Menges v. Dentler
| Citation | 33 Pa. 495 |
| Parties | Menges versus Dentler. |
| Decision Date | 01 January 1859 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
ERROR to the Common Pleas of Northumberland county.*
Page 496
Donnel, Johnson, and Maynard, for the plaintiff in error.— Menges v. Wertman has never been recognised as sound law, and has been virtually overruled in all subsequent cases where reference has been made to it: Dale v. Medcalf, 9 Barr 110; Greenough v. Greenough, 1 Jones 495; Lycoming v. Union, 3 Harris 172.
We rely upon the 9th section of the 9th article of the Constitution, which is directly violated by the Act of 1843. The expression "law of the land," does not mean Acts of Assembly in regard to private rights; but it means the law of the individual case, in a fair and open trial: Brown v. Hummel, 6 Barr 89. In every case reported, the court expressly admits the unconstitutionality of acts which impair or destroy vested rights: Vanhorne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 310-11; Calder v. Bull, 3 Id. 388; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627, 657; Satterlee v. Matthewson, 16 S. & R. 179; Norman v. Heist, 5 W. & S. 171; Eakin v. Raub, 12 S. & R. 360; Bolton v. Johns, 5 Barr 149; Ogden v. Blackledge, 2 Cranch 272; 1 Kent's Com. 456, note b; 9 Barr 108; Camp v. Wood, 10 Watts 118.
Page 497
G. F. Miller, for the defendant in error, cited Respublica v. Duquet, 2 Yeates 493; Underwood v. Lilly, 10 S. & R. 97; Barnet v. Barnet, 15 Id. 72; Satterlee v. Matthewson, 16 Id. 178; Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 88; Kean v. Rice, 12 S. & R. 203; Tate v. Stooltzfoos, 16 Id. 35; Mercer v. Watson, 1 Watts 356; Bleakney v. Farmers' and Mechanics' Bank, 17 S. & R. 64; Commonwealth v. McCloskey, 2 Rawle 374; McMasters v. Commonwealth, 3 Watts 292; Commonwealth v. King, 1 Wh. 460; Hepburn v. Curts, 7 Watts 300; Braddee v. Brownfield, 2 W. & S. 271; Commonwealth v. Smith, 4 Binn. 123; Ex parte McCollum, 1 Cow. 550; Menges v. Wertman, 1 Barr 218.
The opinion of the court was delivered by LOWRIE, C. J.
The title to this land was once, in due course of law, declared to be in the heirs of Solomon Menges, against the title claimed by George Oyster under a sheriff's deed, purporting to convey it as the property of their father. Afterwards, an Act of Assembly was passed, 24th April 1843 (Pamph. L. 362, § 11), declaring that sheriff's deed valid, in so far as the Supreme Court had declared it invalid. Then the controversy was renewed, and the Act of Assembly was decided by the Supreme Court to be constitutional, and Oyster's title was sustained: Menges v. Wertman, 1 State R. 218. Now again the controversy is renewed, and we are asked to declare the Act of Assembly unconstitutional, and to restore the heirs of Menges to their original rights.
It is very apparent that, in the case of Menges v. Wertman, the court yielded to the force of the legislative will with great doubt, hesitation, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dana Holding Corp. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., No. 44 MAP 2019
-
Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc
......You shouldn't have trusted us,' is hardly worthy of our great government"); Menges v. Dentler, 33 Pa. 495, 500 (1859) ("Men naturally trust in their government, and ought to do so, and they ought not to suffer for it"). See also ......
-
Parker v. Port Huron Hosp.
......677, 687, 25 L.Ed. 968; Loeb v. Columbia Township Trustees, 179 U.S. 472, 492, 21 S.Ct. 174, 45 L.Ed. 280; Harris v. Jex, 55 N.Y. 421; * * * Menges v. Dentler, 33 Pa. 495, 499; * * * Com. v. Fidelity & Columbia Trust Co., 185 Ky. 300, 215 S.W. 42; Mason v. Cotton Co., 148 N.C. 492, 510, 62 S.E. ......
-
Langbord v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury
......It is axiomatic that "men naturally trust in their government, and ought to do so, and they ought not to suffer for it." Menges v. Dentler, 33 Pa. 495, 500 (1859). The Government must not squander that trust. Instead, the Government must invariably respect the wise restraints ......