REPEAL. The abrogation or destruction of a law by a legislative act.
A repeal is express, as, when it is literally declared by a subsequent law, or implied, when the new law contains provisions con trary to or irreconcilable with those of the former law.
The power to revoke or annul a statute or ordinance is equivalent to the power to repeal it ; and in either case the power is legislative and not judicial in its character; Shephard v. Wheeling, 30 W. Va. 479, 4 S. E. 635.
A statute is not to be deemed repealed merely by the enactment of another statute on the same subject. There must be a pos itive repugnancy between the provisions of the new law and the old, to work a repeal by implication ; and even then the old law is re pealed only to the extent of such repugnan cy ; Mersereau v. Mersereau Co., 51 N. J. Eq. 382, 26 Atl. 682 ; Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682, 11 Sup. Ct. 222, 34 L. Ed. 832. This rule is supported in a vast variety of cases.
A law may be repealed by implication, by an affirmative as well as by a negative stat ute, if the substance is inconsistent with the old statute ; Moore's Lessee v. Vance, 1 Ohio, 10 ; Adams v. Ashby, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 96 ; West v. Pine, 4 Wash. C. C. 691, Fed. Cas. No. 17, 423 ; and a repeal by implication has been effected even where two inconsistent enact ments have been passed in the same -session; 2 B. & Ald. 818; or where two parts of the same act have proved repugnant to each oth er ; 4 C. P. Div. 29 ; but this will be pre sumed only in extreme cases ; 13 C. B. 461. A repeal by implication is not favored; the leaning of the courts is against such repeal, if it be possible to reconcile the two acts ; Cook Co. v. Gilbert, 146 I11. 268, 33 N. E. 761; People v. Gustin, 57 Mich. 407, 24 N. W. 156 ; Cerf v. Reichert, 73 Cal. 360, 15 Pac. 10 ; Chamberlain v. State, 50 Ark. 132, 6 S. W. 524 ; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 27 Sup. Ct. 350, 51 L. Ed. 553, 9 Ann. Cas. 1075 ; [1892] 1 Q. B. 654 ; and a gen eral law is not to be held as repealing a prior special law unless it clearly manifests such intention ; State v. Frazier, 98 Mo. 426, 11 S. W. 973 ; Adams Exp. Co. v. Owensboro, 85 Ky. 265, 3 S. W. 370; Cook Co. v. Gilbert,
146 III. 268, 33 N. E. 761; Gowen v. Harley, 56 Fed. 973, 6 C. C. A. 190, 12 U. S. App. 574. General legislation must give way to special legislation on the same subject; id. 267. But where the constitution directs the legis lature to pass general legislation, and a law is passed, which is complete and does evi dently intend to provide a uniform system, no words of repeal are necessary ; Chalfant v. Edwards, 176 Pa. 67, 34 Atl. 922.
The later of two clearly inconsistent and repugnant acts must prevail; Lyddy v. Long Island City, 104 N. Y. 218, 10 N. E. 155; State v. Howe, 28 Neb. 618, 44 N. W. 874 ; and is an implied repeal of the earlier ; 29 Ch. D. 15 ; but not unless their provisions are clearly inconsistent; Gowen v. Harley, 56 Fed. 973, 6 C. C. A. 190, 12 U. S. App. 574; and where they can be read together without repugnancy, both should stand ; Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46, 15 Sup. Ct. 532, 39 L. Ed. 614 ; and the burden is on the one who asserts that there is an implied repeal ; 29 Ch. D. 15.
An earlier statute is repealed by a subse quent one only in those particulars wherein it is clearly inconsistent and irreconcilable with the later enactment. The leaning of all courts is against repealing the positive provi sions of former statutes by construction, un less there be such a manifest and total re pugnance between the two enactments that they cannot both stand. It is not enough that there is a discrepancy between different parts of a system of legislation on the same general subject : there must be a conflict be tween different acts on the same specific sub ject; Corn. v. De Camp, 177 Pa. 112, 35 Atl. 601. Where the repealing act is unconstitu tional and void, it will not work a repeal ; Devoy v. N. Y., 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 264 ; State v. Thomas, 138 Mo. 95, 39. S. W. 481; Cooley, Const. Lim. 186 ; Campau v. Detroit, 14 Mich. 276; contra, Meshmeier v. State, 11 Ind. 489 ; and where part of an act was un constitutional, but the repeal in part was valid, and they were separable, it worked, a repeal ; Equitable Guarantee & Trust Co. v. Donahoe, 3 Pennewill (Del.) 191, 49 Atl. 372.