Bejger v. Zawadzki

Plaintiff had, and has, a common-law right of action. After suit, and before judgment, the statute was repealed, yet, notwithstanding, plaintiff was given the benefit of it and relieved from showing that the dog was vicious, to defendant's knowledge, and had damages doubled.

My Brother disposes of the question of double damages, and my disagreement is confined to the effect of the repeal upon the rule by which the case should have been tried.

The repeal was without a saving clause. The repealed act did not supersede common-law right of action, but did eliminate proof essential to have recovery…