Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Ark. 417

Baugher v. Rudd

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 11, 1890

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1890-10-11

M. T. Sanders, Judge. By section 1436, Mansfield’s Digest, appeals are granted as a matter of right from all final orders and judgments of the county court. The rule is that when the legislature takes up the whole subject and covers the entire ground of other statutes and intended it as a substitute for the whole, the prior acts are repealed, 10 Ark., 589; 41 Ark., 149; 27 Ark.,418; 30 Ark., 560; 31 Ark., 17.

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1929

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The former (the road law of 1871) is a special provision governing a class of cases in which the public interest demanded special protection. The rule of construction is that ‘a general affirmative statute does not repeal a prior particular statute, or particular provisions of a prior statute, upon the same subject, unless there is an invincible repugnancy between the two.’ ””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Carr v. State ex rel. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-10-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

COCKRILL, C. J.

¶1Section 5940 of Mansfield’s Digest, which was enacted as a part of the road law of 1871 to establish the time and mode of- prosecuting appeals from orders of the county courts directing the opening of public roads and defining the duties of the county court and its officers in such cases, was not repealed by the subsequent enactment of section 1436 regulating appeals generally from the county court. The former is a special provision governing a class of cases in which the public interest demanded special protection. The rule of construction is, that ‘‘a general affirmative statute does not repeal a prior particular statute, or particular provisions of a prior statute upon the same subject, unless there is an invincible repugnancy-between the two.” Chamberlain v. State, 50 Ark., 132. The two provisions under consideration may stand together. The appellant did not comply with the special provision governing his cause in the attempt to perfect his appeal to the circuit court, and it was properly dismissed.

¶2Affirm.

/53/ark/417 · .json · Public domain