G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Lott

Court of Appeals of Texas

G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Lott

2 Wilson 51

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 8, 1883

DocketNo. 1539

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Wilson 51 (G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Lott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Lott, 2 Wilson 51 (Tex. Ct. App. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 63. Repeal of statute; effect of, upon case pending on appeal. Lott brought this suit, under article 4258 of the Revised Statutes, to recover the penalty of $500 for an • overcharge of passenger fare. He recovered judgment before the passage of the act of April 10, 1883, which repealed said article, as held in Etter v. R. R. Co., ante, p. 48. Held, that the repeal of article 4258, pending the [52]*52appeal of the case in this court, must terminate the suit. That article denounced a penalty, and it was within the power of the legislature to repeal it, and thereby remit any forfeiture incurred thereunder that had not been recovered and actually paid. If the law which creates a penalty is repealed, after the repealing law takes effect, no further proceedings can be taken to enforce the penalty. A penal action cannot be maintained after the repeal of the statute creating the penalty sought to be recovered. And, if a case is appealed, and, pending the appeal, the law is changed, the appellate court must dispose of the case under the law in force when its decision is rendered. [Etter v. R. R. Co. ante, p. 48; Cooley on Const. Lim. 477; Wade on Retroactive Laws, § 301; Wall v. The State, 18 Tex. 683; Sheppard v. The State, 1 Tex. Ct. App. 522; Hubbard v. The State, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 506; Halpin v. The State, 5 Tex. Ct. App. 212.]

December 8, 1883.

Reversed and dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 63. Repeal of statute; effect of, upon case pending on appeal. Lott brought this suit, under article 4258 of the Revised Statutes, to recover the penalty of $500 for an • overcharge of passenger fare. He recovered judgment before the passage of the act of April 10, 1883, which repealed said article, as held in Etter v. R. R. Co., ante, p. 48. Held, that the repeal of article 4258, pending the [52]*52appeal of the case in this court, must terminate the suit. That article denounced a penalty, and it was within the power of the legislature to repeal it, and thereby remit any forfeiture incurred thereunder that had not been recovered and actually paid. If the law which creates a penalty is repealed, after the repealing law takes effect, no further proceedings can be taken to enforce the penalty. A penal action cannot be maintained after the repeal of the statute creating the penalty sought to be recovered. And, if a case is appealed, and, pending the appeal, the law is changed, the appellate court must dispose of the case under the law in force when its decision is rendered. [Etter v. R. R. Co. ante, p. 48; Cooley on Const. Lim. 477; Wade on Retroactive Laws, § 301; Wall v. The State, 18 Tex. 683; Sheppard v. The State, 1 Tex. Ct. App. 522; Hubbard v. The State, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 506; Halpin v. The State, 5 Tex. Ct. App. 212.]

December 8, 1883.

Reversed and dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Wilson 51, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-c-s-f-ry-co-v-lott-texapp-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack