페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

terius. Thus, if an action founded upon a statute be directed to be brought before the justices of Glamorgan in sessions, it cannot be brought before any other person or in any other place. If a thing is limited to be done in a particular form or manner it excludes every other mode, and affirmative expressions introducing a new rule imply a negative.? Affirmative words which are imperative, and therefore mandatory, imply a negative of anything contrary or alternative to the direction so given. Where an act requires that a juror shall have twenty pounds a year, and a later act that he shall have twenty marks, the latter implies an abrogation of the former, otherwise it would have no effect. There is an implied negative in statutes which are intended to prescribe the only rule to be observed; they repeal all acts which provide a different rule.” Where a statute creates a right, and also provides the remedy, the latter is exclusive; it implies a negation of any other. So

1 Sedgw. Const. St. & Const. L. 30. Smith v. Lockwood, 13 Barb. 209;

2 District Township, etc. v. Du- Almy v. Harris, 5 John. 175; Dudley buque, 7 Iowa, 262; Smith v. Stevens, v. Mayhew, 3 Comst. 9; Thurston v. 10 Wall. 321; Uncas National Bank Prentiss, 1 Mich. 193; State v. CorV. Rith, 23 Wis. 339; New Haven win, 4 Mo. 609; Bailey v. Bryan, 3 v. Whitney, 36 Conn. 373; Wallace Jones (N. C.), 357; Ham v. Steamv. Holmes, 9 Blatchf. 65; Burgoyne v. boat Hamburg, 2 Iowa, 460; ConSupervisors, 5 Cal. 22; Watkins v. well v. Hagerstown Canal, 2 Ind. 588; Wassell, 20 Ark. 410; Perkins v. Victory v. Fitzpatrick, 8 Ind. 281 ; Thornburgh, 10 Cal. 189.

McCormack v. Terre Haute, etc. R. R. 3 Davison v. Gill, 1 East, 64; Bryan 9 id. 283; Camden v. Allen, 2 Dutch. v. Sundberg, 5 Tex. 418.

398; West v. Downman, L. R. 14 Ch. 4 Rex v. Worcestershire, 5 M. & S. Div. 111; Colley v. London, etc. Co. 457; Curtis v. Gill, 34 Conn. 49; Gor- L. R. 5 Ex. Div. 277; Brain v. Thomas, ham v. Luckett, 6 B. Mon. 146; 1 50 L. J. Q. B. Div. 603; Bonham v. Bd. Black. Com. 89.

of Education, 4 Dill. 156. There are 3 People v. Burt, 43 Cal. 561 ; Daviess three classes of cases in which statv. Fairbairn, 3 How. 636; Industrial utes deal with liabilities: 1. Where a School Dist. v. Whitehead, 13 N. J. Eq. liability existed at common law, and 290; Roche v. Mayor, etc. 40 N. J. L. was only re-enacted by the statute 257; Swann v. Buck, 40 Miss. 268; with a special form of remedy; in Riggs v. Brewer, 64 Ala. 282; Daw v. such cases the plaintiff has his elecMetropolitan Board, 12 C. B. (N. S.) tion unless the statute contains words 161; Re Spring Street, 112 Pa. St. 258; necessarily excluding the commonRe Alley in Kutztown, 2 Woodw. law remedy. 2. Where a statute has Dec. (Pa.) 373; Sacramento v. Bird, created a liability but given no rem15 Cal 294; State v. Conkling, 19 id. edy, there a party may adopt an action 501.

of debt or other remedy at common 6 Lang v. Scott, 1 Blackf. 405; law to enforce it. Wood v. Bank, 9

where the same statute creates an offense, prescribes the penalty and mode of procedure, only what the statute thus ordains is permissible.'

$ 205. Preceptive, prohibitive and permissive statutes.When a statute commands certain actions, and regulates the forms and acts which ought to accompany them, it is called a preceptive statute. A prohibitive statute is one that forbids

? all actions which disturb the public repose, and injury to the rights of others, or crimes and misdemeanors, or when it forbids certain acts in relation to the transmission of estates or the capacity of persons or other objects. A permissive statute is one which allows certain actions or things to be done without commanding them; as, for example, when it allows persons of a certain description, or, indeed, any person, to make a will,' to pre-empt lands, to vote, or to form corporations. Of this nature is a statute which permits a candidate at an election at the polling place or canvass, or that a clergyman accused of an ecclesiastical offense may attend the proceedings of the commission appointed to inquire into the accusation. Such statutes confer a privilege or license which the donee may exercise or not at pleasure, having only his own convenience or interest to consult.

