Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-23

ine deatn OF the testator and the coming az ses Of
Mrs. rofters youngest child-it is clear, upon the
proper coaS'raenon OF the will that the complain
ants could have asserted no right OF possss.ioa Or
claim to the proceeds Of the land uufii a. vonne -
est child was OF full age Under tAe viii. the con-
plsnsnts have no color sf right 70 the rets in ths
meantime, as vas assumed 10 the argument. II,
extent Of their right is TO succeed 70 the land. Or
the proceeds Of the sale thereof upon he hannan-
ire Of the event stated in the will-the n.;,-t -
the youngest shd Of Mira. Porter kea their righteS
action TO recover the land, Orprocssds first
aud this is st in the fstvs 1t is clear theref.r.
that the statute of limitations does not apply to II.
! case.
Decree affirmed, With costa. McKIssxx.
Correct copy: J. P. CLAsz, Clerk.
Hannun Adnr., &C.. vs. Bank Of OfTelnes:es.
This is an agreed case. The material facts srs
these: On the 29sh of March, 1885, the Bank o.
Tennessee made an agreement with the plaintiff
which was evidenced By the following written in
| srument, viz:
i 'Rsceived Of Mr. Hannun his draft ss admins.
traitor of E. Howard, deceased, on Messrs. 0xley &
/ Co., London, for sl2 042 Is. 3d., for prooeeda oi
sales Of which, in New York, We slow current rate
Of exchange and interest upon the amount from day
| of receipt Of report of sale. -,..
&C. JoHxscx, President z
On the 12ih Of April, 1856, the Bank received
the proceeds Of she draft amounting to $50 l45 &c.
| and placed the same to the credit of plaintiff
Several checks were subsequently, drawn By
plaintiff the Bank, from time to time, for poF-
tions OF said fund, which were paid.
In April, 1860, the plaintiff called on this Bank
| for settlement and payment Of the balance With
interest thereon. according to the terms Of The con-
tract. But the Bank refuses to allow interest after
the 1st day Of May, l848, when the Code took es-
feet, by provision Of which (sec 1916, it is
acted that "no Bank shall pay any interest or
other compensation in consideration of dsposiss"
II so fhoe m ~swa
plaintiff until April 1860 aRd that the Bank vould
longer psy interest," ss by the original contract il
had sgreedto do.
The Circuit Judge held that, by the prov sion Of
the Co6e referred to, the Bank was exonerated
from the obligation Of its contract to pay interest
on the deposi, after the 1st Of May, 1s4e and the
only question is did the Court in this hoding3
The argument Of the Bank is, that the contract
was snnulled by the subsSqa qasnt act Of the Legis-
lature.
II is certainly an established doctrine Of the CON-
mon Law, that if one agrees or covenants TO do sn
act Which it lawful for him 10 do at the time Of
the contract and ca act Of parliament comes after,
making 1t ualswful, TIE sfsfuie rspesls snd avoids
the covenant or agreement Id. Raymond 81 ,32l:
l Sslk l9e. See ais Pa son on Contracts, vol. 2,
186: CoWen Rep. 538
Whether or not this dott-ine Of the ccmnou l. -
can be rec nciled With the proyisi1n o. cur State
Constitution. TART sec. 20.) which declares,
That no retrospective law, law jmpsiring the
obligation of contrss = ses'l b, MADE" is ques-
ton not sbsou ely Lie 1ssary 20 the DETERMINATION
of the present case; for We feel very oiesr that
tn upoa prIzcipe and authority, the provision OF
tie Cede cannot be construed TO nave . RETROSPECT
ve effect and that its operation must be limited to
contracts made after its passage.
To avoid misrepresentation, however, IN regsrd to
our views, We unheststingly express the opinion,
that TO give the enactment in question such cou-
structiOn as to make it operate past contracts
would be to bring it directly in oobaiot with the
provision of the Constitution above referred to- We
concur with Mr.. Kent, that retrospective ststp.e
affecting and changing vested rights, is founded on
unconstitutional principles, and consequently in-
operative and void. Com. (9th Ed.) 50S. This
| doctrine, however, does not in general spply to
remedial statutes, which may bs Of Retrospective
nature provided they do not impair contracts dis
turb absolute vested rghts. and only 90 ts confirm
rights already exit n.y. and in furtherance Of the
remedy by curing defects, and adding to the means
of enforcing existing obligations. Ibid aad nese.
