Case Name: Nicholas P. Trist, plaintiff and respondent, vs. Joseph A. DeCabezas, executor, &c. defendant and appellant
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1864-10
Citations: 2 Rob. 708
Docket Number: 
Parties: Nicholas P. Trist, plaintiff and respondent, vs. Joseph A. DeCabezas, executor, &c. defendant and appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 25
Pages: 708–712

Head Matter:
Nicholas P. Trist, plaintiff and respondent, vs. Joseph A. DeCabezas, executor, &c. defendant and appellant.
1. Section 273 of the Code, as. amended in April, 1862, which provides that (unless the court shall otherwise order) a referee shall make and deliver his report within sixty days from the time the action shall be finally submitted, in ' default of which he shall not be entitled to any fees, and the action shall proceed as though no reference had been ordered, does not cover existing submissions.
2. It contemplates future submissions—final submissions to the roferee after the amendment was passed and took effect upon them also, and was not intended to have a retro-active effect.
(Before Robertson, Ch. J., and Monell and Garvin, JJ.)
Heard October, 1864.
Appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a referee’s report, and judgment entered thereon.
• The cause was at issue, and was referred to a referee, some time during the year 1860. In March, 1862, the case was submitted to the referee for his decision. The time for the referee to make his report was not extended by the order of the court or the consent of parties. On the 5th of May, 1864, the referee not having made his report, the appellant noticed the cause for trial at a special terra of this court, to be held on the first Monday of J une thereafter. On the 13th of May the appellant was served with a copy of the referee’s report, (bearing date May 7, 1864,) and notice that judgment was entered on that day in favor of the respondent, for $539.63.
G. Tillotson, for the appellant.
D. B. Eaton, for the respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court,
Monell, J.
The only question in this case is, whether the provisions of section 273 of the Code, as, amended April 23, 1862,. are applicable to it. The section as .amended provides as follows : "Unless the court shall otherwise order, the referee or referees shall make and deliver his report wilhin sixty 'days from the time the action shall be finally submitted, and on default thereof said referee or referees shall not be entitled to receive any fees, and the action shall proceed as though no reference had been ordered." If those provisions are applicable to this case, then I am of opinion that the service of a notice of trial was" a sufficient disaffirmance of the reference to render the subsequent report of the referee, and judgment thereon, irregular. That the cause was finally submitted to the referee for his decision in March, 1862, I do not regard as disputed. The request of the referee to be furnished with an authority upon a question involved in the case, was a mere shifting of the labor of looking up the law, from the referee to the counsel, and cannot be considered a re-opening of the case. I assume, therefore, as the fact, that the amendment of section 273, above quoted, was passed .and took effect after this cause had been " finally submitted " to the referee.
There is nothing in the amendment indicating an intention to give it a retroactive effect, nor that it shall be applicable only to future cases ; and we are left to determine the question by ascertaining from the letter of the statute what was the intention of the law makers.
Prior to this amendment, no restriction as to time for making a report was placed upon a referee. He could, however, be compelled by mandamus to proceed and decide.
In all statutes which affect or change a remedy, it is but fair to presume that it was intended to exempt pending cases and proceedings from their operation, unless the contrary appears ; especially where the change might prejudice or injure the rights of parties. As a general rule, all statutes take effect from the time of their passage, or within twenty days thereafter. They can have no force or efficiency previous to that time ; and statutes which afford or affect remedies in civil actions are usually designed to supply defects or confer new rights.. It is not uncommon in statutes, to apply them in terms to, or to exempt them from, pending proceédings. Instances of this frequently occur iu the Code. (See sections 268 and 455, and 294, 328, and 364 as amended in 1863.) When the statute is silent, it must be presumed that it was the intention to limit its operations to the period of time when it took effect,-and to fasten its provisions only upon such proceedings as might be commenced thereafter. Suppose, in the case before us, that the cause had been finally submitted to the referee more than sixty days when the amendment of 1862 was passed ; then, upon the construction claimed by the appellant's counsel, either party might immediately upon the act taking effect, not only have deprived the referee of his fees, but have abandoned the reference, and proceeded to trial as if no reference had been ordered. It cannot be that the legislature intended that any such construction should be put upon the statute. . And the omission to apply it, in terms, to pending actions confirms me in the belief that it was to have no retroactive effect.
The act establishing the city court of Brooklyn was passed March, 1849, but did not go into effect until May 1, 1849. The act conferred jurisdiction upon that court "in the action's enumerated in section 103 of the Code of Procedure." The question arose whether the amendment of that section in 1849 (the amendment taking effect May 1, 1849,) was applicable, and whether the city court could exercise the enlarged jurisdiction embraced in the amendment; and it was held that it could not, In Griswold v. Atlantic Dock Co., (21 Barb. 225,) the court say the act undoubtedly referred to the existing Code, inasmuch as the legislature could not have anticipated that another Code would be subsequently passed which should go into operation on the same day with the act organizing the court.
In Ely v. Holton, (15 N. Y. Rep. 595,) the question was whether the amendment of the 11th section of the Code, which took effect May 6, 1857, allowing an appeal from an order granting a new trial, and also in cases arising in a justice's court, was applicable to orders and judgments prior thereto, and the court held it was not. The amendment of the 273d section is in form, like that of § 11, namely, that it be amended " so as to read as follows," transcribing, and apparently reenacting the whole'section, with the amendment included. Judge Denio, in the case just referred to, says : "The theory of amendments made in the form adopted in the present inr stance, we take to be this ; the portions of the section which are repeated are to be considered as having been the law from the time they were first enacted, and the new provisions are to be understood as enacted at the time the amended act took effect and the. court limit the amendment to cases arising after it took effect. The case of People v. Carnal, (6 N. Y. Rep. 463,) is referred to and approved. There it was decided that the act of Mareh 22, 1852 (ch. 82, p. 76) did not authorize a writ of error in behalf of the people, where the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered before the act was passed. The act is silent as to its application to past or future judgments.
The late chancellor says, in Wood v. Oakley, (11 Paige, 400, 403,) " Courts will apply new statutes only to future caswhich may arise, unless there is something in the nature of the new provisions adopted by the legislature, or in the language of such new statutes, which show that they were intended to have a retrospective operation." The principle of the cases of Dash v. Van Kleeck, (7 John. 489,) Bates v. Stearns, (23 Wend. 481,) and Berley v. Rampacher (5 Duer, 188,) is in point.
The case was submitted to the referee for his decision before the amendment >vas passed. The language of the amendment is, "within sixty days from the time the action shall be" (not shall have been) " finally submitted." It contemplates a future submission—a filial submission to the referee after tire amendment was passed and took effect; and it would be imputing a design on the part of the legislature to impair and injure suitors in seeking their remedies, should we extend the operation of the statute so as to cover existing submissions.
I am therefore of opinion there was no irregularity in the referee's making his report, nor in the entering of judgment upon it.
The order should be affirmed with costs.