that policy and intent being clearly manifested in the enactment of separate legislation for the taxation of such corporations, companies and associations on one side, and that of banks on the other, and that policy and intent being further distinctly manifested as late as the enactment of chap. 230 and chap. 61 of the Laws of 1917, where, by the former, money and credits, including stocks and bonds of companies and associations other than banks, were listed for taxation in one specific manner, while by the latter that of banking associations was listed for taxation in another equally distinct and specific manner, it would seem to follow as a natural and uncontrovertible conclusion that, if there had been any change in the prior policy and intent of the Legislature at the time of the enactment of chap. 62, it would have expressed it in the enactment of that chapter, not having done so, it seems certain that its theretofore universal policy and intent in this respect still remained, and that in the enactment of chap. 62 it dealt with companies and associations other than state banks.
Plaintiff contends that that part of § 4 of chap. 62, which provides that “All other acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed” is broad enough to include the repeal of all laws relative to the taxation of bank stock. In view of what we have above said, we do not agree with this contention. As we view the enactments with reference to the taxation of bank stock, they are not in conflict with chap. 62, because they are not included within it. We are convinced that chap. 62 refers only to stocks and bonds of corporations, joint-stock companies and associations other than banks, and this appears the more clearly when it is considered that the various chapters specifically repealed by § 3—viz. chap. 255 of the Session Laws of 1915, chap. 230 for 1917—as amended by chap. 226 of the Laws of 1919, all relate to the taxation of the stock and bonds, etc., of corporations or companies ether than banks, and necessarily it would seem to follow that the expression, “All other acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are repealed,” refers to any other laws of like nature which related to the taxation of certain corporations, companies, or associations not including banks.
Having thus concluded that chap. 62 has no application to banks, a definition of the terms, “moneys and credits” and “stocks and bonds,” or the legal interpretation of those terms as there used, becomes entirely unnecessary. Counsel for plaintiffs have compiled an able brief
