IN RE: MABEL H. WADE, A SPINSTER, SURATORSHIP; MABEL H. WADE, A SPINSTER,
v.
BESS WELLS JANNEY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida Supreme Court held that Chapter 20441 (Acts of 1941), which imposed a 60-day appeal deadline for writs of error and appeals in chancery, did not impliedly repeal Chapter 17976 (Acts of 1937), which allowed appeals in curatorship proceedings within six months. The court applied the principle that general statutes do not impliedly repeal prior special statutes absent positive repugnancy or clear intent.
Chapter 20441 did not impliedly repeal Chapter 17976. The court held that implied repeals are not favored and require either positive repugnancy between the statutes or clear intent to repeal. A general statute is presumed not to repeal a prior special statute unless the contrary clearly appears.
“While it is true that a prior Act may be repealed in part, or in toto by implication through the passage of a subsequent Act... such repeals are not favored and there must be a positive repugnancy between the two or a clear intent to repeal must be apparent.”
Establishes the governing standard that implied repeals are disfavored and require positive repugnancy or clear intent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMabel H. Wade petitioned for appointment of a curator under Chapter 17976, Acts of 1937. The lower court appointed a curator. Wade appealed less than …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Implied Repeal Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
The proceeding in the lower court was one for the appointment of a Curator as provided by Chapter 17976, Acts of 1937.
*441Section 10 of Chapter 17976, supra, provides that appeal may he taken within six months of the entry of the final decree in the proceedings.
Chapter 20441, Acts of 1941, provides that all writs of error and appeals in chancery shall be taken within 60 days from the day of .entry of the order appealed from.
The appeal herein was entered less than six months from the entry of the order appointing the Curator, but more than 60 days after October 1, 1941, the effective date of Chapter 20441, supra. The sole question presented, therefore, is: Whether Chapter 20441, supra, repeals Section 10, Chapter 17976. Any repeal must be by implication for there is no express repeal of Chapter .17976.
Chapter 17976, supra, was. re-enacted by the same Session of the Legislature that enacted Chapter 20441, by the adoption of Chapter 746 of the Revised Florida Statutes of 1941. Old Section 10 Chapter 17976 is now Section 746.15 Florida Statutes.
While it is true that a prior Act may be repealed in part, or in toto by implication through the passage of a subsequent Act (City of Jacksonville v. Bowden, 67 Fla. 181, 64 Sou. 769, LRA 1916D, 913, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 99), such repeals are not favored and there must be a positive repugnancy between the two or a clear intent to repeal must be apparent. Dade County v. City of Miami, 77 Fla. 786, 82 Sou. 354.
The same rule of construction applies to the case where it is sought to be shown that a general Act repeals by implication a prior Act dealing with a narrower or more limited subject, special in its nature and application. Luke, a slave, v. State, 5 Fla. 185; State v. Southern Land & Timber Co., 45 Fla. 374, 33 *442Sou. 999. General authorities to the same effect: 59 C. J. 935; Lewis’ Sutherland, Statutory Construction (2nd Ed. 1904) Vol. 1, 526.
It is said that the later general Act will be presumed to have made an exception of the prior special one, unless the contrary clearly appears.
Applying the rule stated, it seems clear that Chapter 20441, supra, was never intended to repeal Chapter 17976.
Motion to dismiss is denied.
So ordered.
BROWN, C. J„ WHITFIELD, BUFORD and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loxahatchee River Env't Control Dist. v. Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 496 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…tutes whose conflicting provisions it repeals, it does state in so many words that any such conflicting statutory provisions are repealed. We think a clear intent to repeal is apparent here, which would satisfy one of the rules stated in In re Wade, 150 Fla. 440, 7 So. 2d 797 (1942). It may, in fact, be reasoned that there is no repugnancy between chapter 71-822, Laws of Florida, which created the Environmental Control District, and the present statutory provision. That is, the power of a utility to set an…
-
Atkinson v. State, 156 Fla. 449 (Fla. 1945)…he two or that the last was clearly intended to prescribe the only rule which should govern the case provided for, or that it revises the subject matter of the former.” . Also see Beasley v. Coleman, 136 Fla. 393, 180 So. 625; In re Wade v. Janney, 150 Fla. 440, 7 So. (2nd) 797. The statute under which this conviction was had has been a part of our statute law since 1868 and we have stated the elements of the offense denounced. See Campbell v. State, 149 Fla. 701, 6 So. (2nd) 828. One of the elements is t…
-
Alford v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 324 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…ases which have been provided for by the special one. * * * The fact that the general act contains a clause repealing acts inconsistent with it does not diminish the force of this rule of construction.” In addition, the Supreme Court in In re Wade, 150 Fla. 440, 7 So. 2d 797, said: “It is said that the later general Act will be presumed to have made an exception of the prior special 'one, unless the contrary clearly appears.” [*177] We now turn to the Legislative intent as expressed in the new A. P. A. Se…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The City of Jacksonville v. Bowden, 67 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1914)
- Price v. McLeod, 67 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1914)
- McKinnon v. First Nat'l Bank of Pensacola, 77 Fla. 786 (Fla. 1919)
- The State of Fla. & the Cnty. of Jackson v. S. Land & Timber Co., 45 Fla. 374 (Fla. 1903)
- Luke v. State, 5 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1853)