Vreeland v. Bramhall

39 N.J.L. 1
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedNovember 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 39 N.J.L. 1 (Vreeland v. Bramhall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vreeland v. Bramhall, 39 N.J.L. 1 (N.J. 1876).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Beasley, Chief Justice.

This motion should not be granted. The general principle of statutory construction is averse to giving to laws a retrospective effect, and the consequence is, such force is never ascribed to any act unless an intention to that end is to be found either in its language or object. In the present instance, such intention is not discoverable, either from expression or implication. The words and purpose of the section in question, are perfectly accordant with an interpretation attributing to it exclusively a prospective operation. To apply it to past transactions would be to hazard an injustice. Prior to this enactment, all persons had a legal right to look upon lien-claims as unamendable, and to vend and purchase land on that basis. To defeat expectations so founded, would be obviously unfair and inequitable.

The Circuit Court is advised that the lien-claim in question is not amendable.

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

Related

JD Loizeaux Lumber Co. v. Davis
124 A.2d 593 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1956)
City of Newark v. Padula
94 A.2d 859 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 N.J.L. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vreeland-v-bramhall-nj-1876.