Case Name: BOOTH'S WILL
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1901-12-02
Citations: 40 Or. 154
Docket Number: 
Parties: BOOTH’S WILL.
Judges: 'Wolverton, J., being related to one of the parties, took no part in the decision.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 154–161

Head Matter:
Argued 6 November;
decided 2 December, 1901.
BOOTH’S WILL.
[61 Pac. 1135, 66 Pac. 710.]
Rules of Court — Advancing fob Argument.
1. A case involving solely the construction of a will wherein only private persons are interested does not involve any question of “public importance” as that expression is used in Rule 16 of the supreme court, justifying a hearing out of its regular order.
Statutes — Repeal by Implication.
2. A subsequent act, not covering the entire ground of an earlier act, and not clearly intended as a substitute for it, does not repeal such earlier act, unless its provisions are so repugnant to it that both cannot stand.
Revocation of Will by Married Woman — Statutes.
3. Section 3072, Hill’s Ann. Laws, providing that the will of an unmarried woman shall be deemed revoked by her subsequent marriage, has not been impliedly repealed by Section 780, Hill’s Ann. Laws, declaring that a written will cannot be revoked otherwise than by another written will, or canceled or destroyed by the testator himself or by another person in his presence, the latter section having reference only to revocation by some direct act of the testator; nor by section 2992, removing the common-law disabilities of married women, and vesting them with complete control of their property as though unmarried; nor by section 2998, declaring that all laws which impose or recognize civil disabilities in a wife not imposed or recognized as existing as to the husband are thereby repealed; and section 3072 is still in force.
From Marion: Reuben P. Boise, Judge.
In September, 1888, Yerena Wischer, an unmarried woman, over eighteen years of age, and of sound mind, executed her will in due form. Thereafter she married John C. Booth. No children were born of this marriage. Mrs. Booth died in January, 1899, and Mr. Booth in December of the same year. The question now is whether Mrs. Booth’s property shall be disposed of under her will or under the statute — in other words, was the will revoked by the subsequent marriage of its maker. The county court admitted the will to probate, but that order was reversed by the circuit court, from which decree the proponents appeal.
Affirmed.
Decided 23 July, 1900.
Decided 2 December, 1901.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Wm. M. Kaiser, Woodson T. Slater, Tilmon Ford, and F. A. Turner, with an oral argument by Messrs. Slater and Ford.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of D. Ji. N. Blackburn and Brown, Wrightman & Myers, with an oral argument by Mr. Blackburn and Mr. J. N. Brown.

Opinion:
On Motion to Advance for Hearing.
Submitted without oral argument.
Per Curiam.
The motion to advance in this case must be denied. It is a civil action, involving no question of public importance, and, under Rule 16 of the Supreme .Court of Oregon (35 Or. 587, 600) must come up for argument in the order of its entry on the trial docket. An early hearing is no doubt important to the immediate parties litigant; but the same is probably true of the other eases entitled to precedence over it, and it would be unjust to them to advance it out of its Order.
Motion Overruled.