T. N.O.R.R. Co. v. Wells-Fargo

1 Citing case

  1. Miller & Miller Motor Freight Lines v. Gilliland

    232 S.W.2d 886 (Tex. Civ. App. 1950)   Cited 5 times

    The substance of appellee's contention is that the statute should be construed to have a retroactive or ex post facto effect. Our Supreme Court in the case of Freeman et al. v. W. B. Walker Sons, Tex.Com.App., 212 S.W. 637, wrote upon this question as was then contained in Article 2178, R.C.S. 1911. The court held in that case, in substance, that while it is presumed the Legislature of Texas intended to exercise its authority to make laws within the scope of its powers under the Constitution of this state, yet, under Article 1, sec. 16, of our Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St. it is provided: 'No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be made.' It has been held by our Supreme Court that statutes cannot be held to have a retroactive or ex post facto effect unless their language compels it. Texas N. O. R. Co. v. Wellsfargo Express Co., 101 Tex. 564, 110 S.W. 38. All statutes are held to operate prospectively unless the contrary construction is evidently required by their plain and unequivocal language. Cox v. Robison, 105 Tex. 426, 150 S.W. 1149.