but the rule being founded on a presumption of legislative intent, will not apply when a contrary intent is clearly apparent. Thirdly, where the clear general intent of the legislature is to establish a uniform and mandatory system as in the municipal classification acts the presumption must be that the local acts are intended to be repealed. Fourthly, where an act is passed to carry into effect a mandatory general provision of the constitution, the presumption must be that it was intended to repeal even local acts inconsistent with its terms.</p> <p>Public officers — Poor laws — Directors of the Poor — Compensation—Acts of February 27, 1798, 3 Sm. L. 306; March 31, 1807, 4 Sm. L. 388; April 14, 1864, P. L. 422, and July 2, 1895, P. L. 424.</p> <p>“The Directors of the Poor and of the House of Employment of the County of Lancaster,” created by the Act of February 27, 1798, 3 Sm. L. 306, are not county officers, and their compensation as fixed by the Act of April 14, 1864, P. L. 422, is not affected or changed by the Act of July 2, 1895, P. L. 424, which fixes the salaries of county directors of the poor in counties containing over 150,000 inhabitants.</p>