Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 15 July 1908
• Docket Number: 214-1908
• Parties: Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

36 Pa.Super. 584

Smith v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appellant

No. 214-1908

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 15, 1908

Argued April 29, 1908

Appeal by defendants, from order of C.P. No. 2, Allegheny Co.-1902 No. 463, sustaining exceptions to bill of costs in case of J W. Smith et al., trading as J. W. Smith & Company, v Illinois Central Railroad Company.

Exceptions to bill of costs.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Error assigned was the order of the court.

Roger Knox, of Hosack, Knox & Hosack, for appellant. -- The general principle seems to be that alterations in the procedure are always retrospective unless there be some good reason against it: Freeman v. Moyes, 1 Adolphus & Ellis, 338 Pickup v. Wharton, 2 Crompton & Meeson, 401; Grant v. Kemp, 2 Crompton & Meeson, 636; Wright v. Hale, 6 Hurlston & Norman, 227; Lane v. White, 140 Pa. 99; Kille v. Iron Works, 134 Pa. 225; Koch's Est., 5 Rawle, 338; Krause v. Penna. R. R. Co., 4 Pa. C.C. 60; Adair v. Decker, 34 Pa.Super. 153.

Robert M. Ewing, for appellees. -- Retrospective laws generally, if not universally, work injustice and ought to be so construed only when the mandate of the legislature is imperative: Taylor v. Mitchell, 57 Pa. 209; Neff's Appeal, 21 Pa. 243; Fisher v. Farley, 23 Pa. 501; Sproul v. Standard Plate Glass Co., 201 Pa. 103; Sachse v. Myers, 15 Pa.Super. 425.

Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Morrison, Orlady, Head and Beaver, JJ.

OPINION

ORLADY, J.

The court below refused to allow, as part of the costs of the case, the amount expended for the printing of the paper-book of the appellant, in whose favor the final decision of this court was rendered. The appeal was taken from the judgment of the court below on September 12, 1906. The Act of 1907, P. L. 83, was approved April 15, 1907. On May 13, 1907, the judgment of the court below was reversed by this court, and judgment entered in favor of the defendant non obstante veredicto.

The act provides, " That in all cases, either in law or equity, wherein an appeal is taken from any judgment, decree, or order, to the Supreme or Superior Courts, the party in whose favor the final decision is rendered, shall be entitled to charge and collect from the losing party, as part of the costs, such an amount as shall have been expended for printing the paperbook upon said appeal. Said amount to be taken and collected in the same manner as costs are now taxed and collected by law."

But little need be said in regard to this question, inasmuch as the decisions of the Supreme Court are so plainly applicable thereto that mere reference to them must result in affirming the judgment of the court below.

Legislation which affects rights, will not be construed to be retroactive, unless declared so in the act; but, where it concerns merely the mode of procedure, it is applicable of course to litigation existing at the time of its passage: Lane v. White, 140 Pa. 99, 21 A. 437.

This was the conclusion of the Supreme Court in an action of foreign attachment, which was pending when the Act of May 10 1889, P. L. 183, was passed, and the plaintiff having filed his statement of claim fifteen days thereafter, took judgment against the defendant in default of an appearance before the act was passed, and after the third term after the execution of the writ it...