Distinguished in Newman v. Samuels, 17 Iowa, 554, and Brinton v. Seevers, 12 Iowa, 393, holding statute curing defective acknowl edgments invalid, so far as impairing vested rights. Disapproved in Pearce v. Patton, 7 B. Mon. 169, 45 Am. Dec. 68, reviewing principal case and holding void a statute curing defective deed by married woman; State v. Hernandez, 24 La. Ann. 71, arguendo, statute curing fraudulent issue of municipal certificates is invalid; Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 494, refusing to construe as retroactive, a statute validating voidable releases of dower; Forster v. Forster, 129 Mass. 566, collecting cases and holding void a statute curing defective tax sales and exempting certain cases; Grim v. School District, 57 Pa. St. 435, 98 Am. Dec. 239, holding curative statute void when impairing vested rights, reviewing authorities; Austin v. Burgess, 36 Wis. 193, holding statute validating usurious contracts not retroactive.

Constitutional law. A statute is not void because it is unwise,

p. 412.

Cited in Gibson v. Mason, 5 Nev. 299, holding that words of Constitution furnish the only test as to the validity of statute; Dover v. Portsmouth Bridge, 17 N. H. 227, whether exercise of legislative power is discreet is not a question for the courts. Cited obiter in Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. 163, 59 Am. Dec. 767, remarking that State law is valid unless clearly forbidden.

Constitutional law. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States forbids a State legislature to exercise judicial functions, p. 413.

Cited in Trustees Internal Imp. Fund v. Bailey, 10 Fla. 249, holding statute directing Supreme Court to rehear a particular case, an exercise of judicial functions, and void under State Constitution. Cited without particular application, in Hepburn's Case, 3 Bland, 98, discussing general scope of legislative authority.

Distinguished in Lawson v. Jeffries, 47 Miss. 699, 705, 12 Am. Rep. 849, 354, holding constitutional convention has no power to exercise judicial authority.

Retrospective laws are constitutional unless they impair the obligations of contracts, or are ex post facto, p. 413.

The following citing cases affirm and variously apply this doctrine: Drehman v. Stifle, 8 Wall. 603, 19 L. 511, holding valid a provision of the Constitution of Missouri, exempting all persons who acted under authority of the United States from civil suit, on account of any acts so done; Gray v. Munroe, 1 McLean, 532, F. C. 5,724, holding law relating to imprisonment of debtors applicable to pending cases; Martindale v. Moore, 3 Blackf. 287, reviewing authorities and construing law limiting liability of executors; Johnston v. Vandyke, 6 McLean, 441, F. C. 7,426, holding valid a retroactive law

limiting right of dower; McAfee v. Covington, 71 Ga. 274, 51 Am. Rep. 265, holding judgment founded on tort not a contract within constitutional inhibition; Albee v. May, 2 Paine, 80, F. C. 134, holding valid a retrospective act, giving ejected occupants of lands right to recover for improvements made while in possession; Ex parte Hull, 12 Fed. Cas. 854, holding bankruptcy act applicable to pre-existing debts; Elliott v. Mayfield, 4 Ala. 423, holding statute relating to execution against sureties retrospective and valid; Owen v. Peebles, 42 Ala. 343, holding valid a law abrogating previous forfeitures; Barbour Co. v. Horn, 48 Ala. 659, holding statutes giving right of action for defect in bridge, applicable to previously constructed bridge; Tilton v. Swift, 40 Iowa, 80, sustaining retroactive statute changing time of entry of judgment; Grand Lodge v. City, 44 La. Ann. 673, 11 So. 154, sustaining statute imposing taxation on property previously exempt; Oriental Bank v. Freese, 18 Me. 111, 36 Am. Dec. 702, holding retrospective and sustaining a statute repealing statute confirming right to penalty; Scott v. Smart, 1 Mich. 302, 303, sustaining statute transferring certain cases from Territorial Supreme Court to State Supreme Court; Cochran v. Van Surlay, 20 Wend. 372, 32 Am. Dec. 573, holding constitutional a private act authorizing sale of estate of infants; Burch v. Newbury, 10 N. Y. 391, holding statute permitting appeal where time had previously expired, not contrary to Constitution of United States; Green v. Shumway, 39 N. Y. 432, arguendo, test oath statute is constitutional; Leak v. Gay, 107 N. C. 478, 12 S. E. 314, holding statutes exempting homesteads from previously acquired judgment liens, retrospective and constitutional; Sandusky City Bank v. Wilbor, 7 Ohio St. 499, sustaining statute taxing State bank previously exempt by charter; Erie, etc., R. R. Co. v. Casey, 26 Pa. St. 321, holding statute to impair obligation of contract must operate directly upon some contract and literally save its obligation; Miles v. King, 5 S. C. 150, holding valid a statute requiring re-recording of destroyed documents of title; Bender v. Crawford, 33 Tex. 751, 7 Am. Rep. 272, sustaining retrospective statute suspending statute of limitations. Cited without particular application, in In re Smith, 22 Fed. Cas. 401, holding restriction relating to impairment of contracts applicable to States alone, not to congress; Larkin v. Saffarans, 15 Fed. 149, holding similarly; also in dissenting opinion, Treadway v. Schrauber, 1 Dak. 270, 46 N. W. 476. Cited casually in Lewis v. Lewis, 7 How. 784, 12 L. 913, stating rule ut supra; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 390, 18 L. 374, discussing ex post facto laws; Bukner v. Street, 1 Dill. 254, F. C. 2,098, collecting cases and stating rule ut supra; Gage v. Gåge, 66 N. H. 294, 29 Atl. 549, 21 L. R. A. 857, & n., stating rule that remedial statutes may be construed to be retrospective. Cited obiter, in Sharpless v. Philadelphia, 21 Pa. St. 165, 59 Am. Dec. 770, remarking that statute must clearly impair the obligation of contracts in order to be void.

