[3] The effect of this amendment was to make it operate precisely as though the subject matter had been originally incorporated in Ordinance 1494. ( Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563, 564.) On December 13, 1949, Ordinance 5447 was adopted, effective January 13, 1950.
" In Sponogle v. Curnow, 136 Cal. 580, 584 [ 69 P. 255], the rule is briefly stated as follows: "Although an act or part of an act may not be repealed expressly or by necessary implication, still a revision of the whole subject matter covering said act would supersede all such portions as were omitted from the revisory act." Other similar statements of the rule are to be found in State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501; Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563; Harris v. Cooley, 171 Cal. 144 [ 152 P. 300]; Carter v. Stevens, 208 Cal. 649 [ 284 P. 217]. [10] The above statements of the rule likewise serve to fix the extent of its operation.
B. Hotchkiss, for Respondent. The plaintiff is not authorized to maintain the action, the act of 1880 having been repealed by the act of March 9, 1883, which is evidently intended to revise the whole system for the collection of taxes on railroad property of this kind, and substitute the new system for the old. (Pierpont v. Crouch , 10 Cal. 315; Treadwell v. Yolo County , 62 Cal. 563, 564; People v. Burt , 43 Cal. 560; People v. Sargent , 44 Cal. 430.) JUDGES: Van Fleet, J. Harrison, J., and Garoutte, J., concurred.
Neither the expiration of the two years for which Bovee was elected, nor the repeal of section 13 of the Act of 1889 by the Act of 1892, which took away the power of the city council to elect a successor to Bovee until 1893, would create a vacancy in the office. Special Laws 21st Leg., pp. 37, 38, secs. 13, 15; Special Laws 22d Leg., p. 94, sec. 15; Const. 1876, art. 16, secs. 17, 27; Jones v. City of Jefferson, 66 Tex. 579; Mech. Pub. Offices and Officers, sec. 397, and note; Id., sec. 128, and cases cited; Dill. Mun. Corp., 3 ed., secs. 219, 220, and notes; The State v. Howe, 25 Ohio St. 588; The People Ex Rel. v. Supervisors, 100 Ill. 495; Loring v. Benedict, 15 Minn. 201; The State Ex Rel. Jordon v. Bailey, 33 N.W. Rep., 778; Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563; The State v. McGovney, 3 S.W. Rep., 867; The State Ex Rel. Carson v. Harrison, 16 N.E. Rep., 385. 3.
The language "amended in its entirety so as to read as follows" can only mean that the legislative body had made a new and complete expression of its will upon the subject of building control. Therefore, this last expression must prevail, and whatever is excluded therefrom must be ignored ( Charnock v. Rose, 70 Cal. 189, 192 [11 P. 265]; Bond v. Farmers Merchants National Bank, 64 Cal.App.2d 842, 845, 846 [ 149 P.2d 722]; Treadwell v. Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563, 564; Dillon v. Bicknell, 116 Cal. 111, 114 [47 P. 937]; Mack v. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130, 132 [ 58 P. 372]). It would unduly prolong this opinion to her set forth in detail the various ordinances offered in evidence and rejected by the court. Generally speaking, they fall into two classes:
[3] But there are other parts of the constitutional amendment to be considered, and there is another rule regarding repeals which is stated in Mack v. Jastro, 126 Cal. 130, 132, 133 [ 58 P. 372], as follows: "While it is true that repeals by implication are not favored, whenever it becomes apparent that a later statute is revisory of the entire matter of an earlier statute, and is designed as a substitute for it, the later statute will prevail, and the earlier statute will be held to have been superseded, even though there be found no inconsistencies or repugnancies between the two . . . It is not so much a repeal by implication as it is that, the legislature having made a new and complete expression of its will upon the subject, this last expression must prevail, and whatever is excluded therefrom must be ignored." To the same effect are State v. Conkling, 19 Cal. 501, 512; Treadwell v. Board of Supervisors of Yolo County, 62 Cal. 563, 564; Dillon v. Bicknell, 116 Cal. 111, 114 [47 P. 937]; Sponogle v. Curnow, 136 Cal. 580, 584 [ 69 P. 255]; Harris v. Cooley, 171 Cal. 144, 147 [ 152 P. 300]; Carter v. Stevens, 208 Cal. 649, 651 [ 284 P. 217]; Suydam v. Los Angeles Ry. Co., 27 Cal.App. 157, 161 [ 149 P. 55]; In re Weymann, 92 Cal.App. 646, 650 [ 268 P. 971]; Bank of Italy v. Symmes, 118 Cal.App. 716, 721 [ 5 P.2d 956]; Wood v. Roach, 125 Cal.App. 631, 638 [ 14 P.2d 170]; Jewett v. City Transfer etc. Co., 128 Cal.App. 556, 562 [ 18 P.2d 351]; People v. Carter, 131 Cal.App. 177, 181 [ 21 P.2d 129]. In Sponogle v. Curnow, supra, the court said: "Although an act or part of an act may not be repealed expressly or by necessary implication, still a revision of the whole subject matter covering said act would supersede all such portions as were omitted from the revisory act."