Monroe v. Chase, Civ. A. No. 1504.

Decision Date03 November 1947
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 1504.
PartiesMONROE v. CHASE et al.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Illinois

Marion Hart of Benton, Ill., and Ralph Walker, of East St. Louis, Ill., for plaintiff.

Pope & Driemeyer, of East St. Louis, Ill. (Frank M. Rain and Henry Driemeyer, both of East St Louis, Ill., of counsel), for defendant.

WHAM, District Judge.

After the time the death occurred, on account of which judgment is sought in this case, and after the time that suit therefor was filed, the Illinois Injuries Act, Ill.Rev.Stat. Chap. 70, was amended by increasing the maximum damages that may be recovered from $10,000.00 to $15,000.00. In view of said amendment, plaintiff has presented a motion for leave to amend the demand for damages set forth in the complaint so as to increase the demand from $10,000.00 to $15,000.00.

Upon consideration of the motion, the briefs of counsel, and the legislation involved, it appears that the amendment in question amended the right given by the statute rather than the remedy or the procedure by which the statutory right might be ripened into judgment. The amendment increases the liability of one who is guilty under the statute. The amendment is one of substantive law and not one of adjective law. It affects the relief provided by the statute and not the mode of obtaining relief. To give the amendment effect in this case which involves a prior death would be contrary to the well established rule in Illinois that statutes are prospective and will not be considered to have retroactive operation unless the language employed in the enactment is so clear that it will admit of no other construction. Cleary v. Hoobler, 207 Ill. 97, 69 N.E. 967; Bauer Grocery Co. v. Zelle, 172 Ill. 407, 50 N.E. 238; In re Day, 181 Ill. 73, 54 N.E. 646, 50 L.R.A. 519; Miner v. Stafford, 326 Ill. 204, 157 N.E. 164; People v. C. & A. Ry. Co., 289 Ill. 282, 124 N.E. 658; People v. Deutsche Gemeinde, 249 Ill. 132, 94 N.E. 162. Whether or not, under the law of Illinois, the statutory right to relief in a death case may be said to be a vested right, no persuasive authority appears for the position that a statutory increase in the maximum liability may be retroactive or given a retrospective application in the absence of clear language that the lawmakers so intended.

In the legislation here under consideration, as amended, there is nothing to indicate that it was the purpose of the Legislature that it should be given retrospective effect. The motion...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Theodosis v. Keeshin Motor Exp. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 11, 1950
    ...has not been passed upon by any court of review in Illinois. There have been a number of decisions by trial judges. In Monroe v. Chase, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 278, Judge Wham held that the amendment was one of substance and was not Defendants rely on the opinion of Judge Elmer J. Schnackenberg of......
  • Wittel v. Baker
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 18, 1970
    ...And it has been so held as to a statute merely increasing the monetary limit that was permitted to be recovered. Monroe v. Chase, et al., 76 F.Supp. 278, 279 (D.C.Illinois 1947); Keeley v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 139 Wis. 448, 121 N.W. 167, 170 (1909). See Conn. v. Young, 267 F.2d 725 (2d C......
  • Smith v. Mercer, 2
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 11, 1970
    ...action. If it created a new right, and did not merely change the remedy, it is not applicable to prior transactions.' In Monroe v. Chase, 76 F.Supp. 278 (D.C.Ill.1947), the wrongful death action was pending when the Illinois statute was amended by increasing the maximum recoverable damages ......
  • Orlicki v. McCarthy, Gen. No. 46224
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 20, 1954
    ...retroactive. A number of opinions by trial judges in cases under the Injuries Act and the Dramshop Act were submitted to us. Monroe v. Chase, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 278, Judge Wham; Haut, Adm'x v. McGlone, 46 C 10366, Circuit Court Judge Schnackenberg; English et al. v. Glenn, 49 S 11540, Trust C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT