The naked legal title to land is not a vest ed 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. 289, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1076, as to cure a defective conveyance by retroactive legis lation; Newman v. Samuels, 17 Ia. 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 ; Hess v. Werts, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 364; Dash v. Van Kleeck, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 477, 5 Am. Dec. 291. See Sat terlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. (U. S.) 414, 7 L. Ed. 458; Stein v. Say. Ass'n, 18 Ind. 237, 81 Am. Dec. 353.
An instance may be found in the laws of Connecticut. In 1795 the legislature pass ed a resolve setting aside a decree of a court of probate disapproving of a will, and grant ed a new hearing: it was held that the re solve, not being against any constitutional principle in that state, was valid; Calder v.
Bull, 3 Dall. (U. S.) 386, 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.
Under a New York statute which provides that no person should practice medicine in the state who had ever been convicted of a I 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 apply ing 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; Eakin v. Raub, 12 S. & R. (Pa.) 330.
Nothing but clear and express words will give such effect to it; 4 H. & N. 76; White v. U. S., 191 U. S. 545, 24 Sup. Ct. 171, 48 L. Ed. 295 ; so of criminal acts ; [1891] 2 Q. B. 148.
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. 804.
Rules of court affecting procedure only apply to pending causes; Laukhuff's Estate, 39 Pa. Super. Ct. 117.