RETROSPECTIVE. Looking backward. Having reference to a state of things exist ing before the act in question.
This word is usually applied to those acts of the legislature which are made to oper ate upon some subject, contract, or crime which existed before the passage of the acts ; and they are therefore called retrospective taws. These laws are generally unjust, and are to a certain extent forbidden by that ar ticle in the constitution of the United States which prohibits the passage of ex post facto laws, or laws impairing the obligation of con tracts. See Ex POST FACTO LAW; IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS ; CONSTITU TION OF UNITED STATES. They are invalid in that respect only so far as they contra vene the 5th amendment ; Plummer v. R. Co., 152 Fed. 210.
The 14th amendment contains no prohibi tion of a , retrospective legislation as such, and,therefore, now, as before, the mere fact that a statute is retrospective in its opera tion does not make it repugnant to the feder al constitution, the only limitation is that it shall not be ex post facto.
A general law for rho punishment of of fences, which endeavors to reach, by its retrospective operation, acts previously com mitted, as well as to prescribe a rule of con duct for the citizen in future, is void in, as far as it is retrospective; Jaehne v. New York, 128 U. S. 189, 9 Sup. Ct. 70, 32 L. Ed.
398; but statutes affecting remedies are en tirely 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 non resident of the state after such cause of ac tion shall have arisen, shall not have the ben efit of any statute of this state for the limi tation 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 AU. 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. 643, 27 C. C. A. 646.
In the absence of constitutional prohibi tion 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 legis lation otherwise valid will fail; as, for ex ample, the deed of a person of unsound mind could not in such case be ratified ; Rout song v. Wolf, 35 Mo. 174. Retrospective
statutes which have been held valid are: One validating a married woman's power of attorney ; Dentzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 138; authorizing the insertion in a deed of the name of a married woman which was omit ted by mistake; Goshorn v. Purcell, 11 Ohio St. 641; or validating an unauthorized con veyance of a married woman of her separate estate ; Appeal of Jones, 57 Pa. 369; pro hibiting the defence to a suit on a contract that it was made on Sunday, unless the de fendant restores whatever of value he re ceived 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 Ia. 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; McFaddin v. Evans-Snider-Buel Co., 185 U. S. 505, 22 Sup. Ct. 758, 46 L. Ed. 1012 ; validating a defee-• tive power of attorney; Randall v. Kreiger, 23 Wall. (U. S.) 137, 23 L. Ed. 124; changing the law by providing that the rents and profits of a married woman's estate shall not be subject to her husband's debts and con tracts even as against a previous judgment against the husband; Baker's Ex'rs v. Kil gore, 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 stat utory 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 mort gage 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 ; vali dating 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 regis ter and thereafter to sue on contracts made before registration was held valid.