Joseph P. Bradley

“ It still leaves a large class of actions entirely unprovided with any limitation whatever, or, as to them, is unconstitutional, and is a more arbitrary rule than the first. A third construction is that which was adopted by the court below in this case, and which we regard as much more sound than either of the others. ”

“ In other words, the court held that the act was prospective in its operation, and affected existing causes of action only from the time of its passage. This seems to us a reasonable construction and one that prevents the legislative intent from being frustrated. 'Words in a statute,' says Justice Paterson, 'ought not to have a retrospective operation, unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the legislature cannot be otherwise satisfied.' [1] And this rule is repeated by this court in Harvey v. ”

“ Heth, 3 Cranch, 413.↑ 2 Wallace, 347.↑ 13 Peters, 62.↑ 7 Howard, 778.↑ 15 Id. 421.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”