$ 206. Prospective and retrospective statutes.- A prospective statute is one which regulates the future. It operates upon acts done and transactions occurring after it takes effect.

A retrospective statute, on the other hand, operates upon a subject already existing or an act done. Certain statutes of this nature are unjust, and, says Chancellor Kent, “are very Cow. 194; Cole v. Thayer, 8 Cow. 249; Stradling v. Morgan, 1 Plowd. 206; Gallatian v. Cunningham, 8 Cow. 364; Slade v. Drake, Hobart, 295; Bish. Judson v. Leach, 7 Cow. 152. 3. When W. L. S 250. the statute creates a liability not exist- 21 Bouv. Inst. 48. ing at common law and gives a par- 31 Bouv. Inst. 48. ticular remedy ; here the party must 4 Potter's Dwar. 74. adopt the form of remedy given by 5 Endl. on St. Int. $ 310. the statute. Vallance v. Falle, L. R. 6 Id. See Nicholl v. Allen, 1 B. & S. 13 Q. B. Div. 109; Bailey v. Bailey, 934; Brockbank v. Whitehaven R. L. R. 13 Q. B. Div. 859; O'Flaherty Co. 7 H. & N. 834; Rockwell v. Clark, v. McDowell, 6 H. L. Cas. 142; Stew- 44 Conn. 534. ard v. Greaves, 10 M. & W.711.

7 Bouv. Inst. 49. 1 Bashaw v. State, 1 Yerg. 177, 185;

generally considered as founded on unconstitutional principles, and consequently inoperative and void.”I Of this obnoxious character are those affecting and changing vested rights; one which takes away or impairs any vested right under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past. This restriction, as already shown, is applicable to interpretation and declaratory laws.

Ec post facto laws, and those impairing the obligation of contracts, are expressly forbidden by the federal and by state constitutions. The constitutions of some states expressly prohibit retrospective laws generally. To avoid injustice and unconstitutionality, it is always laid down as a rule of construction that a statute is to be taken or construed as prospective, unless its language is inconsistent with that interpretation.

11 Kent's Com. 455.

ton, 12 id. 639; Strong v. Clem, id. 2 Id. ; Ogden v. Blackledge, 2 Cr. 37; Dequindre v. Williams, 31 id. 272; Brunswick V. Litchfield, 2444; Finn v. Haynes, 37 Mich. 63; Greenl. 28; Osborne v. Huger, 1 Bay, Jordan v. Wimer, 45 Iowa, 65. 179; Bedford v. Shilling, 4 S. & R. 4 Ante, $ 200; 2 Kent's Com. 23, 401; Eakin v. Raub, 12 id. 363; Soci- 24; McManning v. Farrar, 46 Mo. ety for Propagating the Gospel v. 376. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 493; Wilkin- 5 Rich v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304; son v. Leland, 2 Pet. 657.

De Cordova v. Galveston, 4 Tex. 3 Society v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 105; 470; Goshorn v. Purcell, 11 Ohio St. Merrill v. Sherburne, 1 N. H. 199 ;

641. Lewis v. Brackenridge, 1 Blackf. 220; 61 Kent's Com. 455, note; Bartruff Boyce v. Holmes, 2 Ala. 54; Jones v. v. Remey, 15 Iowa, 257; McEwen v. Wootten, 1 Harr. (Del.) 77; William- Den, 24 How. 242; Quackenbush v. son v. Field, 2 Sandf. Ch. 533; Forsyth Danks, 1 Denio, 128; S. C. 3 Denio, v. Marbury, R. M. Charlt. 333; Dash 594; Van Fleet v. Van Fleet, 49 Mich. v. Van Kleeck, 7 John. 477; People v. 610; 1 N. Y. 129; Atkinson v. DunPlatt, 17 id. 195; Houston v. Boyle, lap, 50 Me. 111; North Bridgewater 10 Ired. 496 ; Cook v. Mutual Ins. Co. Bank v. Copeland, 7 Allen, 139; Har53 Ala. 37; Dubois v. McLean, 4 Mc- vey v. Tyler, 2 Wall. 328, 347; RichLean, 486; State v. Doherty, 60 Me. ardson v. Cook, 37 Vt. 599; Plumb v. 504; Union Iron Co. v. Pierce, 4 Biss. Sawyer, 21 Conn. 351; Taylor v. Kee327; Hoagland v. Sacramento, 52 ler, 30 Conn. 324; Torrey v. Corliss, Cal. 142; Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 33 Me. 333; Hopkins v. Jones, 22 Ind. 610; Ahl v. Rhoads, 84 Pa. St. 319; 310; Seamans v. Carter, 15 Wis. 548; Hart v. State, 40 Ala. 32; Lambert- Boston, etc. R. R. Co. v. Cilley, 44 son v. Hogan, 2 Pa. St. 22; Doug- N. H. 578; Hannum v. Bank of Tenlass v. Pike, 101 U. S. 677; Strong v. nessee, 1 Cold. 398; Saunders v. CarDennis, 13 Ind. 514; Logan v. Wal- roll, 12 La. Ann. 793; State v. Brad

