Walpole v. Elliott

18 Ind. 258
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 18 Ind. 258 (Walpole v. Elliott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walpole v. Elliott, 18 Ind. 258 (Ind. 1862).

Opinion

Perkins, J.

Suit upon a note. Judgment for the plaintiff. iTo question is presented by the record except this single one, viz: whether the judgment rendered in the cause is void. It is alleged that it was rendered at a special term of the Hancock Circuit Court, not held pursuant to law; but it is admitted that the Legislature enacted, in 1861, and before the appeal in the cause was taken, a curative statute, validating, if it could be done, the judgment rendered and proceedings had at that term.

The Supreme Court of this State decided, in the following cases, that it was competent for the Legislature, by a curative statute, where not restrained by a constitutional provision, to make a void thing valid. The Board of Commissioners, &c. v. Bright, at this term; ‘Andrews v. Russell, 7 Blackf. 474; Grimes v. Doe, 8 id. 371; Davis v. The State Bank, 7 Ind. 316. See, also, Lucas v. Tucker, 17 Ind. 41. See Sedg. on Stat. p. 198 et seq. for cases on this subject, and which sustains the ruling we make in the case at bar. Curative statutes are but a species of retrospective legislation; and retrospective legislation is valid where not forbidden by the Constitution. See the cases collected in 1 Gavin & Hord’s Statutes, p. 9, note 3; Ind. Dig. p. 751, sec. 96; Cushing’s Law of Legislative Assemblies, p. 303, sec. 771. The following is the maxim governing the Courts in determining whether a law is to be held prospective only, or retrospective, also, in its operation:

“Leges quae retrospiciunt raro, et magna cum cautione sunt adhibendae; ñeque enim Janus locatur in legibusJ

Laws which are retrospective are rare, and to be received with great caution, for Janus should have no situation among [260]*260the laws.” Taylor’s Law Glossary, p. 288. See the cases cited in 9 Ind. on page 57.

T. D. § P. L. Waif ole, for the appellant- P>. S. Gooding, for the appellee.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.

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

Related

Consolidation Coal Co. v. Mutchman
565 N.E.2d 1074 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1991)
Goes v. Feldman
391 N.E.2d 943 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1979)
Yelton v. Plantz
89 N.E.2d 540 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1950)
Anderson County Road District No. 8 v. Pollard
296 S.W. 1062 (Texas Supreme Court, 1927)
Burget v. Merritt
57 N.E. 714 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1900)
Schneck v. City of Jeffersonville
52 N.E. 212 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1898)
Johnson v. Board of Commissioners
8 N.E. 1 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Kelly v. State ex rel. First National Bank
92 Ind. 236 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
Muncie National Bank v. Miller
91 Ind. 441 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
Gardner v. Haney
86 Ind. 17 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Cookerly v. Duncan
87 Ind. 332 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1882)
Forster v. Forster
129 Mass. 559 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1880)
Sithin v. Board of Commissioners
66 Ind. 109 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1879)
Henderson v. State ex rel. Moon
58 Ind. 244 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1877)
Tilton v. Swift
40 Iowa 78 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1874)
Iowa Railroad Land v. Soper
39 Iowa 112 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1874)
State ex rel. Walter v. Town of Union
33 N.J.L. 350 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1869)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Ind. 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walpole-v-elliott-ind-1862.