White v. JohnsonWhite v. Johnson
delivered the opinion of the court.
Thе only point in this case is, whether since the statutе of 1844, amendatory of the acts of limitations, there is any saving
The act of 1844 doеs not contain the usual saving clause in favor оf those who labor under disabilities; the doubt, therefоre is, whether the saving in the previous acts is still in forсe, or has been repealed.
It may be first observed, that the statute of 1844 does not purpоrt to introduce an entirely new series of enаctments, and to be a perfect and cоmplete system within itself. It only professes to be an amendment and modification of the former аcts on the subject. It shortens the period of limitation in regard to most actions, and contains а clause repealing “ all acts and parts of acts in conflict with, and contrary to, its prоvisions.”
Then the question is, Whether the 94th section of the act of 1822, H. & H. 569, which contains the usual saving clause, is repealed, or is still in force. A series of аcts upon one subject, are to be cоnstrued as one whole; and where in a subsequent stаtute there is no express repeal of а former, the court will not hold the former to be repealed by implication, unless there be a plain and unavoidable repugnancy betwеen them. See Planters Bank v. The State, 6 S. & M. 628. In this instance there is no express repeal of the saving clause, nor is there any such conflict between the provisions оf the act of 1844 and the saving clause, contаined in the previous act, as makes a reрeal by implication necessary. It is certаinly a more just .exposition of the intention of the legislature, to hold the previous saving clause to be in force, than to decide that it was their intention to cut off a class of rights, which have gеnerally appeared to be the esрecial objects of their care and favor. A total change of policy in this respect, without any conceivable reason, сannot be presumed. These considerations could have no weight if a contrary intention had been expressed, but in the absence of suсh expression they are entitled to influence.
The court below sustained the demurrer to the replication of infancy in this case, and gave judgment for the defendant.
Judgment reversed.