Neeld v. Cunningham

Citations

• 216 Pa. 523
• 65 A. 1095
• 1907 Pa. LEXIS 855

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment — Second ejectment — Statutes—Retrospective laws — Act of May 8, 1901, P. L. 142.</p> <p>The Act of May 8, 1901, P. L. 142, which provides “that where one verdict shall, in any writ of ejectment between the same parties, be given for the plaintiff or defendant, and judgment be entered thereon, no new ejectment shall be brought, but such verdict and judgment shall be final and conclusive and bar the right,” is not retrospective in character, and does not apply to verdicts and judgments recovered before the date of the act.</p> <p>Statutes are prima facie prospective in their operation; and retrospective laws being in their nature odious, it ought never to be presumed the legislature intended to pass them, where the words will admit of any other meaning.</p> <p>Ejectment — Right to recover for improvements — Act of April 12, 1842, P. L. 262.</p> <p>Where a judgment has been entered against a defendant in an ejectment, and no question has been raised as to improvements, the defendant may thereafter, in a second ejectment brought by himself as plaintiff, recover the value of the improvements made on the land, as provided by the Act of April 12, 1842, P. L. 262.</p>