lature.1 A mere change of the law does not divest or impair rights of property acquired previously, even though the legislature intended the new law so to operate. A law can be repealed by the law-giver; but the rights which have been acquired under it while it was in force do not thereby cease. It would be an act of absolute injustice to abolish with a law all the effects which it had produced. This is a principle of general jurisprudence; but a right to be within its protection must be a vested right. It must be something more than a mere expectation based upon an anticipated continuance of the existing law. It must have become a title, legal or equitable, to the present or future enjoyment of property, or to the present or future enforcement of a demand, or a legal exemption from a demand made by another. If, before rights become vested in particular individuals, the convenience of the state induces amendment or repeal of the laws, these individuals have no cause to complain. The legislature, unrestrained by any constitutional provision, may grant an exclusive franchise, but the grant will be strictly construed and must be clearly expressed." It is competent for the legislature, after granting to one person or a corporation a franchise which affects the rights of the public, to grant a similar franchise to another person or corporation, though the use of the latter should impair or even destroy the value of the first franchise; and this grant does not depend on a reservation of the power in the original grant. Nothing but plain English words will 1 Rice v. R. R. Co. 1 Black, 358; Mitchell v. Doggett, 1 Fla. 356; Naught v. Oneal, 1 Ill. 36; James v. Dubois, 16 N. J. L. 285; Den v. Robinson, 5 id. 689; McMechen v. Mayor, etc. 2 H. & J. 41; Davis v. Minor, 1 How. (Miss.) 183; Taylor v. Rushing, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 160; Graham, Ex parte, 13 Rich. 277. 2 Rock Hill College v. Jones, 47 Md. 1, 17. 3 Id.; Cooley, Const. Lim. 359; Merrill v. Sherburne, 1 N. H. 213; Wilderman v. Baltimore, 8 Md. 551; State v. Warren, 28 id. 338; Worthen v. Ratcliffe, 42 Ark. 330; James v. Du grant an exclusive franchise, and thus create a monopoly.1 The repeal of a statute after judgment will not defeat an appeal previously taken.? And if the statute be essential to that judgment, its repeal or expiration after the appeal will necessitate a reversal of the judgment.3 A statutory right is to be distinguished from the remedy for its enforcement. But after the right has vested it cannot be taken away by new legislation directly against the right nor indirectly by taking away the remedy. The remedy may be changed. And of this nature are statutes changing the rules of evidence or the competency of witnesses. New statutes may be valid which take away defenses based on irregularities and informalities, by validating contracts executed without compliance with a statute," or in violation of some statutory prohibition.10 When a remedy upon a contract Paige, 554; Oswego Bridge Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Canal Commissioners, 21 Pa. St. 22; Richmond R. R. Co. v. Louisa R. R. Co. 13 How. 71; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Binghamton Bridge Co. 27 N. Y. 87. 2 Backes v. Dant, 55 Ind. 181. 3 The Schooner Rachel v. United States, 6 Cr. 329; Yeaton v. United States, 5 id. 281. 8 7 mukes v. Stokes, 41 Miss. 431; Mas- 7 Laughlin v. Commonwealth, 13 Bush, 261. 8 Cooley's Const. Lim. *371 et seq. Dulany's Lessee v. Tilghman, 6 G. & J. 461; Andrews v. Russell, 7 4 Cooley's Const. Lim. *361; Less- Blackf. 474; Parmelee v. Lawrence, ley v. Phipps, 49 Miss. 790. 5 The Hickory Tree Road, 43 Pa. St. 139; Farmer v. People, 77 Ill. 322; Knoup v. Piqua Bank, 1 Ohio St. 603; Danforth v. Smith, 23 Vt. 247; Cooley's Const. Lim. *287, 361, 362; Colby v. Dennis, 36 Me. 9, 13; Musgrove v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. Co. 50 Miss. 677; Dean v. Mellard, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 19; Linton v. Blakeney, etc. Society, 3 H. & C. 853; Templeton v. Horne, 82 Ill. 491; Harris v. Townshend, 56 Vt. 716; Mechanics' and Farmers' B'k, 31 Conn. 63; Treasurer v. Wygall, 46 Tex. 447; Stocking v. Hunt, 3 Denio, 274; Supervisors v. Briggs, id. 173; Matter of Palmer, 40 N. Y. 561; Dis 48 Ill. 331; Webber v. Howe, 36 Mich. 150; Journeay v. Gibson, 56 Pa. St. 57: Carpenter v. Pennsylvania, 17 How. 456; Estate of Sticknoth, 7 Nev. 223; Dentzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 138. 