Blackf. 12, 44 Am. Dec. 734, and Todd v. Flournoy, 56 Ala. 111, 28 Am. Rep. 764, all sustaining private statutes authorizing sale of property of estate; Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Blythe, 69 Miss. 947, 30 Am. St. Rep. 603, 11 So. 113, 16 L. R. A. 255, & n., so act authorizing guardian to compromise with railway company to avoid condemnation proceedings; Langdon v. Strong, 2 Vt. 263, sustaining act authorizing administrator to deed lands to creditors in satisfaction of their claims. Cited obiter in Norwalk Co.'s Appeal, 69 Conn. 593, 37 Atl. 1085, 39 L. R. A. 799, arguing legislature cannot confer legislative powers upon the judiciary. Distinguished in Trustees v. Bailey, 10 Fla. 249, holding act of legislature, directing a rehearing of a particular case, a judicial act and void; Maxwell v. Goetschius, 40 N. J. L. 388, 29 Am. Rep. 246, holding unconstitutional an act attempting to confirm partition proceedings void for want of jurisdiction; Powers v. Bergen, 6 N. Y. 367, holding void a private statute authorizing sale of lands by executors; Jones v. Perry, 10 Yerg. 70, 76, 30 Am. Dec. 432, 438, holding private act authorizing sale of minor's estate by guardian void as an attempt to exercise judicial power; Griffin v. Cunningham, 20 Gratt. 110, legislature cannot give effect to judgment void for want of jurisdiction. Confirmatory act confirming title under vold executrix's sale may be passed by a State legislature, p. 660. Cited and rule applied in Weed v. Donovan, 114 Mass. 183. Cited in Leland v. Wilkinson, 10 Pet. 296, 9 L. 431, as having decided above point; Blagge v. Miles, 1 Story, 444, F. C. 1,479, sustaining resolve of legislature authorizing a sale of trust property; Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 238, sustaining act of legislature confirming void alcalde sales; Hoyt v. Sprague, 12 Fed. Cas. 769, legislature may authorize change of investments by trustees; Mohr v. Porter, 51 Wis. 504, 8 N. W. 372, Stewart v. Griffith, 33 Mo. 23, 82 Am. Dec. 153, and Davison v. Johonnot, 7 Metc. 394, 41 Am. Dec. 452, or sale of estate of ward by guardian; Wildes v. Van Voorhis, 15 Gray, 148, may confirm voldable sale of husband's interest in homestead; Tameling v. Land Co., 2 Colo. 422, congress may pass act confirming void land claim. Distinguished in Smith v. Morse, 2 Cal. 542, 547, reviewing principal case and holding legislature cannot ratify fraudulent, void grant to prejudice of third persons; Brenham v. Story, 39 Cal. 186, holding unconstitutional an act authorizing sale of property by administrator thereby operating to divest the heir of his property; Forster v. Forster, 129 Mass. 565, collecting and reviewing authorities, and holding statute confirming void tax sale unconstitutional. Retrospective laws may be passed by State legislature, where not operating to divest settled rights of property, p. 661. Cited and principle followed in Drehman v. Stifle, 8 Wall. 603, 19 L. 510, sustaining statute exempting persons from civil prosecution from acts previously committed under military authority; Ex parte Hull, 12 Fed. Cas. 854, holding bankruptcy act retrospective in operation; Randall v. Kreiger, 23 Wall. 149, 23 L. 126, legislature may pass retrospective act curing defective acknowledgment; Mitchell v. Campbell, 19 Or. 205, 206, 207, 24 Pac. 457, 458, or retrospective act curing defective administrators' sales; McMillan v. Lee Co., 6 Iowa, 394, or retrospective act cured defective subscription for stock by county; Albee v. May, 2 Paine, 80, F. C. 134, or retrospective act allowing ejected occupants to recover for improvements; Elliott v. Mayfield, 4 Ala. 424, or retrospective act directing execution against sureties on executors' bonds; Tilton v. Swift, 40 Iowa, 80, or retrospective statute enlarging time for receiving verdicts; Scott v. Smart, 1 Mich. 302, or statute transferring cases from territorial to State court; Danville v. Pace, 25 Gratt. 