Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during a part of December term, 1849. Volume 4. Page: 239
vii, 284 p. ; 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
AUSTIN, 1849. 477-478
DeCordova v. City of Galveston.
The Constitution of Tennessee contains all inhibition similar to our own
against retrospective laws; and it has been held that under this prohibition
a new or additional remedy may be provided for a just right already in being,
and which would be lost without such provision. Deeds not registered in
time may, upon this ground, be admitted to registration by a new act of the
Legislature. (2 Yerg. R., 125; Id., 260.) An act of the Legislature authorizing
bills in equity to be filed to defeat usurious contracts applies to contracts
entered into and judgments obtained before its enactment as well as after,
and is not a retrospective law in the sense in which the Constitution prohibits
the passage of such laws, as it does not create a right, but merely regulates the
remedy. (7 Humph. R., 130.) The Constitution of New Hampshire declares
that ' retrospective laws are highlyinjurious, oppressive, and unjust. No such
laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes or the
punishment of offenses." And it was held in Merrill v. Sherburne (1 N. H. R.,
199) that a statute purporting to grant a new trial in a civil cause after a final
judgment was retrospective and therefore void. In 3 N. H. R., 481, it was
stated that the restrictive clause of the Constitution, in application to civil
cases, was intended to prohibit the making of any law prescribing new rules
for the decision of existing causes, so as to change the ground of action or the
nature of the defense; and that an act of the Legislature repealing a statute of
limitations is, with respect to all actions pending at the time of the repeal and
which are barred by the statute, a retrospective law for the trial of a civil cause,
repugnant to the Constitution, and wholly inoperative. In Clark v. Clark (10
N. H. R., 3S6) the principle was extended to tie protection of existing causes
of action or rights of defense, though no legal proceeding or suit had been instituted
at the passage of a statute; and as the prohibition had been repeatedly
presented to the court, and their opinion as to its true construction is of the
highest authority, a portion of it will be cited, in which their views are givell
as to the extent [47S] of the inhibition and the character of the laws which are
operation if it affect an existing cause of action or an existing right of defense.
or are not within its scope and intention: "A law may be retrospective in its
by taking away or abrogating a perfect existing right, although no suit or leoal
proceedings then exists. Of course it is not intended to deny the right of the
Legislature to vary the mode of enforcing a remedy, or to provide for the more
effectual security of existing rights, or to pass laws which change existing rules
under which rights wvoutil be acquired by lapse of a certain period of time, part
of which lhas already passed.
Tlie statutte of limitations may be changed by an extension of the time or by
aln entire repeal, andl anect existing causes of actioll which, by tlte xistill
laws., vwol(l soon be barred. Iii such cases the right of action is perfect, and
lo ri'lht of defense has accrued from the time already elapsed ; but if a right
has b)ecomne vested and perfect, a law whicll afterwards annuls or takes it away
is retrospective."
In thel case of The Society v. Wheeler et al.. (2 Gall. R., 105,) wliclh was a
suit coluIeniecltle in 1807 for the recovery of lands in New Hampshire, a claim
was set ulp by tlle defendants for the value of improvements, under a statute
,assed in 1805, which allowed tenants who had been in possession for six years,
under a supposed legal title, a sut equal to the increased value, of the land(l
It was held that tlhe statute of 1805, if applied to the case, would be a retrospective
law for tile decision of a civil cause; a nd it was stated by Mr. Justice
Story that, on principle, every statute which takes away or impairs vested
rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a
Iiew duty, or attaches a new disability, in relation to transactions or considerations
already past, must be deemed retrospective.
In Calder v. Bull (3 Dall R., 391) it is said by Judge Chase that every law
whliclt takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective,
and is generally unjust and may be opposed; and it is a good general
239
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during a part of December term, 1849. Volume 4., book, 1876; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28570/m1/247/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .