Case ID: walker_2/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Trunkey, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

O’HARA VS. JOHNSON.
    A general statute which repeals general laws inconsistent therewith, does not repeal a local law inconsistent therewith.
    A general statute, without negative words, does not repeal a particular statute inconsistent therewith.
    Error to Common Pleas of Warron County. No. 431 January Term, 1884.
    On December 18, 1883, Patrick O’Hara filed a mechanics’ lien for $17.00 against John Johnson, S. C. Rhodes and William Jones, owners, and O. B. Jordan, contractor. On Feby. 4thr 1884, the Court struck off the lien in the following opinion per
    Brown, P. J.
    The Act of Assembly of April 8,1868, P. Laws 752 giving a. lien to mechanics, laborers, etc. on leasehold estates in the County of Venango, was extended to Warren County in 1869, P. Laws 410.
    The section giving a lien for work about the erection or repairs of engines, machinery, etc. contains the proviso, that the act shall not apply where the debt is of less amount than twenty-five dollars. At the date of filing the lien in this case, the debt was for the sum of $17.00 only. The general act of 1879 does-not limit the amount of the debt for which the claim may be filed, and from thence the plaintiff claims that the lien in this-case is good, but the act of 1879 contains no words repealing the local act of 1868, and we find no provision in the general act which is repugnant to or a repeal by implication of the limitation of the amount of the debt for which a lien may be filed. The rule to show cause why the lien should not be stricken off is made absolute. O’Hara„then took a writ of error, complaining of the action of the Court in striking off the mechanics’ lien.
    J. A. Donly and D. I. Ball, Esqs. for plaintiff in error
    argued that the Act of June 28,1879, P. Laws’ 182 repealed the local Act of 1869, P. Laws 410.
    
      Messrs Dinsmoor & Cable, Esqs., contra,
    argued that the Act of March 18, 1869, P. Laws 410, being a local statute was not repealed by the Act of 1879; Edwards vs. Dauphin County, 2 Pearson 35; Street vs. Commonwealth, 6 W. & S. 209; Brown vs. County Commissioners, 21 Pa. 43; Omitt vs. Commonwealth, 21 Pa. 426; Kilgore vs. Commonwealth, 94 Pa. 495-497.
   The Supíneme Court affirmed the decision of the Common Pleas, on October 6th, 1884, in the following opinion, per

Trunkey, J.

The Act of June 28th, 1879, P. L. 182, contains a proviso that it shall not apply to counties having over two hundred thousand inhabitants, but its constitutionality has not been questioned by defendants (see Davis et al. vs. Clark, 106 Pa. 377). They rest ■upon the point that this Act, if valid, does not repeal any local Act for Warren County. Section 7 of the Act repeals all general laws or parts of laws inconsistent therewith. According to a familiar rule the naming of general laws only in the repealing section excludes all other laws. And the express repeal of gen■eral laws manifests an intent not to repeal local laws.

It is settled that a general statute, without negative words, does not repeal a previous statute, which is particular, even ■though the provisions of one be different from the other. There is no repeal where the intent is not to supply the local statute. Tt is not presumed that a general system for the State is intended to repeal a special Act adapted to the circumstances of a local municipal division. Unless there is strong repugnancy or irreconcilable inconsistency, the local Act continues in force, although many of its provisions are embodied in a later general Act: Brown v. Commissioners, 21 Pa. St. 37; Bounty Accounts, 70 Id. 92; Kilgore v. Commonwealth, 94. Id. 495; Seifried v. Commonwealth, 101 Id. 200.

Judgment affirmed.