286 P. 119 | Nev. | 1930
We earnestly call the court's attention to the fact that subdivision 3 of section 8, Stats. 1913, was repealed by implication, in that such portion was omitted in an act approved March 29, 1915, entitled "An Act relating to elections," Stats. 1915, pp. 463-507. Gill v. Goldfield Consol. Mines Co.,
The petition is nothing more than a supplemental brief and a reargument of points covered in appellants' opening brief. State v. Woodbury,
The questions presented by the petition were fully argued and considered by the court in the former *234
hearing. Chapman v. Justice Court,
In their petition for rehearing respondents contend very earnestly that the provision stated has been repealed. It is insisted that the act of the legislature 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 the provision for filing nomination papers for city officers was omitted from the act of 1915, a repeal by implication was effected. In support of this contention counsel quotes from Gill v. Goldfield Consol. Mines Co.,
1, 2. That is a statement of the general rule. The rule must be taken, however, in connection with the intention of the legislature as to the entire act. If it is plain that it is the legislative intent in the later act to embrace the whole subject, then "what is not included in the later act must be held to 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.
3, 4. A statute should be construed so as to avoid absurd results. Escalle v. Mark,
5. Repeals by implication are not favored, and should not be declared, except in cases free from doubt.
The petition for rehearing is denied.