The Jurisdiction of Courts (Part 1)

Board of Assessors v. Plainfield Water Supply Co., 67 N. J. L. 357, 52 A. 230 (1902), Commonwealth v. Kaufman, 9 Pa.Super.Ct. 310 (1899), Barnett v. State, 42 Te.Cr.R. 302, 62 S. W 765 (1900), Dilworth v. Schuylkill Imp.Land.Co., 219 Pa.527, 69 A. 47 (1908), (cf. the Pennsylvania cases cited ,nfra n. 64), State v. Persica, 130 Tenn.48, 168 S. W 1056 (1914), In re Coburn, 165 Cal.202, 131 P 352 (1913), People v. Bowman, 247 Ill.276, 93 N. E. 244 (1910), In re Johnson's Est., 99 Neb.275, 155 N. W 1100 (1910) reversing, 98 Neb.799, 154 N. W 550 (1916), Gill v. Goldfield Consol.Mines Co., 43 Nev. 1, 176 P. 784, 184 P. 309 (1919), Roberts v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co., 295 F 16 (C.C. A. Ky.1924), State ex rel.v. Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish, 161 La. 1, 108 So. 104 (1926), Caylor v. State, 219 Ala.12, 121 So. 12 (1929), Featherstone v. Norman, 170 Ga.370, 153 S. E. 58 (1930).If the second act really re-enacts the first act with the proposed changes added it is valid.Chicago, R. I. & P Ry. v. Willis, 75 Okla.13, 181 P 307 (1919).64 Gough v. Pratt, 9 Md.526 (1856) (dictum), Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn.438, 40 N. W 513, 12 A. S. R. 663, 1 L. R. A. 777 (1888) , Titusville Iron Works v. Keystone Oil Co., 122 Pa.St. 627, 15 A. 917 (1888), Commonwealth v. Warwick, 172 Pa.St. 140, 33 A. 373 (1895), (cf.Dilworth v. Schuylkill Imp.Land Co., 219 Pa.527, 69 A. 47 (1908) "explaining" the Titusville caseis, of course, that a subsequent legislature knows no more about the intention of a prior legislature than does the court.)67 If it is not contrary to prior judicial decisions or it is thought to be a proper interpretation of the first act there is no practical objection to it, for in effect it reaches the same result.""Logically, of course, it should be as invalid as a contrary retroactive rule.69 If there have been no intervening judicial decisions there is some authority for the proposition that the expository retroactive act is valid.70 Again, Ass'n v.