Commonwealth v. Rose's Executors
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Common Pleas of Susquehanna county. This was an action of debt by The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for the use of David L. Meeker, against William Jessup and B. S. Bentley, executors of Andrew H. Rose, on the official bond of Mark Sutton, late constable of Silver Lake township, for whom the said Andrew H. Rose was surety.
Read the full summary
Error to the Common Pleas of Susquehanna county. This was an action of debt by The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for the use of David L. Meeker, against William Jessup and B. S. Bentley, executors of Andrew H. Rose, on the official bond of Mark Sutton, late constable of Silver Lake township, for whom the said Andrew H. Rose was surety. The bond was dated the 17th April 1854; this action was commenced on the 29th December 1857; and the defendants pleaded, inter alia, that the action was not brought within three years from the date of the bond. On the 16th November 1854, David L. Meeker…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Thompson, J.
A prior statute is repealed by the enactment of a subsequent repugnant statute. And certainly may this be by the use of express terms of repeal. But both modes of repeal are to be measured by the controlling rule of construction, the intent of the legislature. If the words do not amount to an express repeal, the next inquiry is, does the new statute supply a system to take the place of the old, and therefore repugnant to it ? If so, the repeal is effected by necessary implication.
The system of laws regulating the office of constable, now in…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ClipshamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fenton Storage Co. v. McClaneSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943
- Commonwealth ex rel. Hughes v. Maryland Casualty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1950