íA.ppeliaut¡ ie <a ilkúdoTOuerrjáud á taxpayeriú 'the-¡White Riveii :L"eyÍ3eiDi'stLict'of<’Wo.odi1uf4 Píamenand Méíiroe!.counties; He■iiistiiated'lttós buit in théjcliancéry! couiít 'of -'Woodruff Ooxintyv iaiíthebSoiithh ern District, to enjoin the directors ioBsaidfdistildhff'ofa Üsstfing..iai4i.>,lMnldiú,|' iqt>. refuhding'Ponds- under«act No. ¡IB®! ofi'íhéí G'enejjal'iAssfeinDMyi-iof' ¡1923;; y?hichr/a,llo,w'Ml the hoárdilof''director's" ofi-.s-afid'1 district. tdífre-fimxiíifñeMhoimícfe yiithoififti.-any; firestfictiiohsoiwhatfeyet,-; alégúngu thafensaM aotohadllMeuik’epeatechihy'.'acf INoíí‘126, !oifii;the,iG;ehe]:al *1167Assembly of 1927,, which allowed the districts in the State to refund their respective indebtednesses under certain restrictions, .provided fifty-one per cent, of the landowners in the particular distinct should evidence a desire to do so by petition.
A demurrer was sustained to the complaint and a consequent judgment rendered, dismissing same, from which an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.
• The only question presented by the appeal is whether act No. 126 of 1927 repeals Act No. 130 of 1923. Act No. 130 of 1923 is a special act and act No. 126. of 1927 is a general act. Both relate to the same subject, the earlier act applying to White River Levee District of Woodruff, Prairie and Monroe counties and the later act purporting to apply to all districts in the State. By reference to the later act it will be observed that it is exclusive in the sense that it covers the general subject-matter to which it relates, and, under the rule announced by this court in the case of Hampton v. Hickey, 88 Ark. 324, 114 S. W. 707, necessarily repeals the earlier act by implication, even if act No. 130 of 1923 is a special statute.
On account of the error indicated the decree is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice Smith dissents.