Opinion

Gaul v. Brown

  • 53 Me. 496
Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Filed
Jul 1, 1866
Status
Published
Author
Appleton
On the bench
Appleton, Barrows, Danforth, Dickerson, Kent, Walton
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 81.5%

The opinion

Appleton, C. J.

By c. 313, §§ 1 and 2, of the Acts of 1865, the taking of menhaden or pogies by seine, within three miles of the shore in any waters, is prohibited under a penalty of " not less than four hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.”

This action is brought to recover such penalty, but, since its commencement, the penalty has been reduced by an Act approved Feb. 21, 1866, c. 30, § 1, "to not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars,” and by § 6, " all Acts and parts of Acts inconsistent with this Act are repealed.”

Gould, for plaintiff.

Hubbard, for defendant.

Upon the above facts, the Justice presiding at Nisi Prius ruled that the action was not maintainable.

A. penal action cannot be maintained after the repeal of the statute creating the penalty sought to be recovered. The plaintiff cannot recover for the penalty for which he sued, because the statute giving it is repealed. He cannot recover for the new penalty, because there was no statute giving such penalty when he commenced his suit. Cummings v. Chandler, 26 Maine, 376; Com. v. Kimball, 21 Pick., 376 ; Leighton v. Walker, 9 N. H., 59. Where a penalty is changed by a subsequent act, the statute imposing the original penalty is impliedly repealed. Nichols v. Squire, 5 Pick., 168 , Plaintiff nonsuit.

Kent, Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Danforth, JJ., concurred.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.