10 Gibson v. Hibbard, 13 Mich. 215; Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143; Syracuse Bank v. Davis, 16 Barb. 188; Harris v. Rutledge, 19 Iowa, 388; State v. Norwood, 12 Md. 195; State v. Newark, 25 N. J. L. 399; Lewis v. McElvain, 16 Ohio, 347; Savings Bank v. Allen, 28 Conn. 97: Cooley's Const. Lim. *374 et seq. See New York, etc. R. R. Co. v. Van Horn, 57 N. Y. 473. not unlawful is prohibited, a repeal of the statute will restore the remedy.1 An act which forbids a corporation to set up the defense of usury repeals as to such corporation the laws against usury, and a repeal of such laws will cut off the defense of usury upon contracts previously made. If there has been a change or alteration or repeal of the law applicable to the rights of the parties, after the rendition of the original judgment, and pending an appeal, the case must be heard and decided in the appellate court, according to the existing law.3 § 165. Powers derived wholly from a statute are extinguished by its repeal. All acts done under a statute whilst it was in force are good; but if a proceeding is in progress, in fieri, when the statute is repealed, and the powers it confers cease, it fails, for it cannot be pursued. Where a jurisdiction. 1 Johnson v. Meeker, 1 Wis. 436. 2 Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 143. 3 Musgrove v. Vicksburg, etc. R. R. Co. 50 Miss. 677; Lewis v. Foster, 1 N. H. 61; Speckert v. Louisville, 78 Ky. 287; State v. Daley, 29 Conn. 272; Atwell v. Grant, 11 Md. 104; Keller v. State, 12 id. 325; Price v. Nesbitt, 29 id. 263; Mayor of Annapolis v. State, 30 id. 112; Wade v. St. Mary's School, 43 id. 178; Hartung v. People, 22 N. Y. 95; United States v. The Peggy, 1 Cr. 103; Sheppard v. State, 1 Tex. App. 522. 4 Bac. Abr. tit. Statute, D.; Road in Hatfield Township, 4 Yeates, 392; Veats v. Danbury, 37 Conn. 412; Stoever v. Immell, 1 Watts, 258; Commonwealth v. Beatty, id, 382; Gilleland v. Schuyler, 9 Kan. 569; Church v. Rhodes, 6 How. Pr. 281; Smith v. Arapahoe Dist. Ct. 4 Colo. 235; State v. Brookover, 22 W. Va. 214; New London Northern R. R. Co. v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 389; Springfield v. Commissioners, 6 Pick. 501; McRee v. M'Lemore, 8 Heisk. 440. See Downs v. Town of Huntington, 35 Conn. 588; Macnawhoc Plantation v. Thompson, 36 Me. 365; Illinois, etc. Canal v. Chicago, 14 Ill. 334; Uwchlan Township Road, 30 Pa. St. 156; Hunt v. Jennings, 5 Blackf. 195; Williams v. Middlesex, 4 Met. 76; Stephenson v. Doe, 8 Blackf. 508; James v. Dubois, 16 N. J. L. 285; Petition of Fenelon, 7 Pa. St. 173; South Carolina v. Gaillard, 101 U. S. 433; Hampton v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. St. 329; Commonwealth v. Standard Oil Co. 101 Pa. St. 119; Holmes v. French, 68 Me. 525; Warne v. Beresford, 2 M. & W. 848; Bucher v. Henderson, L. R. 3 Q. B. 335; Todd v. Landry, 5 Martin, 459; S. C. 12 Am. Dec. 479. The city of Evansville passed an ordinance for the improvement of streets pursuant to a power given in the charter. It was held that the subsequent repeal of the section conferring the power did not affect the ordinance. Chamberlain v. Evansville, 77 Ind. 542; Dashiell v. Baltimore, 45 Md. 615. In March, 1875, a trader committed an act of bankruptcy, upon which a commission might have issued under the statutes then in force. On May 1st these statutes were repealed. On May 2d the repealing act was repealed and the former acts thereby revived. In July a commission of bankruptcy issued. Held, it conferred by statute is prohibited by a subsequent statute, or the law conferring it is repealed, the jurisdiction ceases and causes pending at the time fail, and no costs are recoverable by either party unless saved by provisions of the repealing law. If pursued the proceedings will be void, but they may subsequently be validated in certain cases, as when intended to establish a public rather than a private charge or liability. Jurisdiction may be taken away by repeal of the statutes conferring it by necessary implication as well as by express words. An application was made to the court of quarter sessions for the discharge of a prisoner under an insolvent debtor act, and every requisite