act is an offense both against the common law and the statute, the prosecutor may proceed under either the common law or the statute, or both.13 A city ordinance in conflict with the common law does not operate to repeal it, but is itself void, where the common law is in force in the state.14 § 80. Effect of expiration or repeal. In the absence of a saving clause or a general saving statute, a person cannot be prosecuted for an offense after the law under which it was punishable has expired or been repealed, although the offense may have been comImitted when the law was in full force.15 The repeal also puts an offense does not expressly nor by implication cut off the common-law prosecution or punishment for the same offense, it shall be taken to intend a cumulative remedy only. State V. Hildreth, 82 Vt. 383, 74 Atl. 71, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 551, 137 Am. St. Rep. 1022, 18 Ann. Cas. 661. The common law relative to larceny is not altered by a statute providing a different punishment for that offense, but containing no negative words excluding the common-law punishment. United States v. Hammond, 1 Cranch C. C. 15, Fed. Cas. No. 15,293. 13 People v. Curran, 286 Ill. 302, 121 N. E. 637, aff'g 207 Ill. App. 264; Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 421, 73 N. E. 770, aff'g 114 Ill. App. 75. 14 State v. Crummey, 17 Minn. 72. 15 United States. United States v. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398, 32 L. Ed. 480, 9 Sup. Ct. 99; United States v. Barr, 4 Sawy. 254, Fed. Cas. No. 14,527; Anonymous, 1 Wash. C. C. 84, Fed. Cas. No. 475. Alabama. Jordan v. State, 15 Ala. 746. California. People v. Tisdale, 57 Cal. 104. Connecticut. State v. Daley, 29 Conn. 272. Illinois. Day v. City of Clinton, 6 Ill. App. 476. Indiana. Lunning v. State, 9 Ind. 309. Kentucky. Waddell v. Com., 84 Ky. 276, 1 S. W. 480; Com. v. Hoke & Yocum, 14 Bush. 668; Com. v. Jackson, 2 B. Mon. 402; Com. v. Welch, 2 Dana 330. Louisiana. State v. Jones, 127 La. 768, 53 So. 985; State v. Hickman, 127 La. 442, 53 So. 680; State v. Callahan, 109 La. 946, .33 So. 931. Maryland. Keller v. State, 12 Md. 322, 71 Am. Dec. 596; State v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 12 Gill & J. 399, 38 Am. Dec. 319, aff'd 3 How. (U. S.) 534, 11 L. Ed. 714. Massachusetts. Com. V. McDonough, 13 Allen 581; Com. v. Marshall, 11 Pick. 350, 22 Am. Dec. 377. Mississippi. Wheeler v. State, 64 Miss. 462, 1 So. 632; Teague v. State, 39 Miss. 516. Nebraska. State v. Wish, 15 Neb. 448, 19 N. W. 686. New York. Hartung v. People, 22 N. Y. 95; s. c. 26 N. Y. 167. North Carolina. State v. Williams, 97 N. C. 455, 2 S. E. 55; State v. Long, 78 N. C. 571. Ohio. Calkins v. State, 14 Ohio St. 222. end to pending prosecutions under the repealed statute,16 and judgment cannot be rendered after such repeal upon a conviction previously secured.17 This principle also applies when a law is repealed South Carolina. State v. Lewis, 33 S. E. 351; State v. Mansel, 52 S. C. 468, 30 S. E. 481. Tennessee. Gass v. State, 130 Tenn. 581, 172 S. W. 305; Roberts v. State, 2 Overt. 423. Texas. Greer v. State, 22 Tex. 588; Ex parte Wright, 82 Tex. Cr. 247, 199 S. W. 486; Halfin v. State, 5 Tex. App. 212; Sheppard v. State, 1 Tex. App. 522, 28 Am. Dec. 422. Virginia. Attoo v. Com., 2 Va. Cas. 382. Washington. State v. Hanover, 55 Wash. 403, 104 Pac. 624, 107 Pac. 388. Wisconsin. State v. Ingersoll, 17 Wis. 631. England. 