(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that the certificate of nomination was not filed within the prescribed statutory period. It seems clear that M. S. A. 202.27 governs the time for filing certificates of nomination by petition and that thereunder such certificates must be filed “on or before the fifth Friday preceding the day of election.” In its present *104form | 202.27 constitutes the re-enactment of a prior statute and became effective by virtue of L. 1951, c. 167, § 2. In its prior form certificates of nomination by petition might be filed on or before the fifth Saturday preceding the election and had such provision still been in effect the present question -would not have arisen.
If it be contended that § 202.27 is in conflict with § 202.26, last enacted L. 1939, c. 345, part 3, c. 3, § 8, then, under the well-established principle that the court will give effect to the latest of two inconsistent statutes relating to the same subject matter, any inconsistency must be resolved in favor of the language of § 202.27 adopted at the 1951 legislative session. State ex rel. Mergens v. Babcock, 175 Minn. 583, 222 N. W. 285; Syndicate Printing Co. v. Cashman, 115 Minn. 446, 132 N. W. 915; State ex rel. County of Pennington v. District Court, 113 Minn. 298, 129 N. W. 514; State ex rel. Village of Excelsior v. District Court, 107 Minn. 437, 120 N. W. 894.
Further, this court in State ex rel. Gallagher v. Erickson, 213 Minn. 151, 153, 6 N. W. (2d) 43, 44, in language which can scarcely be regarded as doubtful or obiter dicta, expressly repudiated the contention that § 202.26 prescribed the time limitation for filing such certificates of nomination in the following summary:
“Sections 202.25 and 202.27 were originally enacted in L. 1893, c. 4, § 42 and § 44. Section 202.26 was not enacted until 1917. L. 1917, c. 68, § 13. As they appeared in the original act it is clear that the words ‘within the proper time’ appearing in § 202.25 referred to the time limit for filing fixed in § 202.27, and the act permitted both the original and the certified copies of the certificate of nomination to be filed before the third Tuesday preceding the general election. It is contended by the respondents that this was changed by the enactment in 1917 of § 202.26; that, being a later enactment, it controls, and that the words ‘within the proper time’ now refer to the time limit fixed by this section.
“We believe that this gwes greater effect to § 202.26 than was intended. This section deals only with the making of nominations. *105It does not control the time of filing the certificate of nomination unless such filing is a part of the nomination” (Italics supplied.)
The re-enactment of § 202.27 in clear concise language without material change, other than that referred to above, at the 1951 legislative session some years after our construction of this statute and § 202.26 in the Gallagher case clearly manifested the legislature’s intent to adopt such construction and compels the writer’s conclusion that the construction now applied by the majority in the instant case is not only inconsistent with our opinion in the Gallagher case but contrary to the clearly evidenced and expressed legislative intent as well. In re Trusteeship Under Will of Jones, 202 Minn. 187, 277 N. W. 899; Wenger v. Wenger, 200 Minn. 436, 274 N. W. 517.