Campbell vs. Case.
cite are in point on the question of repeal by implication. In the case at bar, it will be entirely unnecessary to refer to such cases, for the language of the statute is, (Stat, of 1867-8, 117, § 378): "All statutory provisions inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed," etc.
The statute of 1862, page 77, Sec. 195, is: "The order of attachment shall be executed by the sheriff without delay. He shall go to the place where the defendant's property may be found, and there in the presence of two residents of the county," etc.
The statute of 1867-8, pages 54, 55, Sees. 185, 188, is substantially like the one of 1862, except it drops the language: "He shall go to the place where the defendant's property may be found, and there in the presence of two residents of the county," etc.
Passing the question of repeal by implication, is the former statute inconsistent with the latter?
It is evident that the legislature intended to abolish all Common Law actions and proceedings, and all distinction between equitable and legal remedies, and to repeal all former remedial statutes; but being fearful that the Code of 1867-8, might not provide a full remedy for all wrongs, out of the abundance of their caution, provided that former statutes not inconsistent with the Code and the Common Law practice, might be adopted so far as may be necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Page, 117, §§ 378-9,
It seems to us, that if this statute furnishes a full, complete and ample remedy for the enforcement of the plaintiffs rights, and also for the protection of the defendant's, then its provisions govern and repeal all former statutes on the same subject.
We will examine this Statute of 1867-8, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it provides a remedy by which the plaintiff can enforce his rights, and one by which the defendant can protect his.
The object of an attachment law is to enable the creditor to seize and hold the property of his debtor, which is subject to
