Retrospective

Looking backward. A retroactive _ law is one which applies to with reference to past transaction, or to impair vested rights. RETTE (Law Fr.)

In old English law. An accusation or charge. Quant clerk est prise par rette de felony, when a clerk is taken on a charge of felony. St. Westminster I. c. 2. RETTER (Law Fr.)

In old English law. To accuse; to charge; to lay to the charge; to account; in old English, to arret, or arrect. Ceo purra il retter a sa negligence, he must charge this to his own negligence. Britt. c. 59. Ceo poies retter a vostre folly demesne, you may lay this to your own folly. Y. B. H. 10 Edw. III. 8. II serra rette la folly, it shall be accounted the folly. Litt. § 261. R ETT U M ( Law Lat.; from Law Fr. rette, q. V.)

In old English law. An accusation; a charge. 'Si elerieus aliquis pro erimine aliquo vel retto — arrestatus fuerit, if any clerk shall have been arrested for any crime or charge. St. Marlb. c. 28 (27).

Looking backward. Having reference to a state of things existing before the act in question. This word is usually applied to those acts of the legislature which are made to operate upon some subject, contract, or crime which existed before the passage of the acts; and they are therefore called retrospective laws. These laws are generally unjust, and are to a certain extent forbidden by that article in the constitution of the United States which prohibits the passage of ex post facto laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts. See Ex Post Facto Law; Impairing the Obligation of Contracts; Constitution of United States. They are invalid in that respect only so far as they contravene the 5th amendment; Plummer v. R. Co., 152 Fe<l. 210. The 14th amendment contains no prohibition of a retrospective legislation as such, and therefore, now, as before, the mere fact that a statute is retrospective in its operation does not make it repugnant to the federal constitution, the only limitation is that it shall not be ex post facto. A general law for punishment of offences, which endeavors to reach, by its retrospective operation, acts previously committed, as well as to prescribe a rule of conduct for the citizen in future, is void in as 398; but statutes affecting remedies are entirely at the discretion of the legislature. A statute of limitations which provides that in all civil suits in which the cause of action shall have arisen within the state, the defendant, who shall have become a nonresident of the state after such cause of action shall have arisen, shall not have the benefit of any statute of this state for the limitation of actions during the period of such residence without the state, if retrospective in its effect, is constitutional and applies to the trial of issues pending when the act was passed; Bates v. Cullum, 177 Pa. 633, 35 Atl. 861, 34 L. R. A. 440, 55 Am. St. Rep. 753. Legislation which concerns merely modes of procedure, applies to pending suits whether the act so specify or not; Lane v. White, 140 Pa. 99, 21 Atl. 437. A statutory amendment allowing, as of right, but one new trial in ejectment is not unconstitutional as retrospective legislation, when applied to a pending action in which there has been one new trial long after the date of the act; Campbell v. Min. Co., 83 Fed. 613, 27 C. C. A. 646. In the absence of constitutional prohibition against it, retrospective legislation is usually valid if not subject to the objection that it impairs vested rights. Where there is a constitutional prohibition, much legislation otherwise valid will fail; as, for example, the deed of a person of unsound mind could not in such case be ratified; Routsong v. Wolf, 35 Mo. 174. Retrospective statutes which have been held valid are: One validating a married woman’s power of attorney; Deutzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 138; authorizing the insertion in a deed of the name of a married woman which was omitted by mistake; Goshorn v. Purcell, 11 Ohio St. 641; or validating an unauthorized conveyance of a married woman of her separate estate; Appeal of Jones, 57 Pa. 369; prohibiting the defence to a suit on a contract that it was made on Sunday, unless the defendant restores whatever of value he received under the contract; Berry v. Clary, 77 Me. 482, 1 Atl. 360; rendering a bond valid which when executed was invalid because not bearing the proper stamp; State v. Norwood, 12 Md. 195; curing a defective conveyance; Newman v. Samuels, 17 la. 528; confirming a conveyance defectively executed; Dulany’s Lessee v. Tilghman, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 461; remedying irregularities in legal procedure and assessments of property for taxation; White v. U. S., 191 U. S. 552, 24 Sup. Ct. 171, 48 L. Ed. 295; giving validity to past deeds which were before ineffectual; Mc Faddin v. Evans-Snider-Buel Co., 185 U. S. 505, 22 Sup. Ct. 758, 46 L. Ed. 1012; validating a defective power of attorney; Randall v. Kreiger, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 137, 23 L. Ed. 124; changing be subject to her husband’s debts and contracts even as against a previous judgment against the husband; Baker’s Ex’rs v. Kilgore, 145 U. S. 487, 12 Sup. Ct. 943, 36 L. Ed. 786; a constitutional provision that property should not be subject to execution upon judgments theretofore rendered for acts done during the “war of the rebellion”; Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 405, 9 Sup. Ct 763, 33 L. Ed. 193; taking away a statutory right to sue a city for damages by a mob, though a claim under such statute had been converted into a judgment; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285, 3 Sup. Ct. 211, 27 L. Ed. 936; giving effect to a mortgage which was invalid under the provisions of prior laws; Gross v. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477, 2 Sup. Ct. 940, 27 L. Ed. 795; validating bonds of the territory of Arizona; Utter v. Franklin, 172 U. S. 416, 19 Sup. Ct. 183, 43 L. Ed. 498, followed in West Side Belt R. Co. v. Construction Co., 219 U. S. 92, 31 Sup. Ct. 196, 55 L. Ed. 107, where a state act permitting foreign corporations to register and thereafter to sue on contracts made before registration was held valid. The naked legal title to land is not a vested interest in the sense of a property right which the courts will protect from retro-' spective legislation intended to divest it; Diamond State I. Co. v. Husbands, 8 Del. Ch. 205, 68 Atl. 240, where the land involved was the property of a dissolved corporation. The legislature has power to pass curative acts which do not deprive one of vested rights; Downs v. Blount, 170 Fed. 15, 95 C. C. A. 2S9, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1076, as to cure a defective conveyance by retroactive legislation; Newman v. Samuels, 17 la. 528; or to confirm conveyances defectively executed; Dulany’s Lessee v. Tilghman, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 461. The right to pass retrospective laws, with the exceptions above mentioned, exists in the several states, according to their own constitutions, and they become obligatory if not prohibited by the latter; Iless v. Werts, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 364; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 477, 5 Am. Dec. 291. See Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 414, 7 L. Ed. 45S; Stein v. Sav. Ass’n, 18 Ind. 237, 81 Am. Dec. 353. An instance may be found in the laws of Connecticut. In 1795 the legislature passed a resolve setting aside a decree of a court of probate disapproving of a will, and granted a new hearing; it was held that the resolve, not being against any constitutional principle in that state, was valid; Calder v. Bull, 3 Dali. (U. S.) 3S6, 1 L. Ed. 648. And in Pennsylvania a judgment was opened by the act of April 1, 1837, which was held to be constitutional; Braddee v. Brownfield, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 271. ' the state who had ever been convicted of a felony, it was held that the statute applied to persons convicted before its passage; People v. Hawker, 152 N. Y. 234, 46 N. E. 607. Laws should never be considered as applying to cases which arose previously to their passage, unless the legislature have clearly declared such to be their intention; State v. Bermudez, 12 La. 352. See Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 477, 5 Am. Dec. 291; 1 Kent 455; Code 1. 14. 7; Story, Const. § 1393; 3 C. B. 551; Ealdn v. Raub, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 330. Nothing hut clear and express words will give such effect to it; 4 IT. & N. 76; White v. U. S., 191 TJ. S. 545, 24 Sup. Ct. 171, 48 L. Ed. 295; so of criminal acts; [1891] 2 Q. B. 14S. There is a strong presumption that an act was not meant to act retrospectively; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. U. S., 209 U. S. 306, 28 Sup. Ct. 537, 52 L. Ed. S04. Rules of court affecting procedure only apply to pending causes; Laukhuff’s Estate, 39 Pa. Super. Ct 117.

