State ex rel. County Commissioners v. Romero

Citations

• 19 N.M. 1
• 140 P. 1069

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Sec. 7, Chap. 54, Laws 1912, which provides that the County Road Funds “shall hereafter be expended under the supervision and direction of the County Road Board, and the methods for making such expenditures and accounting therefor shall be the same as those now or hereafter required by law in the case of expenditures made by the Boards of County Commissioners.” Held. To authorize the County Road Boards to draw their warrants upon the County Treasurers directly against the County Road Fund, in payment of supplies necessary in the construction of public roads, under the same statutory regulations1 now in force controlling the Boards of County Commissioners in disbursing County Funds. P. 7</p> <p>2. Repeals by implication are not favored but will be declared by the courts in cases where “the last statute is 80> broad in its terms and so clear and explicit in its words as to show that it was intended to cover tbe whole subject, and, therefore, to displace the prior statute.” P. 6</p> <p>3. ■ Chapter 54, Laws of 1912, granting to the County Road Boards general powers over public roads'. Held: Not to repeal by implication so much of Chapter 124, Laws of 1905, as empowered Boards of County Commissioners to acquire by purchase or condemnation land for use as a public ! road. P. 7</p> <p>4. A subsequent statute treating a subject in general terms, will not be held to repeal by implication an- earlier statute treating the same subject specifically, unless such construction is absolutely necessary in order to give the subsequent statute effect. P. 6</p> <p>5. Held. That Section 7, Chap. 54, Laws of 1912, does not forbid the Boards of County Commissioners from drawing warrants against the county Road Fund to pay for land acquired for use as a public road, under the provisions of Chapter 124, Laws of 1905. P. 7</p>