Crawford v. Halsted & Putnam
Supreme Court of Virginia
This was an action of assumpsit in the Hustings court of the city of Richmond, brought in February, 1866, by Halsted & Putnam, merchants and partners doing business in the city of New York, against Wm. Crawford and Robert C. McPhail, alleged to be partners doing business under the name and style of Crawford & Co., in the city of Richmond. The process does not appear to have been served on McPhail; but the acfi-011 was proceeded in against Crawford.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit in the Hustings court of the city of Richmond, brought in February, 1866, by Halsted & Putnam, merchants and partners doing business in the city of New York, against Wm. Crawford and Robert C. McPhail, alleged to be partners doing business under the name and style of Crawford & Co., in the city of Richmond. The process does not appear to have been served on McPhail; but the acfi-011 was proceeded in against Crawford. The only question in the case was upon the admissibility of the ¿ep0siti0ns 0f the plaintiffs as evidence. The commisgion to take the depositions…
1Opinion of the CourtStaples, J.
It is settled that vested rights, acquired under a statute, are not affected by its repeal. The rule is, however, different with regard to rights that are merely inchoate and executory, unless, indeed, they amount to a contract within the meaning of the constitution. As was said in Butler v. Palmer, 1 Hill N. Y. R. 324, the true principle to be deduced from all the cases is, that inchoate rights, derived under a statute, are lost by its repeal, unless saved by express words in the repealing statute; otherwise, in respect to such civil rights as have been perfected far enough to stand…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Price v. KyleSupreme Court of Virginia · 1852
- M'gruder v. LyonsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1851