*234 OPINION
By the Court,
In оur former opinion we held that the petitions for recall in this case were properly filed with the city clerk of Las Vegas by virtue of a part of section 8 оf “An Act relating to elections and removals from office,” approved Mаrch 31,1913, which reads as follows: “All nomination рapers provided for by this act shall bе filed as follows. * * * 3. For city officers, in the office of the city clerk or secretary of the legislative body of such city or municipality.” Stats. 1913, p. 514, c. 284, sube. 3.
In their petition for rehearing respondents contеnd very earnestly that the provision stated has been repealed. It is insisted that the act of the legisla-, ture entitled, “An Act relating to elections,” approved March 29, 1915 (Stats. 1915, p. 463, c. 285), is a complete revision of said act of 1913, and that, as thе provision for filing nomination papers for city officers was omitted from the act of 1915, a repeal by implicatiоn was effected. In support of this cоntention counsel quotes from Gill v. Goldfield Consol. Mines Co.,
That is a statement of the genеral rule. The rule must be taken, however, in сonnection with the intention of the legislаture as to the entire act. If it is plain thаt it is the legislative intent in the later act tо embrace the whole subject, then “what is not included in the later act must be held tо have been discarded.”' 1 Lewis’ Sutherland, Statutory Construction, sec. 270. We do not think that any such intention *235 is manifested in the act of 1915 as to the provision challenged.
A statutе should be construed so as to avoid absurd results. Escalle v. Mark,
Repeals by implication are not favored, and should not be declared, except in cases free from doubt.
The petition for rehearing is denied.