The doctrine that is net to have retro
speeiiYs effect, is clearly shown lin the very elsbo
rate case Of Dash ps. Van Klesk, Johns Rep 4771
te be founded, net only in the jurisprudence
of Engsnd, but upon principles CT general
| law. In his opinion in that case, Mr.,
Charles J. Kent says: II is principle
in the English common Law, ss ancient ss the Law
itself, thas ststute, even Of its own omuipotent
Parlisment, is not to have . retrospective effect
| thorities as well as modern. Lord Bacon lays il
down that no statute is to have retrospect beyond
! the time Of iis commencement. 6Blo Abr. $40,
2 Just. 292; Mad. $40, 228 Quarts on Statutes,
$50. Mr.. Blackstone regards it first principle
that ell laws are to commence in fHtaTs and ope-
rats prosPectively. l Comm. AZ.
This principle received an Impressive recognition
in the Court Of Kings Bench, in sisiug construc
tion to the statute Of frauds (29 Charles 2 oh-
which enacted that "frOm and alter the 24Ih
June, 1877, no action should be brought to charge
| suy person upon ally agreement, &c., unless such
| agreement be in writing" After the passage Of
this statute, suit brought upon parole prom
Use made before, bat 20 be performed after the day
| specified in the statuts. And the Court agreed
| unanimously that tie statute could not have re.
Prospective effect so ay TO take away right OF ac
| uon to which party previously entitled; that
il gould only apply psro promises made AFTER the
day iousd in The stsute; thst the opposite con-
struction would make the law repugnsnt to comm %
! Justice See ?, Shower II; Bar. 2460.
| This doctrine hiss been adhered 20 generally and
steadfasty in England 1t is 10 be found incorporst
ed as fundamental principle, in the Jurisprudence
of the most enlightened and civilized Stses ancient
and modern; and this by force of its intrinsic res
| son and justice, s1d not because Of any positive
/ constitutional prohibition to the contrary.
The principle has likewise been adhered to in this
| country with great uniformity Of decision. See
Ledgzick on Stat. and Csm. Law lSS; 4O6-7 Johns,
1 n, IL.
And the sounduess Of this principle Of interprets-
ticn is sufficiently supported by the most obvious
principles of reason and justice wherever past
tracts or vested rights involved. and from the
positive restrictions imposed by the State and Fed
eral Constitu ion.
1t is repugnaut TO every mans common sense and
| reason, and sense OF justice, that contract or
promise sanctioned by the existing Law, and vesting
the parties with positive legal rights, when msde
| should be snBulled and RI ndered imperative by
! subsequent Law. AS has been justly remarked BY
Chief Justice Kent there is distinction, in prn-
ciple, between law Furnishing person criminally
for psst innocent sct, or puni5hng him e1vsty oy
diyesling him of q lawfully acquired right.
The very essence of new law las said By the
same dsiiR yusht Judge)s rule for future csses.
And, therefore, even cases involving no ques.
tisn as to the inviolsbiity Of past agreements or
| previously acquired rights, the authorities concur
that sG,ute ought never TO receive such cor .
ruction as would make it operate retrospectively,
if it be susceptible Of any other. Ia such case, l.
is said We to presums, out Of respect 70 the
law siver that it not intended that the ststuts
should have q retroactive operation.
The case before Us furri.hes . forcible illustra-
ton Of the wisdom and Justice Of The principle We
have been considering and ss the constitutional
strictioD imposed upon thelegislsture.
The contract IT the present case wss sanctioned
By the then existing lsv. By implication Of lsv
the Bank vas bound to continue TO pay interest 50
long as 1t retained the 0epo5t, or IL Ieast until II
gave notice TO Hannum Of its determination TO pa!
j an end to the agreement. -@...-
This being SO, il would be msnifestly unjust and
subversive os general principles Of law as we'll
Of the Constitution. to rive the status sueh con-
struction as would make it defeSt the right previ
ously vested.
We therefore hold that the provision Of the Cods
hiss no application to the case Its operation being
confined TO deposits made after the Let day OF May
1858, when the Code took effect.
Judgment reversed. McKINHHT
Correct copy. J. P CLARK, Clerk.
The SPIRIT OF IST0LERANCE AT TIE NoRTH.-The
Boston Tndvslsr gives the following particulars:
The little town of Wales, in Hsmden county, was
e ... laal