Distinguished in Forsyth v. Marbury, Charlt. (Ga.) 329, holding statute exempting certain property from levy previously subject, vold as to existing judgment founded on contract; Gunn v. Hendry, 43 Ga. 563, holding unconstitutional, a statute permitting set-off on account of losses occurring during the war without connecting plaintiff with those losses; Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 566, arguendo, retrospective law depriving certain persons of rights of suffrage is ex post facto; Rich v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 386, 387, dissenting opinion, collecting cases, and arguing statute removing disability of witnesses should not be construed retrospective; Berdan v. Van Riper, 16 N. J. L. 11, refusing to construe as retroactive, a statute prescribing conditions as to creation of joint tenancies; Vanderpool v. Railroad Co., 44 Wis. 659, refusing to construe mechanics' lien law retroactively.

Constitutional law.- A State law divesting vested rights violates no Federal limitation where it does not impair the obligation of a contract, p. 413.

Cited, approved, and rule applied in Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 539, 580, 9 L. 821, 837, reviewing principal case and refusing to read certain implied terms into grant of charter by State; Baltimore, etc., R. R. Co. v. Nesbit, 10 How. 402, 13 L. 472, holding valid a retroactive law directing court to set aside inquisition condemning certain lands; East Hartford v. Hartford Bridge, 10 How. 539, 13 L. 530, holding similarly; De Moss v. Newton, 31 Ind. 220, sustaining statute reducing time of commencing actions for partition; State v. New Orleans, 32 La. Ann. 715, sustaining law limiting right of municipality as to taxation; Hardeman v. Downer, 39 Ga. 436, holding valid a retroactive homestead law; Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 415, 420, 33 L. 197, 199, 9 S. Ct. 776, 778, holding valid provision in State Constitution nullifying judgments founded in tort; Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Bald. 74, 77, F. C. 1,319, holding valid a law regulating common right of fishery; Holman v. Bank, 12 Ala. 417, upholding statute giving administratrix power to sell land, although title had already descended to the heir; Thompson v. Phillips, 1 Bald. 284, F. C. 13,974, holding valid a law limiting lien of judgments; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 379, 15 L. 421, dissenting opinion, arguendo, proviso in charter of bank exempting it from taxation may be subsequently annulled by legislature; Bonner v. Martin, 40 Ga. 503, upholding statute re-opening judgments; Shepherd v. Grimmett, 2 Idaho, 1127, 31 Pac. 795, holding valid a law prescribing test oath, which, in effect, deprives certain voters of their franchise; Myers v. Mitchell, 20 La. Ann. 534, sustaining Constitution of State changing right of appeal; New Orleans v. Railroad Co., 35 La. Ann. 682, sustaining law imposing assessment on taxable property previously omitted from the rolls, collecting cases; McLure v. Melton, 24 S. C. 570, 58 Am. Rep. 278, argu

endo, rule applies to decision of State court modifying rule of prop erty established by previous decision; Ex parte Hunter, 2 W. Va. 173, and Ex parte Quarrier, 4 W. Va. 223, upholding test oath act. Distinguished in Bonaparte v. Railroad Co., 1 Bald. 220, F. C. 1,617, holding act permitting taking of private property for public use without compensation, impairs obligation of contract; Wilder v. Lumpkin, 4 Ga. 218, 220, holding laws divesting antecedent vested rights are void; McNamee v. Alexander, 109 N. C. 246, 13 S. E. 778, refusing to construe as retroactive, a remedial statute operating so as to divest title of present owner; Lowe v. Harris, 112 N. C. 480, 17 S. E. 540, 22 L. R. A. 382, holding similarly as to repeal of part of statute of frauds; Mellinger v. Houston, 68 Tex. 44, 3 S. W. 252, reviewing authorities, and holding statute refusing right to plead statute of limitations in suits for delinquent taxes not retroactive under State Constitution forbidding retroactive laws; Griffin v. Cunningham, 20 Gratt. 110, holding unconstitutional an enabling act permitting rehearing of cases previously decided in military tribunal; Peerce v. Kitzmiller, 19 W. Va. 573, holding rule aliter since adoption of fourteenth amendment.

