Pope v. Lewis
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the County Court of Mobile. This was a qui tam action by the defendant against the plaintiff in error, for selling rope and bagging without inspection. The Court charged the jury, that if they found the defendant guilty under the third section of the act, on which the action is founded, their verdict should be for the plaintiff. That the repeal of this act by the last Legislature could not affect the plaintiff’s right — to which the defendant excepted.
Read the full summary
Error to the County Court of Mobile. This was a qui tam action by the defendant against the plaintiff in error, for selling rope and bagging without inspection. The Court charged the jury, that if they found the defendant guilty under the third section of the act, on which the action is founded, their verdict should be for the plaintiff. That the repeal of this act by the last Legislature could not affect the plaintiff’s right — to which the defendant excepted. Various other points were made in the cause, which are not noticed in the opinion of the Court. argued that the repeal of the statute…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The principal question in this cause is, whether any judgment can be rendered in an action founded on a penal statute after its repeal?
The counsel for the defendant in error, maintain, that by the commencement of this suit, for the penalty prescribed by statute, for selling rope and bagging without inspection, the defendant acquired a vested right in the penalty, which the subsequent repeal of the statute by the Legislature,cannot deprive him of.
As it is very certain that vested rights, properly so called, are beyond the control of the Legislature, it becomes necessary to inquire on what…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People ex rel. Fleming v. LivingstonNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- The Schooner Rachel v. The United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- United States v. PrestonSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Commonwealth v. WelchCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1834
- State v. President of the Tombeckbee BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1828
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Atwood v. BuckinghamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1905
- Planters' & Merchants' Bank of Mobile v. WillisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1843
- Hargroves v. ChambersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1860
- Roberts v. PippenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Luke v. Calhoun CountySupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.