Watkins v. Haight
18 Johns. 138
Opinion
The case of Dash v. Van Kleeck, shows that it would be unjust and against the sound principles of legislation, to consider the act as retrospective. It must be deemed prospective merely; and the motion, therefore, is denied.
Motion denied*
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Watkins v. Haight, 18 Johns. 138 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1820).
18 Johns. 138 (Watkins v. Haight) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Kelly v. Yannotti
152 N.E.2d 69 (New York Court of Appeals, 1958)
Bullock v. Town of Durham
19 N.Y.S. 635 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)
In re Lauterjung
16 Jones & S. 308 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1882)
McCahill v. Hamilton
27 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 388 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Vaughan v. East Tennessee
28 F. Cas. 1111 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee, 1877)