cl-8008327 Precedential Reversed Processed

Giles v. Giles

Minnesota Supreme Court · Filed January 27, 1876 · 22 Minn. 348

Cited by

Rom v. Calhoun 34 N.W.2d 359 Minn. 1948
Long v. Long 160 N.W. 687 Minn. 1916
Oppegaard v. Board of County Commissioners 125 N.W. 504 Minn. 1910
Stein v. Hanson 109 N.W. 821 Minn. 1906
Fish v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Co. 84 N.W. 458 Minn. 1900
Tompkins v. Forrestal 55 N.W. 813 Minn. 1893
Gaston v. Merriam 22 N.W. 614 Minn. 1885
State v. Waholz 9 N.W. 578 Minn. 1881

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Burwell v. Tullis 12 Minn. 572
Davidson v. Gaston 16 Minn. 230

Opinion text

Berry, J. Unless the contrary clearly appears to have been intended by the legislature, statutes should be construed to be prospective in their scope and operation, and not retrospective. This is a familiar canon of construction. Burwell v. Tullis, 12 Minn. 572 ; Davidson v. Gaston, 16 Minn. 230 ; Sedgwick on Stat. & Const. Law, 2d ed., 160-173. In accordance with this rule we are of opinion that the clause, (found in Laws 1874, ch. 66, § 1,) “ whenever a married man shall be deserted by his wife,” refers to a future desertion — that is to say, to a desertion beginning after the chapter cited goes into effect. In other words, as respects the class of cases provided for in this clause, the law is purely prospective. Judgment reversed.