1 Hale, P. C. 291; Rex v. McKenzie, Russ. & R. 428. Where the penalty imposed by a statute is repealed, it cannot be invoked against one who committed the crime prior to such repeal. State v. Smith, 56 Ore. 21, 107 Pac. 980. Where, owing to a division of opinion on the part of the court, a repealing statute was not held to be unconstitutional until three years after its enactment, it was held that it would be unjust to hold that the statute attempted to be repealed was in force during all that time. Ingersoll v. State, 11 Ind. 464. As to whether a vote against local option in a particular locality operates as a repeal of a local option law within this rule, see § 77, supra. 16 United States. United States v. Finlay, 1 Abb. 364, Fed. Cas. No. 15,099. Alabama. Griffin v. State, 39 Ala. Connecticut. Conn. 272. Illinois. Wilson v. Ohio & M. Ry. Co., 64 Ill. 542, 16 Am. Rep. 565. State v. Daley, 29 Indiana. Whitehurst v. State, 43 Ind. 473; State v. Loyd, 2 Ind. 659; Taylor v. State, 7 Blackf. 93. Missouri. City of Kansas v. Clark, 68 Mo. 588. Montana. State v. District Court of Fifth Judicial Dist., 54 Mont. 332, 169 Pac. 1180. Nebraska. State v. Wish, 15 Neb. 448, 19 N. W. 686. North Carolina. State v. Long, 78 N. C. 571. Pennsylvania. Scranton City V. Rose, 60 Pa. Super. Ct. 458. Tennessee. Wharton v. State, 5 Coldw. 1, 94 Am. Dec. 214. Texas. Ex parte Wright, 82 Tex. Cr. 247, 199 S. W. 486; Halfin v. State, 5 Tex. App. 212. Washington. State v. Hanover, 55 Wash. 403, 104 Pac. 624, 107 Pac. 388. 17 Maryland. Keller v. State, 12 Md. 322, 71 Am. Dec. 596. Massachusetts. Com. v. Kimball, 21 Pick. 373; Com. v. Marshall, 11 Pick. 350, 22 Am. Dec. 379. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Duane, 1 Binn. 601, 2 Am. Dec. 497. Texas. Wall v. State, 18 Tex. 682, 70 Am. Dec. 302; Ex parte Wright, 82 Tex. Cr. 247, 199 S. W. 486. Wisconsin. State v. Gumber, 37 Wis. 298. Wyoming. Mahoney v. State, 5 Wyo. 520, 42 Pac. 13, 63 Am. St. Rep. 64. There can be no judgment even on a or expires pending a writ of error or appeal to review a judgment of conviction under it, and in such case the judgment must be reversed or the prosecution dismissed.18 But a judgment which becomes final before the repeal takes effect is not affected by it.19 Of course the foregoing rules do not apply where the repealing law contains a saving clause continuing the repealed statute in force as to pending prosecutions, or as to all violations of the law before the repeal,20 nor where an intent on the part of the legislature to save pending cases appears by reasonable implication from the language used.21 Nor do they apply where there is a general provision that the repeal of a penal statute shall not abate a pending prosecution, or prevent a prosecution, for acts previously committed,22 plea of guilty after the law has been repealed. Whitehurst v. State, 43 Ind. 473; State v. Guillory, 127 La. 951, 54 So. 297. 18 Alabama. City of Birmingham v. Baranco, 4 Ala. App. 279, 58 So. 944. Illinois. Day v. City of Clinton, 6 Ill. App. 476. Indiana. Mullinix v. State, 43 Ind. 511. V. City of Kentucky. Speckert Maryland. Smith v. State, 45 Md. 49; Keller v. State, 12 Md. 322, 71 Am. Dec. 596. Pennsylvania. Scranton City V. Rose, 60 Pa. Super. Ct. 458. Texas. Wall v. State, 18 Tex. 682, 70 Am. Dec. 302; Poye v. State, 89 Tex. Cr. 182, 230 S. W. 161; Tuton v. State, 4 Tex. App. 472. Utah. Salina City v. Lewis, 52 Utah 7, 172 Pac. 286; Pleasant Grove City v. Lindsay, 41 Utah 154, 125 Pac. 389. Wyoming. Mahoney v. State, 5 Wyo. 520, 42 Pac. 13, 63 Am. St. Rep. 64. 19 Salina City v. Lewis, 52 Utah 7, 172 Pac. 286; Pleasant Grove City v. Lindsay, 41 Utah 154, 125 Pac. 389. 