Murray v. Mattison

• Decision Date: 08 March 1891
• Parties: MURRAY et al. v. MATTISON.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

21 A. 532

63 Vt. 479

MURRAY et al.

v. MATTISON.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Bennington.

March 8, 1891.

Exceptions from Bennington county court; Taft, Judge.

Trespass for an assault upon one Rose Murray. The suit was brought in the name of the said Rose and her husband, John Murray. The plaintiff moved to amend the writ by striking out the name of John Murray. The suit was returnable to the June term, 1890.

Batchelder & Barber, for plaintiff.

Sheldon & Cushman, for defendants.

ROWELL, J. No. 25, Acts 1890, empowers courts to amend civil process by "striking out the name of a party improperly joined as a plaintiff." No. 31 of the same statute, passed the same day, provides that no act of the general assembly shall affect a suit begun or pending at the time of its passage, but declares that the act shall not apply to acts regulating practice in the courts, nor relating to the amendment of process or pleading, as to parties or otherwise. The former act is remedial and salutary. Its language is broad enough to cover suits pending at its passage; and when read in the light of the latter act, it is clear that the legislature intended that it should cover such suits. And as a rule of construction the law is that, when a new enactment deals with practice and procedure only, it applies to all actions, unless otherwise expressed, whether commenced before or after its passage. Wright v. Hale, 6 Hurl. & N. 227; Kimbray v. Draper, L. R. 8 Q. B. 160; People v. Tibbetts, 4 Cow. 384; Hine v. Pomeroy, 39 Vt. 211; Sedg. St. & Const. Law, (2d Ed.) in notes; 10 Amer. Dec. 139, in notes. That such statutes are not unconstitutional, as taking away vested rights, is too well settled to require discussion. Judgment affirmed.