Court Opinion

ID: 6468693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-26 14:08:50.916768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:53:45.924568
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING. RYAN, District Judge. In their motion for rehearing, plaintiffs urge that the court, in the original opinion filed herein, omitted to take into consideration the contention made by them that the provisional order law of the act of 1903 (sections 3665-3671, inclusive, Code of 1915) was repealed by implication by the act of the territorial Legislature of 1909, chapter 31, Laws of 1909. This position is so clearly untenable that it was not deemed deserving of comment in the opinion. The act of 1903 above referred to has to do with the authorization to a city council to order local improvements and assess the cost thereof upon abutting property. Chapter 31, Laws of 1909, has to do with the creation of improvement districts by incorporated cities; the organization of boards of improvements for the districts so created, and the direction and control of such improvements by such boards; the creation of boards for the assessment of benefits in each district; and the collection of the assessments. The opinion filed herein states upon what conditions subsequent legislation will be held to repeal prior legislation by implication. None of the tests therein set forth are here present to imply the repeal of the act of 1903 by the 1909 act. The remaining contentions upon which a rehearing is urged were treated in the opinion proper. For these reasons, the motion for rehearing will be denied; and it is so ordered. ROBERTS, C. J.,'and RAYNOLDS, J., concur.