Washington v. Richardson

1 Del. 338

Opinion

The court.

The act on page 324 of the Digest, though prior in the order of arrangement, is in fact subsequent in point of time to the act on page 359. It gives the general rule on this subject, and saves the abatement “in all personal actions, except actions for assault and battery, defamation, malicious prosecution, or an injury to the person, or upon penal statutes.” These two laws are unquestionably contradictory, but that on page 224 being a general law on the subject of survivency of actions, and being also subsequent in date, repeals the other. Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.

J. «/?. Bayard, for plaintiff. Hamilton, for defendant.

On the law applicable to the facts of the case the court referred to the case of Richardson vs. Carr, (ante 142,) and repeated that decision. The plff. had a verdict for $28. ,