Peters v. Goulden
| Decision Date | 24 April 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 171 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Charles Peters v. James Goulden |
Heard April 23, 1873
Error to Sanilac Circuit.
Judgment reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.
Watson Beach and O'Brien J. Atkinson, for plaintiff in error.
B. C. Farrand and William T. Mitchell, for defendant in error.
This was a suit brought to recover back moneys paid as the purchase price of liquors sold in violation of the prohibitory liquor law. The circuit judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff could not recover.
The argument in this court in support of the judge's instructions is, that the section of the statute which gives this right of action was re-enacted with alterations in 1871, after the sales in question was made, and this re-enactment it is insisted, is to be regarded as a new law which repealed the old, and consequently no recovery could be had except under the new law, and that could apply only to sales since made.
We have no occasion to examine this argument. The prohibitory liquor law, as it was when the sales were made, declared all moneys paid for liquors sold in violation of its provisions, to be paid without consideration, and recoverable by the party paying on that ground. This being so, the plaintiff had a vested right of action for the money, which would not be affected by subsequent changes in the statute.
The circuit judge also expressed an opinion to the jury that if the plaintiff could recover at all, he could recover only the sum paid at some one time. This opinion was also erroneous. Under the common counts in his declaration he could recover any number of payments, as he might in other cases to which those counts were applicable.
Judgment reversed with costs and a new trial ordered.
The other Justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Breitung v. Lindauer
...the statute cannot affect a vested right of action for the recovery of money paid for liquor sold in violation of the liquor law, Peters v. Goulden 27 Mich. 171, and the right to recover actual damages for the neglect railroad companies to fence their roads is secure from legislative attack......
-
Pontiac Police & Fire Retiree Prefunded Grp. Health & Ins. Trust Board of Trs. v. City of Pontiac No. 1., Docket No. 316418.
...or future enforcement of a demand, or a legal exemption from a demand made by another. ’ " [Emphasis added; see also Peters v. Goulden, 27 Mich. 171, 171–172 (1873).]The Legislature has similarly provided that the repeal of a statute will not affect a penalty, forfeiture, or liability incur......
-
Wilson v. Guaranteed Securities Co.
... ... 330; ... Coe v. Portland Farmers' Elevator Co. , ... 236 Mich. 34, 209 N.W. 829; Whitaker v ... Pope , 29 F. Cas. 961, No. 17528; Peters v ... Goulden , 27 Mich. 171; Ettor v ... Tacoma , 228 U.S. 148, 33 S.Ct. 428, 57 L.Ed. 773; ... Jacobs v. Seattle , 100 Wash. 524, 171 ... ...
-
National Underwriting Co. v. Simon
...102 N. C. 95, 8 S. E. 767, 3 L. R. A. 43; Roby v. West, 4 N. H. 285, 17 Am. Dec. 423; Nichols v. Poulson, 6 Ohio, 305; Peters v. Goulden, 27 Mich. 171. (c) That the transaction was unaffected by the Michigan statute, because it was an Indiana contract. There is some contradiction in the evi......