This motion is founded on the facts as herein set forth and on the records and files in this cause.

Dated this 5th day of February, A. D. 1916.

Seymour H. Person,

Attorney for Defendants, (e) Affidavit.-(Caption.)

County of Montcalm, ss.:

F. W. Bailey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is Treasurer of Montcalm County, and as such is in charge of the books and records of said offices; that he has, as of March 6th, 1916, searched the records in such office to see if the tax has been paid as provided by Act No. 91 of the Public Acts of 1911 of the State of Michigan, on a certain land contract dated June 15, 1915, between James C. Walsh and Inez Walsh of Grand Ledge, Michigan, as.first party, and Louis F Breitenwischer and Fannie H. Breitenwischer of Lansing, Michigan, consideration $35,000, and covering the east one-half (1/2) of east one-half (J) section 22, and west one-half of section 23, in town 12 north, range six (6) west, Montcalm County, Michigan, and that he finds from such records that said tax has not been paid.

F. W. Bailey.

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for said county, on the 6th day of March, A. D. 1916.

Agnes M. Disbrow. Commission expires Oct. 29, 1919.

(h) Order.-(Caption.) At a session of said court held at the court house in the City of Stanton on Saturday, the 15th day of April, A. D. 1916.

Present: the Hon. Frank D. M. Davis, Circuit Judge.

The motion of defendants, praying that the bill of complaint filed and served in this cause be dismissed, having come on to be heard.

On reading the bill of complaint, the motion and listening to arguments of counsel made in open court, and being fully advised in the premises, it appears to court that the motion ought to be denied.

On motion of L. C. Palmer, attorney for plaintiff, it is ordered and adjudged that the motion of defendants be and the same is hereby denied and dismissed.

It is further ordered and adjudged, that in the defendants have fifteen days from date of service of a copy of this order in which to file and serve their answers to plaintiff's bill of complaint.

Frank D. M. Davis

Circuit Judge. Countersigned: Alfred L. Stearn, Clerk. L. C. Palmer.

Attorney for Plaintiff, Business Address: Stanton, Michigan. The brief of plaintiff and defendant has not been included for the reason that the appeal has to do with the question of the mortgage tax law only.

The law of 1855 as to maintenance of bridges, was superseded and repealed by the passage of the Revision Act of 1909, and its technical repeal in 1915 was a mere formality; the act of 1909 is still in force under which we claim relief.

"Where a subsequent statute covers the whole ground occupied by an earlier statute, it repeals by implication the former statute, though there be no repugnance." Shannon v. People, 5 Mich. 85.