Cushman v. Hale
Supreme Court of Vermont
Petition for mandamus. Heard at the October term, 1895- A statute is presumed to act prospectively only, unless it clearly appears that the legislature intended it to have a retl'ospective effect. Sedg. Stat. and Const. Law 193 ; Endlich on Stat. s. 273 ; Briggs v. Hubbard, 19 Vt. 86, 90; Strafford v. Sharon, 61 Vt. 130; Starksboro v. Hinesn burgh, 13 Vt. 222; Cookv.
Read the full summary
Petition for mandamus. Heard at the October term, 1895- A statute is presumed to act prospectively only, unless it clearly appears that the legislature intended it to have a retl'ospective effect. Sedg. Stat. and Const. Law 193 ; Endlich on Stat. s. 273 ; Briggs v. Hubbard, 19 Vt. 86, 90; Strafford v. Sharon, 61 Vt. 130; Starksboro v. Hinesn burgh, 13 Vt. 222; Cookv. Richardson, 37 Vt. 599, 604; Thorne et. ais. v. San Francisco, 4 Cal. 127 ; £>uackenbush v. Dans, 1 Denio, 130; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 319-321; Pac. Mail SteamshiJ Co. v. Joliffe, 2 Wall. 450. The statute repealed created a…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, C. J.
This is a petition to have the writ of mandamus issue, commanding the State Auditor to draw an order in favor of the petitioner on the State Treasurer for one-fourth of certain fines paid into the treasury of the state after December 1, 1894. The petitioner claims right to a,,, fourth part of these fines, by virtue of 41 of the Acts of 1886 *446amended by 41 of the Acts of 1888. The amendment only made the provision of 41 of the Acts of 1886 applicable to one other section of the Revised Laws. Act 41 of the laws of 1886 provides:
“One-fourth of the fines and forfeitures mentioned in sections…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Steamship Co. v. JoliffeSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- BUTLER v. Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Inhabitants of Goshen v. Inhabitants of StoningtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- United States v. MorrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Moore v. . the Mayor, Aldermen, C., of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hazzard v. AlexanderSuperior Court of Delaware · 1934
- State ex rel. Caster v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1917