Speckert v. City of Louisville
| Decision Date | 02 December 1879 |
| Citation | 78 Ky. 287 |
| Parties | Speckert v. City of Louisville. Riverman v. Same. Redman v. Same. Bromme v. Same. Schulte v. Same. Stienmetz v. Same. Baumann v. Same. Manneman v. Same. Riebel v. Same. Mischendorf v. Same. Hoeflick v. Same. Butcher v. Same. Huffman v. Same. Schaeffer v. Same. Dohn v. Same. Weber v. Same. Williams v. Same. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
A fine was imposed on the appellants for violating section 7 of ordinance No. 669 of the city of Louisville, providing that "no coffee-house keeper shall sell liquor on Sunday, nor after half-past eleven o'clock at night." The appellants, relying on the unconstitutionality of the ordinance, suspended the judgments in the various actions against them, and have prosecuted this appeal.
During the pendency of the appeal, the ordinance under which the penalty was imposed was repealed, and the parties, by an agreement of record, have brought that fact to the knowledge of this court, and appellants now maintain that, as there is no law in existence under which the judgment below can be enforced, the same should be reversed.
We are asked by this agreement to treat the case here as if there was a motion to vacate the judgment below before the plaintiff was entitled to execution, on the ground that the law had been repealed, and therefore no penalty could be enforced. The effect of the appeal was to suspend the judgment, and while the judgment below is regarded as final for the purposes of an appeal, its execution cannot be enforced until the appeal is disposed of. It is well settled that no judgment can be rendered in an action to enforce a penalty when the statute under which the proceeding is had has been repealed. "The repeal of the law imposing a penalty is itself a remission." (3 Howard, 574, Maryland v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company.) When such a statute is repealed it ends all the litigation under it, and if the judgment is not final, that is, if the action seeking to recover the penalty is not finally disposed of, the right to the penalty depending on the affirmance or reversal of the judgment, and the repeal is brought to the knowledge of the court, it must necessarily result in a dismissal of the action. In Lewis v. Foster (1 N. H., 61) a judgment had been rendered in an action of debt under a penal statute, and before execution the statute was repealed. The supreme court said: "The plaintiff's right of action was taken away by the repeal of the law on which it was founded." The right of the legislature to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Ewald Iron Co.
... ... [154 S.W. 932] ... Matt J ... Holt, of Louisville, for the Commonwealth. Gibson & Crawford, ... of Louisville, for appellees National Lead Co., ... Hopkins might have been. We so held in City of Lexington ... v. Rennick, 105 Ky. 779, 49 S.W. 787, 50 S.W. 1106, 20 ... Ky. Law Rep. 1609, ... until it has been reduced to judgment. Commonwealth v ... Welch, 2 Dana, 330; Speckert v. City of ... Louisville, 78 Ky. 287; Pannell v. Louisville ... Tobacco Warehouse Co., 113 ... ...
-
Pannell v. Louisville Tobacco Warehouse Co.
... ... compensation for private property taken for the public ... use." San Diego Land & Town Co. v. City of National ... City, 174 U.S. 753, 19 S.Ct. 804, 43 L.Ed. 1154 ... Under ... the statute, including the resales and the outage ... without power to give judgment, and the action must be ... dismissed. Com. v. Cain, 77 Ky. 525; Speckert v ... City of Louisville, 78 Ky. 287; Dinsmore v. Express ... Co., 183 U.S. 115, 22 S.Ct. 45. We are therefore without ... authority to proceed ... ...
-
Baker v. City of Lexington
...judgment pronounced after the new law takes effect." In support of this contention, some stress is laid upon the fact that Speckert v. City of Louisville, 78 Ky. 287, decided without reference to the statute above quoted, modifying the common law as to the effect of repealing statutes. The ......