Libby v. Pelham
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from tbe District Court of tbe Eigbtb Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. John M. Flynn, Judge. Action for money bad and received. Judgment for defendant. When a statute is amended, repassed or re-enacted by tbe legislature, and a clause or part thereof omitted, and with such omission the statute as amended, repassed or re-enacted makes sense either with or without the omitted portion, there •is no presumption that the legislature did not intend the omission.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from tbe District Court of tbe Eigbtb Judicial District, for Kootenai County. Hon. John M. Flynn, Judge. Action for money bad and received. Judgment for defendant. When a statute is amended, repassed or re-enacted by tbe legislature, and a clause or part thereof omitted, and with such omission the statute as amended, repassed or re-enacted makes sense either with or without the omitted portion, there •is no presumption that the legislature did not intend the omission. (2 Lewis’ Sutherland’s Stat. Const., p. 801, sec. 412.) The parts of the former act omitted in the revision cannot be…
1Concurrence
MORGAN, J.,
Concurring. — Had the purported warrants in question been, at the date of their issuance, valid obligations of Kootenai county which subsequently became invalid because they were purchased by a member of the board of county commissioners, acting either in his own behalf or as *622agent for another, I would be in entire accord with the foregoing opinion, but they were not. In Milner v. Pelham, ante, p. 594, 166 Pac. 574, we held certain purported warrants, being a part of the same issue and issued for the same purpose as those here under consideration, to be “pieces of worthless paper,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Milner v. PelhamIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Dreisbach v. EckelkampSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1912
- Childers v. BilliterCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Sheppard v. WoodAppellate Court of Illinois · 1898