12, 18 Am. Rep. 670, and Andrews v. Russell, 7 Blackf. 476, holding repeal of statute avoiding contracts for usury, validates previously existing contracts; State v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 196, sustaining statute curing defective street assessment proceedings; State v. Squires, 26 Iowa, 348, holding valid a retrospective statute curing defective organization of school district; Ross v. Worthington, 11 Minn. 327, 88 Am. Dec. 98, holding valid a statute curing defectively-executed mortgage; Gibson v. Hibbard, 13 Mich. 219, holding valid an act curing instruments defective for want of stamp; in Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 204, 17 L. 525; Bridgeport v. Railroad Co., 15 Conn. 496, Beloit v. Morgan, 7 Wall. 624, 19 L. 207, and Bissell v. Jeffersonville, 24 How. 296, 16 L. 670, all holding legislature may pass act enabling municipal corporation to cure defective bond proceedings; Bass v. Columbus, 30 Ga. 852, and tax proceedings levied in pursuance thereof. Cited, arguendo, in dissenting opinion, Treadway v. Schrauber, 1 Dak. 271, 46 N. W. 476, and in dissenting opinion, Hooker v. New Haven, etc., Co., 14 Conn. 166. Distinguished in Dockery v. McDowell, 40 Ala. 481, dissenting opinion, collecting cases and arguing retroactive acts are unconstitutional; Forsyth v. Marbury, Charlt. (Ga.) 333, holding law limiting enforcement of dormant judgments cannot be construed to be retrospective, when it will thereby impair vested rights; Hardemann v. Downer, 39 Ga. 453, dissenting opinion, arguing exemption law not retrospective; Adams v. Palmer, 51 Me. 495, legislature cannot render valid a release of dower, voidable when executed and avoided before the passage of the act; Rich v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 387, dissenting opinion, arguendo, statute removing disqualification of witnesses cannot apply to pending suits; Palairet's Appeal, 67 Pa. St. 487, 5 Am. Rep. 454, holding unconstitutional a retrospective statute abolishing ground rents; Hasbrouck v. Milwaukee, 13 Wis. 51, 80 Am. Dec. 725, holding act curing void bond issue unconstitu tional; Blodgett v. Hitt, 29 Wis. 178, holding curative act inappli cable to void probate sale. Statutory construction.-A legislative act is to be determined according to the intention of the legislature apparent upon its face, and is not to be defeated by technical rules, p. 662. Cited and principle followed in United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 565, 11 L. 728, construing statutes relating to brevet officers; Oates v. First Nat. Bank, 100 U. S. 244, 25 L. 582, construing statute relating to bills of exchange; United States v. Fisher, 109 U. S. 145, 27 L. 886, 3 S. Ct. 155, construing statute fixing salary of certain officers; Davis v. Leslie, Abb. Adm. 139, F. C. 3,639, construing statute regulating recovery of seamen's wages; Goodall v. Tuttle, 3 Biss. 235, F. C. 5,533, construing bankruptcy act; Ludington v. The Nucleus, 15 Fed. Cas. 1095, construing act conferring jurisdiction on District Courts; United States v. One Hundred and Twenty-nine Packages, 27 Fed. Cas. 285, construing revenue law; United States V. The Reindeer, 27 Fed. Cas. 760, construing statute regulating fishing vessels; Beekman v. Railway Co., 35 Fed. 9, construing statute defining Federal district; United States v. Huggett, 40 Fed. 642, construing statute relating to obscene letters; Wilson v. Biscoe, 11 Ark. 48, construing statute incorporating bank; State v. Smith, 40 Ark. 433, construing statute relating to chattel mortgages; San Francisco v. Mooney, 106 Cal. 588, 39 Pac. 853, construing statute ratifying municipal ordinance; Seabury v. Arthur, 28 Cal. 150, construing acts confirming titles; Linsley v. Brown, 13 Conn. 195, construing statute relating to acknowledgments; Brown Co. v. Aberdeen, 4 Dak. 408, 