Circuit Court may decide whether State law is in conflict with State Constitution or not, p. 414.

Cited casually in Clark v. Sohier, 1 Wood. & M. 374, F. C. 2,835, and Woodhull v. Wagner, 1 Bald. 302, F. C. 17,975, remarking that Circuit Court must decide precisely as State courts ought to do.

Obligation of contracts.— Prohibition to pass laws impairing obligation of contracts is confined to the States, p. 416.

Cited and applied in In re Smith, 2 Woods, 460, F. C. 12,996, upholding Federal bankruptcy act.

Distinguished in Rosa v. Buckland, 17 Ill. 320, dissenting opinion, arguing law of congress void which impairs obligation of a contract. Miscellaneous.- Cited without particular application, in Salisbury etc., Assn. v. Wicomico Co., 86 Md. 622, 39 Atl. 427, Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 548, 54 Am. Dec. 238, Ryder v. Innerrarity, 4 Stew. & P. 30, Baring v. Erdman, 2 Fed. Cas. 790; Atkinson v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R., 2 Fed. Cas. 110; in Talcott v. Pine Grove, 1 Flipp. 177, F. C. 13,735, on point that legislature may authorize issue of bonds to aid in constructing railroad; Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U. S. 282, 31 L. 439, 8 S. Ct. 472, and United States v. Land Co., 148 U. S. 44, 37 L. 360, 13 S. Ct. 463, remarking that decisions of legislative branch are not open to collateral attack; in Leach v. Smith, 25 Ark. 254, holding void a statute known as Confederate money act; Wilder v. Lumpkin, 4 Ga. 215, discussing ex post facto laws. Cited erroneously in Bains v. James and Catherine, Bald. 547, F. C. 756; New Orleans, etc., R. R. Co. v. New Orleans, 26 La. Ann. 521, discussing legislative authority over municipal corporations; In re Mechanics' Society, 81 La. Ann. 631, discussing essentials of constitutional stat

ute; Campbell's Case, 2 Bland, 232, 237, 20 Am. Dec. 373, 378, discussing nature of State sovereignty; Doc Lonas v. State, 3 Heisk. 301, discussing right of judiciary to determine questions of constitutionality; Lewis v. Woodfolk, 2 Baxt. 47. discussing same proposition.

2 Pet. 417-441, 7 L. 470, REYNOLDS v. MCARTHUR.

Statutory construction.- Laws should not be construed retrospectively unless their language renders such construction indispensable, p. 434.

Cited and rule applied in Ladiga v. Roland, 2 How. 589, 11 L. 390, refusing to construe as retroactive, provision in Indian treaty.

Western reserve.- A patent issued October 12, 1812, founded on a military warrant for lands within the reserve is valid against a claimant of the same land holding under sale made by United States, p. 435.

Cited casually in Wallace v. Saunders, 7 Ohio, 176, discussing titles within the reserve.

Words and phrases.- "Source" of a river is neither the point at which sufficient water flows to navigate small vessels laden, nor the point from which water flows at all seasons of the year, nor the point farthest from its mouth at which water flows at all seasons of the year, it is fixed by common consent and notoriety, pp. 438, 440. Miscellaneous.- Cited erroneously in State v. Sterling, 20 Md. 505. Cited, to no particular point decided, in Gaston v. Mace, 33 W. Va. 21, 25 Am. St. Rep. 853, 10 S. E. 63, 5 L. R. A. 396, and note, discussing navigable rivers as highways.

2 Pet.

442-448, 7 L. 479, SOUTHWICK V. POSTMASTERGENERAL.

District Court's jurisdiction extends to all suits at common law where the United States or any officer thereof under authority of act of congress shall sue, p. 44.

Cited obiter in United States v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood. & M. 448, F. C. 15,867, and in In re Barry, 42 Fed. 127, F. C. 1,059, S. C., 136 U. S. 617, 34 L. 510n, discussing common law under United States.

District Court, performing its appropriate duty as such, is not sitting as a Circuit Court although it possesses the powers of that court also, p. 447.

Cited and approved in Swift v. Circuit Judges, 64 Mich. 486, 31 N. W. 437, holding Circuit Court may review judgment of Recorder's Court in case where they could have exercised concurrent jurisdiction.