20 United States. United States v. Lair, 195 Fed. 47; United States v. California. People v. Gill, 6 Cal. 637. Connecticut. State v. Daley, 29 227. Louisiana. State v. Fore, 131 La. 813, 60 So. 255; State v. Monfre, 122 La. 513, 47 So. 876. Massachusetts. Com. v. Bennett, 108 Mass. 30, 11 Am. Rep. 304. Michigan. People v. Driessen, 178 Mich. 118, 144 N. W. 526. New York. People v. Maxwell, 31 N. Y. Supp. 564. 21 As where a statute providing a new penalty for a common-law offense does not in terms repeal the common-law penalty, and particularly restricts the new penalty to such cases as may subsequently arise. Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 Atl. 700. 22 United States. Great Northern R. Co. v. United States, 208 U. S. 452, 52 L. Ed. 567, 28 Sup. Ct. 313, aff'g 155 Fed. 945; United States v. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398, 32 L. Ed. 480, 9 Sup. Ct. 99; De Four v. United States, 260 Fed. 596, certiorari denied 253 U. S. 487, 64 L. Ed. 1026, 40 Sup. Ct. 485 (mem. dec.); United States v. except that such a provision in a statute cannot justify a disregard of the will of the legislature as manifested either expressly or by Lair, 195 Fed. 47; United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 152 Fed. 269; United States v. Barr, 4 Sawy. 254, Fed. Cas. No. 14,527. Alabama. Balsam v. State, 13 Ala. App. 252; City of Birmingham v. Baranco, 4 Ala. App. 279, 58 So. 944. Arizona. La Porte v. State, 14 Ariz. 530, 132 Pac. 563. Arkansas. McCuen v. State, 19 Ark. 634. California. People v. McNulty, 93 Cal. 427, 26 Pac. 597, 29 Pac. 61, writ of error dismissed 149 U. S. 645, 37 L. Ed. 882, 13 Sup. Ct. 959. Florida. Shields v. State, 78 Fla. 524, 83 So. 391; Raines v. State, 42 Fla. 141, 28 So. 57. Georgia. Patton v. State, 80 Ga. 714, 6 S. E. 273; Reynolds v. State, 3 Ga. 53; Draper v. State, 6 Ga. App. 12, 64 S. E. 117. Illinois. People v. Brown, 273 Ill. 169, 112 N. E. 462, Ann. Cas. 1918 D 772, aff'g 196 Ill. App. 400; People v. Zito, 237 Ill. 434, 86 N. E. 1041, aff'g 140 Ill. App. 611; Johnson v. People, 173 Ill. 131, 50 N. E. 321. Indiana. McCalment v. State, 77 Ind. 250. Kansas. In re Schneck, 78 Kan. 207, 96 Pac. 43. Kentucky. Com. v. Duff, 87 Ky. 586, 9 S. W. 816; Waddell v. Com., 84 Ky. 276, 1 S. W. 480; Acree & Kinman v. Com., 13 Bush 353; Pusey v. Com., 8 Ky. L. Rep, 47. Massachusetts. Com. v. Sullivan, 150 Mass. 315, 23 N. E. 47. Minnesota. State v. Smith, 62 Minn. 540, 64 N. W. 1022. Mississippi. State v. Widman, 112 Miss. 1, 72 So. 782; Josephine v. State, 39 Miss. 613. Missouri. State v. Ross, 49 Mo. 416; State v. Mathews, 14 Mo. 133. Nebraska. Marion v. State, 16 Neb. 349, 20 N. W. 289. New York. People v. Mulford, 140 App. Div. 716, 125 N. Y. Supp. 680, aff'd 202 N. Y. 624, 96 N. E. 1125. North Dakota. State v. French, 32 N. D. 362, 155 N. W. 687. Oklahoma. Ex parte Larkin, 1 Okla. 53, 25 Pac. 745, 11 L. R. A. 418; Penn v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 367, 164 Pac. 992, L. R. A. 1917 E 668; Alberty v. State, 10 Ok!a. Cr. 616, 140 Pac. 1025, 52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 248; Jones v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 216, 136 Pac. 182, 137 Pac. 121. Tennessee. Gass v. State, 130 Tenn. 581, 172 S. W. 305. Texas. Wall v. State, 18 Tex. 682, 70 Am. Dec. 302; Cook v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 532, 160 S. W. 465. Washington. State v. Morrow, 63 Wash. 297, 115 Pac. 161, Ann. Cas. 1912 D 570; State v. Lorenzy, 59 Wash. 308, 109 Pac. 1064, Ann. Cas. 1912 B 153; State v. Hanover, 