31 N. W. 738, construing incorporation act; State v. Commissioners, 20 Fla. 432, construing statute regulating sale of intoxicating liquors; Erwin v. Moore, 15 Ga. 365, construing statute regulating executions; Gadsden v. Jones, 1 Fla. 342, construing statute regulating duties of executors; Gray v. Commissioners, 83 Me. 435, 22 Atl. 377, construing statutes regulating location of highways; Sisters v. Detroit, 9 Mich. 99, construing statute exempting certain property from taxation; People v. Blodgett, 13 Mich. 168, construing election law; Sanborn v. Sanborn, 62 N. H. 639, construing will; Braithwaite v. Cameron, 3 Okl. 635, 38 Pac. 1086, construing statute providing for payment of salaries of territorial officers; State v. Delesdenier, 7 Tex. 107, construing act regulating general land office; Ferguson v. Mason, 60 Wis. 391, 19 N. W. 425, construing statute relating to mortgages of homestead. Miscellaneous.- Cited, without particular application, in Miller v. Sullivan, 4 Dill, 344, F. C. 9,592, discussing effect of statute of limitations on void guardian's sales; Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Majors, 5 Mont. 126, 2 Pac. 325, discussing congressional grants. Cited also in Talcott v. Pine Grove, 1 Flipp, 177, F. C. 13,735, on point that legislature may levy tax for purpose of aiding construction of railroad. Cited obiter in West River Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 543, 12 L. 550, dissenting opinion, discussing right of eminent domain. Cited erroneously in United States v. Kochersperger, 26 Fed. Cas. 806. Cited, Texas, etc., Ry. Co. v. Gay, 86 Tex. 592, 26 S. W. 606, 25 L. R. A. 59, to point that real property is governed by law of situs. 2 Pet. 664-670, 7 L. 555, LE GRAND v. DARNALL. Slave.-A devise of property to a slave entitles him to freedom by necessary implication, p. 670. Cited in Durham v. Durham, 26 Mo. 510, holding manumission may be presumed; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 600, 15 L. 781, stating rule ut supra; Monohon v. Caroline, 2 Bush, 413, testator may manumit slaves by will. Cited obiter in Sibley v. Maria, 2 Fla. 563, discussing manumission generally; Opinion of Judge Appleton, 44 Me. 567, 570, 584, arguendo, Africans have the right to vote; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 423, 589, 15 L. 708, 777, discussing right of slave to sue. Distinguished in Jones v. Lipscomb, 14 B. Mon. 297, rule aliter in Kentucky; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 425, 15 L. 709, under facts. Manumission.-When statute provided that slave must be under forty-five and able to gain a livelihood at time of manumission, one who is eleven years of age and able to gain a livelihood, is within the statute, p. 670. 2 Pet. 671-674, 7 L. 557, BANK OF COLUMBIA v. SWEENEY. Execution.-Law authorizing execution to issue without judgment, will be so construed as to permit the debtor, on return of the execution, to set up any defense he might have had had the suit proceeded in the ordinary way, p. 674. Not cited. 2 Pet. 675-679, 7 L. 559, BEACH v. VILES. Statutory construction.- Federal courts will adopt construction of local statutes given by State court, p. 678. Cited obiter in Rising Sun Ins. Co. v. Slaughter, 20 Ind. 525, holding foreign corporations only recognized by interstate comity. Bankruptcy.-Assignees, under fraudulent assignment, are not chargeable as trustees in garnishment proceedings, p. 679. Cited in Firebaugh v. Stone, 36 Mo. 115, holding rights of garnishee are not affected by garnishment, and in note on effect of fraud in assignments for benefit of creditors, 58 Am. St. Rep. 96. Cited obiter, Ware v. Wanless, 2 Wyo. 164, discussing impeachment of assignment for fraud. Miscellaneous.- Cited obiter in The Watchman, 1 Ware, 243, F. C. 17,251, discussing assignments generally. Cited erroneously in Bender v. Crawford, 33 Tex. 751, 7 Am. Rep. 272. |