Looking back; contemplating what is past

— Retrospective law. A law which looks backward or contemplates the past; one which is made to affect acts or facts transpiring, or rights accruing, bsfore it came into force. Every statute which lakes away or impairs vested righis acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past, must be deemed retrospective. See Ex Post Facto, And see Deland v. Platte Co., (C. C.) 54 Fed. 832; Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet 198, 9 L. Ed. 680 ; Sturges v. Carter, 114 U. S. 511, 5 Sup. CL 1014, 29 I Ed. 240; Merrill v. Sherburne, 1 N. H. 213, 8 Am. Dec. 52; Bell v. Perkins, Peck (Tenn.) 266, 14 Am. Dec. 745; Evans v. Denver, 26 Colo. 193, 57 Pac. 696.

Looking back; contemplating spective law: a law which looks back; or affects an act done, or a right accrued to laws which impair rights vested under; to accuse. Betatns de back; to detain. Restraint; detainment; withuntil a debt due from the The returns of writs; the law. To return a writ; to or restore. Retornabile: to be returned. Retorhave returned.; to have a return; a judgto the defendant.; a return. brieve to the ofl Sce in chanauthenticated copy of a verdict which the legal character of Retreat of the water, the back; to withdraw. To draw back; to withlaw. The taking back of a the vassal; a right of pregrantee.; a voluntary renunciation court, and operating as a bar back. Retrofeodum: a rere fief or armorrow after the county what is past. what is past Retroa law which contemplates before its passage; applied existing laws or impose