All retrospective statutes, however, are not unjust or unconstitutional. A large class of remedial and curative statutes have been enacted with beneficent effect. They are liberally construed to carry out the intention of the legislature, in view of the intrinsic merit of the particular case and on a broad, fostering consideration of the general interest." Statutes relating to remedies and forms of procedure generally apply to rights already accrued, to cases ripe for action, and actions, pending;? but subject to the principle that the

ford, 36 Ga. 422; Whitman v. Hap- ham, 1 Allen, 319; State v. Scudder, good, 10 Mass. 437; Somerset v. 32 N. J. L. 203; Bay v. Gage, 36 Barb. Dighton, 12 id. 383; Gardner v. Lucas, 447; United States v. Starr, Hempst. LR. 3 App. Cas. 582, 600-603; Moon v. 469; Hepburn v. Griswold, 8 Wall. Durden, 2 Ex. 22; Regina v. Ipswich 603; Williams v. Johnson, Adm'x, 30 Union, 2 Q. B. Div. 269; Suche, In re, Md. 500; Parsons v. Paine, 26 Ark. 1 Ch. Div. 48, 50; Martin v. State, 22 124. Tex. 214; Reis v. Graff, 51 Cal. 86; 1 Sturgis v. Hull, 48 Vt. 302; State People v. O'Neil, id. 91; People v. v. Smith, 38 Conn. 397; Ballard v. Kinsman, id. 92; People v. McCain, Ward, 89 Pa. St. 358; Austin v. id. 360; Matter of Prot. Epis. School, Stevens, 24 Mo. 520; Baldwin v. New58 Barb. 161; Brown v. Wilcox, 14 ark, 38 N. J. L. 158; Cook v. Sexton, Sm. & M. 127; Bond v. Munro, 28 Ga. 79 N. C. 305; State v. Wilmington, 597; Hopkins v. Jones, 22 Ind. 310; etc. R. R. Co. 74 id. 143; State v. Aurora, etc. Turnpike v. Holthouse, 7 Wolfarth, 42 Conn. 155; Bronson v. id. 59; Frank v. San Francisco, 21 Newberry, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 38; Reed Cal. 668; Thorne v. Same, 4 id. 127; v. Rawson, 2 Litt. 189; Miller v. State v. Atwood, 11 Wis. 422; Ed- Moore, 1 E. D. Smith, 739; Wilder v. monds v. Lawley, 6 M. & W. 285; Lumpkin, 4 Ga. 208; Perry v. ComAbington v. Duxbury, 105 Mass. 287; monwealth, 3 Gratt. 632; Smith v. Reynolds v. State, 1 Ga. 222; Briggs Kibbee, 9 Ohio St. 563; Bensley v. v. Hubbard, 19 Vt. 86; Amsbry v. Ellis. 39 Cal. 309; Miller v. Miller, Hinds, 48 N. Y. 57; Head v. Ward, 16 Mass. 59; Annable v. Patch, 3 1 J. J. Marsh. 280; Regina v. Mallow Pick. 360; Johnson v. Johnson, 26 Union, 12 Ir. C. L. (N. S.) 35; People Ind. 441; Regina v. Vine, L. R. 10 v. Peacock, 98 III. 172; Medford v. Q. B. 195; Miller V. Graham, 17 Learned, 16 Mass. 215; Young v. Ohio St. 1; Riggins v. State, 4 Kan. Hughes, 4 H. & N. 76; Williams 173; Tilton v. Swift, 40 Iowa, 78. V. Smith, 4 H. & N. 559; Jarvis v. 2 Sampeyreac v. United States, 7 Jarvis, 3 Edw. Ch. 462; Finney v. Pet. 222; Blair v. Cary, 9 Wis. 543; Ackerman, 21 Wis. 268; Dewart v. Henschall v. Schmidt, 50 Mo. 454; Purdy, 29 Pa. St. 113; Taylor v. Mitch- Rivers v. Cole, 38 Iowa, 677; Hoa v. ell, 57 Pa. St. 209; State v. Auditor, Lefranc, 18 La. Ann. 393; Mercer v. 41 Mo. 25; Van Rensselaer v. Livings- State, 17 Ga. 146; Donner v. Palmer, ton, 12 Wend. 490; Ely v. Holton, 15 23 Cal. 40; Walston V, CommonN. Y. 595; Western Union Railroad wealth, 16 B. Mon. 15; Burch v. v. Fulton, 64 Ill. 271; Gerry v. Stone- Newbury, 10 N. Y. 374; Morse v.

