Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1866-01-04
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
milliken OF al, Respondents, vs.. &. o.
Nlont, Appellant.

PIoIuiosOI! uOtc, paydOIc ia Bolu SoIh oh sNS
18th day Of October following. This note
was assigned to the respondents, the plaintiffs
below. On the Both day Of January, 1865,
moro than three months after maturity OF
the note, suit was brought thereon, a demur-
rer was interposed and oycrruled; and a
/ final Judgment, no answer having been inter.
| posed, was rendered in favor Of the plaintiffs
| on the 18th day Of February, 1866.
The judgment demanded payment and sat-
| i~sfaction in U. S. gold coin.
Execution was issued, whereupon the de-
| PENDANT (appehant), rendered the full amount
| Of the augment and costs in legal tender
notes, commonly called "grcenbacks," and
| moved the District Court to order satisfaction
| OF the judgment entered of record. This
motion was denied and the appeal in this
case is taken from the order, and from the
Judgment. Two objections are prominently
presented:
First-Thc appellant contends that the act
Of the Legislature Of this State, passed jan
uary 4th, 1865, commonly styled the 'Specifc
Contract Act" is prospective and not retro
active in its operation.
Second-That il the act be Retrospective, it
is void because it conflicts with the act OF
Congress passed February 25th, 1862. which
declares that the notes OF the United States
are a legal tender for the payment Of debts,
| etc.
In our opinion both objections are tenablc.
I. Is this act Of January 4th, 1865, retro
active in fact? Does it by express terms, or
unavoidable implication, 10 clearly embrace
| contracts antecedent to its enactment, rs not
to admit OF n different construction:
Retrospective laws have been regarded
from remote antiquity us odious and tyrani-
cal, and they have been almost uniformly
discountenanced by the Courts Of Great Bri-
tain and the United States. Bracton, in dis
cus.ing the subject, adopts the maxim Of the
civil law in these words: "Nord c0nstitutio
fauris .forman debt nnponere non praet-
er1tis."
Lord Bacon, in his quaint style, says: at
is in general true that no statute is to have a
retrospect beyond the time Of its commence
ment." The French code provides expressly
that no law can have a retrospective effect.
"All laws" says Blackstone, "should be
made to commence in fMturo"-and the Con-
s~titution Of New Hampshire declares /" retro
~spcctive laws to be highly injurious, oppres-
siyc and unjust" Thus We find that the
power Of the Legislature to enact RETROSPECT
tive laws has been stubbornly denied BY many
able writer's.
Scdgwick, in treating Of the subject, makes
use Of the following emphatic language:
"Nothing shcrt OF some great paramount
emergency Of public policy can justify Law.
Of this kind, and it will be well for all engaged
in the business Of government to understand
and remember that the steady and uniform
rule should be to make statutes operate pros
pcctiyely only. No exception should be toll
Grated but on the ground OF II controlling
public necessity. "-(Sedgwlck on Stat. ana
Con. Law, page 2O2.
nha f,-A1o,nu snnyaatInnR have hnpn uu-
vanccd with q view to admonish at least
against u loose and Authoritarian construc-
ton Of a species Of legislation Objectionable
and in accordant with the fundamental prin-
ciples of the social compact.
We would not be understood, however, as
alleging that retrospective legislation Is not
within the scope Of the law-making power.
The settled and approved doctrine at tins
dav is, that such power exists outside OF an
express and positive constitutional inhibition
in certain enumerated cases las for instance,
laws Of a criminal nature, or laws impairing
the obligation Of contracts, which are posi-
lively inhibitcd), and that the only check
upon this power seems to be, that Courts
will not give Retrospective Interpretation to
statutes unless the intention Of the law-mak-
era is so plain, either by express words, or
b. unavoidable implication as not to fairly
admit OF :he opposite construction. To state
the proposition with all the clearness we can
command, and to avoid misapprehension, our
understanding OF the law on this subject Us
now settled is, that the primary rule OF con-
s~truction is to give n statute a prospective
effect, but that the rule must yield II the ret
r~oactive intention is so plainly expressed or
manifest as TO leave no doubt upon the mind.
And this is confined to cases where 10 con-
stitutional objection interposes, Ms before
stated.
We will instance SOME cases wherein laws,
though confcssedly retrospective, have been
held by the judiciary to be unobjcctionable.
Such are statutes declaring valid acts OF 9TH
GERS illegally elected or appointed; confirm
ing the acts Of towns or corporations, NUM-
cipal or otherwise; correcting and ratlfying
assessments irrcgularly made extending the
time for the collection OF taxes, and confirm
ing the informal levying Of tho same, and
altering and amending the modes Of proceed
urc in judicial matters.
In these and other such instances the laws
clearly r~etroact, and individuals may some
times suffer thereby, but such laws are sup
ported solely upon the principle that the in,
terests Of the public are involved and deemed
paramount to those Of individuals, a princi.
pie which cannot, we apprehend, be invoked
in favor Of the respondent in the case at bar.
Hppo.s .a.ro..,;xo sHsct tho law
give tne s.stue q it" o"u-s tnrms ~ ,rcb
user must 90 sta !" ~ n,s.riv m,n;fcst
intention must DC .Sos;,;o. ,VSsn i'm
we VIII relet 70 i.J 4, .ho S,.,o ~
prisonmeht iot oeot Psetsiieu S"a ,ho,
New YORK, II n person incuIesia.eu y
cause merely stepped beyond the Jail h6cr-
ties, it was held TO be an escape, ana q rign.
OF action instantly accrued tnereiol ngains.
the sheriff, and a return or recap,lle oeiore
suit brought was no defense 70 the ne,'on.
To remedy TIL, harsh RUE tue Leglsla'ure
passed an act declaring that a return VI re-
capture before SUIT oroaent was no aelense 70
the action. 10 rsmeoy this ;an ,t ta, ~ ~
Legislature passed al set ueolaiin sn I ~ ~
turn or recspture oeiote sul', tnnsd
good defense. An ae'Ion was D.,.;ns ,S.
against q sneiin ioran e''spe Daon,;Snnd
pending Of TINS ao9on tae aoT wv my :, n.a
statute wa, passed, ana On she .i.,oa - ;,s
contended that tne sIeirh va" 49, nio.d.J1 oD
benefits Ia recapture having oeeh pleaSeu! w
the ground that the statute operateu rstto.
spectively. Iherc were mo express "oiu' u
denote a retroactive intention.
The Court nela II aiG NOT 30 setf anu
Thompson, u, In ms oplniSn, ro,ro,na.,;Ss
in general DO truly observer VI euo'Psh
laws Of every deseIiPtGn, .na. .uty ",ndel
accord win souno ieg''iSsion aGt '"e e,mnDn.
/ mental nrlnClDlcu OF TIC bOCIdl COllIhCks