was complied with by the debtor; but the court voluntarily, and without his application, adjourned the matter to a subsequent day, before which the act was repealed. On motion for a mandamus to the sessions to proceed to discharge him the court of king's bench refused to grant it, as no act of jurisdiction could be done by the sessions after the repeal of the statute, though the proceeding had begun before." was supported by the act of bankruptcy in March. Lord Tenterden: 'We find certain statutes in force in March, 1825, when the act of bankruptcy was committed, and we find the same statutes in force in July when the commission issued. It appears to me that the case is not affected by anything that passed in the interval. The 5 Geo. IV., ch. 98, having been repealed, is to be considered, as far as this question is concerned, as if it had never existed." Phillips v. Hopwood, 10 B. & C. 39. 1 Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378: Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 541; United States v. Boisdore, 8 How. 113; Grant v. Grant, 12 S. C. 29; S. C. 32 Am. Rep. 506; McNulty V. Batty, 10 How. 72; Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506; Assessors v. Osbornes, 9 id. 567; United States v. Tynen, 11 id. 88; Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 398; Rice v. Wright, 46 Miss. 679; Lamb v. Schottler, 54 Cal. 319; Smith v. Arapahoe Dist. Ct. 4 Colo. 235; Wade v. St. Mary's Industrial School, 43 Md. 178; Saco v. Gurney, 34 Me. 14; Miller's Case, 1 W. Black, 451; Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cr. 281; Springfield v. Commissioners of H. 6 Pick. 501; Commonwealth v. Marshall, 11 id. 350; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 21 Pick. 373; Thayer v. Seavey, 11 Me. 284; Cummings v. Chandler, 26 Me. 453. 2 North Canal Street, 10 Watts, 351; Church v. Rhodes, 6 How. Pr. 281; Morgan v. Thorne, 7 M. & W. 400; Petition v. Fenelon, 7 Pa. St. 173; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Pet 492. 3 In re Pennsylvania Hall, 5 Pa. St. 204. See Cooley's Const. Lim. *371; Plantation No. 9 v. Bean, 36 Me. 359. 4 Cates v. Knight, 3 T. R. 442; Crisp v. Bunbury, 8 Bing. 394; New London N. R. R. Co. v. Boston, etc. R. R. Co. 102 Mass. 386. 3 Rex v. Justices of London, 3 Burr. 1456; Miller's Case, 1 W. Black. 451. § 166. Effect of repeal of a penal statute. The repeal or expiration of a statute imposing a penalty or forfeiture will prevent any prosecution, trial or judgment for any offense committed against it while it was in force, unless the contrary is provided in the same or some other existing statute.' Where a penal statute is so modified as to exempt a class from its operation, violations by such exempted class before such modification took effect cannot be prosecuted afterwards.2 If a penal statute is repealed pending an appeal and before the final action of the appellate court, it will prevent an affirmance of a conviction, and the prosecution must be dismissed or the judgment reversed. A final judgment before repeal is not affected by it. The repeal operates as a pardon of all 1 Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cr. 281; Commonwealth v. Marshall, 11 Pick. 350; Commonwealth v. Pattee, 12 Cush. 501; Heald v. State, 36 Me. 62; Mayers v. State, 7 Ark. 68; Roberts v. State, 2 Overt. 423; Bennett v. State, 2 Yerg. 472; Brothers v. State, 2 Cold. 201; Higginbotham v. State, 19 Fla. 557; Leftwiche's Case, 5 Rand. 657; Scutt's Case, 2 Va. Cas. 54; Bank of St. Mary's v. State, 12 Ga. 475; State v. Nutt, Phil. L. 20; Carlisle v. State, 42 Ala. 523; Governor v. Howard, 1 Murphy, 465; State v. Banks, 12 Rich. 609; Commonwealth v. Cain, 14 Bush, 525; State v. Addington, 2 Bailey, 516; United States v. Finlay, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 364; The Irresistible, 7 Wheat. 551; Duane's Case, 1 Binn. 601; Bay City, etc. R. R. Co. v. Austin, 21 Mich. 390; United States v. Six Fermenting Tubs, 1 Abb. (U. S.) 268; Mastronada v. State, 60 Miss. 86; Mayor, etc. v. State, 30 Md. 112; Commonwealth v. Welch, 2 Dana, 330; Harrison v. Allen, Wythe (Va.), 291; Stoever v. Immell, 1 Watts, 258. Louisville, 78 Ky. 287; Commonwealth v. Sherman, 85 id. 686. 4 People v. Hobson, 48 Mich. 27; State v. Addington, 2 Bailey, 516. See Aaron v. State, 40 Ala. 307; Rex v. Davis, 1 Leach, C. C. 271; Rex v. