Giles v. Giles

22 Minn. 348, 1876 Minn. LEXIS 6
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided January 27, 1876·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

Berry, J.

Unless the contrary clearly appears to have been intended by the legislature, statutes should be construed to be prospective in their scope and operation, and not retrospective. This is a familiar canon of construction. Burwell v. Tullis, 12 Minn. 572; Davidson v. Gaston, 16 Minn. 230 ; Sedgwick on Stat. & Const. Law, 2d ed., 160-173. In accordance with this rule we are of opinion that the clause, (found in Laws 1874, ch. 66, § 1,) “ whenever a married man shall be deserted by his wife,” refers to a future desertion — that is to say, to a desertion beginning after the chapter cited goes into effect. In other words, as respects the class of cases provided for in this clause, the law is purely prospective.

Judgment reversed.

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

Giles v. Giles, 22 Minn. 348, 1876 Minn. LEXIS 6 (Mich. 1876).

22 Minn. 348 (Giles v. Giles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rom v. Calhoun
34 N.W.2d 359 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1948)
State Ex Rel. Progress v. First Judicial District Court
2 P.2d 129 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1931)
People v. Lowell
230 N.W. 202 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1930)
Chenoweth v. Chambers
164 P.2d 428 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
Barrington v. Barrington
76 So. 81 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1917)
Long v. Long
160 N.W. 687 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1916)
Oppegaard v. Board of County Commissioners
125 N.W. 504 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910)
Stein v. Hanson
109 N.W. 821 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1906)
Fish v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Co.
84 N.W. 458 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1900)
Burt v. Burt
46 N.E. 622 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Tompkins v. Forrestal
55 N.W. 813 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1893)
Gaston v. Merriam
22 N.W. 614 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1885)
State v. Waholz
9 N.W. 578 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1881)