55 Wash. 403, 104 Pac. 624, 107 Pac. 388. In Calkins v. State, 14 Ohio St. 222, a provision saving pending "actions" and "causes of action" founded on repealed statutes was held not to apply to criminal prosecutions. The adoption of a local option law in a particular county repeals the dramshop law previously in force in that county sufficiently to bring the saving statute into play and to permit convictions under indictments for offenses committed prior to the local option election. State v. Walker, 221 Mo. 511, 120 S. W. 1198, aff'g 129 Mo. App. 371, 108 S. W. 615; State v. Seiberling, 143 Mo. App. 318, 127 S. W. 106; State v. Tullar, 138 Mo. App. 349, 122 S. W. 313. The same rule applies in the case of a repeal of a municipal ordinance, necessary implication as appearing in a subsequent enactment.23 § 81. Repeal of repealing law. As a general rule, in the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, the repeal of a repealing law revives the pre-existing law to the extent of rendering subsequent acts amenable thereto.24 The intention of the legislature, however, must govern; and the repeal of a repealing law will not have this effect if a contrary intention is manifest.25 Of course, the pre-existing law is not revived so as to apply to acts committed when it was not in force.26 But it has been held that if a statute which merely changes the punishment for an offense is repealed after the offense is committed, or after the defendant has been convicted, but before sentence, he may be punished under the former law.27 In a number of jurisdictions it is expressly provided by statute that no act or part of an act repealed by another shall be deemed to be revived by the repeal of the repealing act.28 where there is a general ordinance saving prosecutions for breaches of repealed ordinances. City of Birmingham v. Baranco, 4 Ala. App. 279, 58 So. 944. But a general statute relating to criminal offenses does not apply to quasi-criminal cases for the violation of municipal ordinances. City of Birmingham v. Baranco, 4 Ala. App. 279, 58 So. 944; Pleasant Grove City v. Lindsay, 41 Utah 154, 125 Pac. 389. 23 Great Northern R. Co. v. United States, 208 U. S. 452, 52 L. Ed. 567, 28 Sup. Ct. 313, aff'g 155 Fed. 945; De Four v. United States, 260 Fed. 596, certiorari denied 253 U. S. 487, 64 L. Ed. 1026, 40 Sup. Ct. 485 (mem. dec.). 24 Day v. City of Clinton, 6 Ill. App. 476; Com. v. Mott, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 492; Com. v. Getchell, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 452. 25 Com. v. Churchill, 2 Metc. (Mass.) Com. V. Marshall, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 350, 22 Am. Dec. 377. 118; 28 Day v. City of Clinton, 6 Ill. App. 476; Com. v. Marshall, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 350, 22 Am. Dec. 377. 27 Com. v. Mott, 21 Pick. (Mass.) 492; Com. v. Getchell, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 452. In State v. Kent, 65 N. C. 311, it was held that a military order forbidding corporal punishment merely suspended the law providing for it, and that as soon as the order ceased the law was restored, and that such punishment might be inflicted upon one convicted thereafter of an offense committed while such order was in force. 28 See the statutes of the various states and the following cases: United States. United States v. Philbrick, 120 U. S. 52, 30 L. Ed. 559, 7 Sup. Ct. 413. Colorado. Heinssen v. State, 14 Colo. 228, 23 Pac. 995. Illinois. Sullivan v. People, 15 Ill. 233; Day v. City of Clinton, 6 Ill. App. 476. |