3

right is not thereby destroyed or seriously impaired. The legislature is not restrained from all legislation which may prejudicially affect private interests not protected by the constitution. In a later chapter this subject will be treated more at length.

$ 207. Remedial statutes.-- Remedial statutes are such as the name implies, embracing a great variety in detail; those enacted to afford a remedy, or to improve and facilitate remedies existing for the enforcement of rights and the redress of

Goold, 11 id, 281; Van Rensselaer v. Case, 5 Gratt. 701; Von Hoffman v. Snyder, 13 id. 299; Jacquins v. Com- Quincy, 4 Wall. 552; White v. Hart, monwealth, 9 Cush. 279; McNamara 13 id. 646; Walker v. Whitehead, 16 v. Minn. Cent. R’y Co. 12 Minn. 388; id. 314; Pollard, Ex parte, 40 Ala. 77. Brock v. Parker, 5 Ind. 538; Indian- See Chaney v. State, 31 Ala. 342; apolis v. Imberry, 17 id. 175; Com- Steamboat Farmer v. McCraw, id. monwealth v. Bradley, 16 Gray, 241; 659; Uwchlan Township Road, 30 Van Rensselaer v. Ball, 19 N. Y. 100; Pa. St. 156. Horner v. Lyman, 2 Abb. App. Dec. 2 See Charles River Bridge v. War399.

ren Bridge, 11 Pet. 539; CommonI Kimbray v. Draper, L. R. 3 Q. B. wealth v. Logan, 12 Gray, 136; Har160; Wright v. Hale, 6 H. & N. 227; ris v. Glenn, 56 Ga. 94; Regina v. Mann v. McAtee, 37 Cal. 11; State v. Vine, L R. 10 Q. B. 195; State v. ScudSmith, 38 Conn. 397; Doolubdass v. der, 32 N. J. L. 203; Wilder v. Me. Ramloll, 7 Moore, P. C. 239; Brad- Cent. R. 65 Me. 332; Bank of Toledo ford v. Barclay, 42 Ala. 375; Reid v. Bond, 1 Ohio St. 622; Gorman v. v. State, 20 Ga. 681; Templeton v. Pacific R. R. 26 Mo. 441; Barton v. Horne, 82 Ill. 491; United States v. Morris, 15 Ohio, 408; Hagerstown v. Gilmore, 8 Wall. 330; Mabry v. Bax- Sehner, 37 Md. 180; Sedgwick v. ter, 11 Heisk. 682; Rutherford v. Bunker, 16 Kan. 498; Tilton v. Swift, Greene, 2 Wheat. 196; Green v. Bid- 40 Iowa, 78; Hess V. Johnson, 3 W. dle, 8 id. 92; Cambridge v. Boston, Va. 645; Stokes v. Rodman, 5 R. I. 130 Mass. 357; Berley v. Rampacher, 405; Stine v. Bennett, 13 Minn. 153 ; 5 Duer, 183; Kelsey v. Kendall, 48 Kunkle v. Franklin, id. 127; Comer Vt. 24; Dequindre v. Williams, 31 v. Folsom, id. 219; Wilson v. BuckInd. 444; State v. Berry, 25 Mo. 355; man, id. 441; State v. Newark, 3 Union Iron Co. v. Pierce, 4 Biss. 327; Dutch. 185; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. Governor v. Porter, 5 Humph. 165; 386; Sparks v. Clapper, 30 Ind. 204; People v. Supervisors, 16 N. Y. 424; Coffin v. State, 7 id. 157; Noel v. EwSimco v. State, 8 Tex. App. 406; ing, 9 id. 37; People v. Frisbie, 26 Haley v. Philadelphia, 68 Pa. St. Cal. 135; Rottenberry v. Pipes, 53 45; Edwards v. Williamson, 70 Ala Ala. 447; Ware v. Owens, 42 id. 212; 145; Merwin v. Ballard, 66 N. C. 398; Bachman v. Chrisman, 23 Pa. St. 162; Nelson v. McCrary, 60 Ala. 310; Lee Norfolk v. Chamberlaine, 29 Gratt. v. Cook, 1 Wyom. Ter. 413; Bronson 534; Languille v. State, 4 Tex. App. v. Kinzie, 1 How, 311; McCracken 312. v. Hayward, 2 id. 608; Ewing's 3 Post, ch. 17.

« 이전계속 »