McCarthy v. Havis & Perry

Citations

• 23 Fla. 508

Syllabus

<p>t. A statute is not to be given a retrospective effect unless its terms show clearly that such an effect was intended.</p> <p>•%, Where the remedial provisions of a statute are clearly prospective they will not affect the remedy provided by a former act for the enforcement of rights acquired thereunder.</p> <p>3. The act of 1885, chapter 3611, was prospective in its effect in so far as it gave any lien which was not given before, or gave a lien in a different manner from that in which a lien was authorized by previous statutes to be acquired by the same class of persons oiv the same character of property.</p> <p>4. The remedy provided by the statute of 1885 was intended to apply only to rights acquired under that act. The remedy provided by the mechanics and laborer's lien law of 1868, as amended ir» 1877, was not repealed by the act of 1885, as to a lien acquired under the former act before the passage of the latter.</p> <p>5. The allowance under the act of 1885 of an attorney’s fee as costs ins-favor of a plaintiff in a proceeding to enforce a lien acquired under the lien statute of 1868, as amended in 1877, is error, and the judgment, in so far as it allows such fee, is reversible o» appeal.</p> <p>6. Where erroneous proceedings not affecting the validity of the final'. judgment in a cause have been instituted by a plaintiff and op~posed by the defendant, and such proceedings are set aside o» appeal taken by the-defendant, the costs of the same should not-be taxed against the defendant, in the judgment.</p>