Murray v. Mattison
| Citation | 63 Vt. 479, 21 A. 532 |
| Case Date | March 08, 1891 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
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.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
T.L.S., In re, 82-439
...1 V.S.A. § 213 and its exceptions are intended to apply to newly added legislative enactments [144 Vt. 545] only. See Murray v. Mattison, 63 Vt. 479, 480, 21 A. 532, 532 (1891). When faced with an amendment to a statute, we must turn to 1 V.S.A. § 214, which provides in part: (b) The amendm......
-
Sanz v. Douglas Collins Construction, 05-117.
...date of the new statute, there is an exception for statutes that are solely procedural or are remedial in nature. See Murray v. Mattison, 63 Vt. 479, 480, 21 A. 532 (1891); . . . 2 Sutherland Stat Const § 41.04, at 349 (4th ed. 1986). . . . The application of an amendment to an existing cas......
-
Snider v. Brown
...and procedure, it applies to all actions, unless otherwise expressed, whether commenced before or after the enactment." Murray v. Mattison, 63 Vt. 479, 21 Atl. Page 382 So it has been held that an act extending the time for issuing execution applied to judgments rendered before the passage ......
-
United States of America for the Use And Benefit of J. G Strait v. United States Fidelity And Guaranty Co.
...Vt. 521, 65 A. 577. The new Act does not deal with practice and procedure only, as did the one under consideration in Murray v. Mattison, 63 Vt. 479, 21 A. 532, cited by defendant, and the one involved [80 Vt. 93] in Johnson v. Smith, 78 Vt. 145, 62 A. 9. Under the Act of 1894, any person w......