At common law the repeal of a repealing act revived the former act; 6 Co. 199; Hast ings v. Aiken, 1 Gray (Mass.) 163 ; Doe v. Naylor, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 32; Wallace v. Bradshaw, 54 N. J. L. 175, 23 Atl. 759 ; but not where there is a general law governing the subject and the act in question was a private act ; In re Opening of Knox St., 12 Super. Ct. Rep. (Pa.) 534; and it has been held to have this effect, unless the language of the repealing statute or some general stat ute provides otherwise ; U. S. v. Philbrick, 120 U. S. 52, 7 Sup. Ct. 413, 30 L. Ed. 559; but this rule is now altered in England by an act passed in 1880 and amended in 1889, and in many states this rule has been changed, as in Ohio, Louisiana, Kentucky, Wisconsin and Minnesota ; and such an act applies only to absolute repeal and not where the repealed law merely engrafted an exception on a prior law ; Pepin Tp. v. Sage, 129 Fed. 657, 64 C. C. A. 169; La. Civ. Code, art. 23. In some states, as Tennessee and Georgia, the sub stance of an act repealed or revived must be stated in the caption or otherwise, and in others, as Connecticut and Arkansas, a re pealing or amending act must recite the law so amended sufficiently to show the effect of the amendment or repeal.
A repealed statute is as if it had never ex isted, except as to transactions which are past and closed before the repeal ; 4 De G. &
J. 557; but the repeal leaves all the civil rights of the parties acquired under the law unaffected; Taylor v. Rushing, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 160; Pacific Mail S. S. Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 450, 17 L. Ed. 805. An action for pen alties cannot be sustained when the statute inflicting them has been repealed before judg ment; Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. (U. S.) 429, 14 L. Ed. 210 ; nor an action for the recov ery of money paid in violation of law, under similar circumstances ; Kimbro v. Colgate, 5 Blatch. 229, Fed. Cas. No. 7,778.
When a penal statute is repealed or so modified as to exempt a class from its op eration, violations committed before the re peal are also exempted, unless specifically reserved, or unless there has been some pri vate right vested by it ; Com. v. Welch, 2 Dana (Ky.) 330; In re Road in Hatfield Tp., 4 Yeates (Pa.) 392 ; Anonymous, 1 Wash. C. C. 84, Fed. Cas. No. 475 ; Attoo v. Corn., 2 Va. Cas. 382.
Under "Initiative and Referendum" provi sions, the legislature may still repeal an act, however passed ; In re Senate Resolution No. 4, 54 Colo. 262, 130 Pac. 333.
There can be no such thing as an unre pealable statute ; Com. v. Iron Co., 153 Ky. 116, 154 S. W. 931.
As to repeal by nonuser, see OBSOLETE. Stat. 8 Edw. VII repealed 102 old acts that "are pent." See REPUGNANCY; INTERPRETATION; STAT UTE; REVISED STATUTES.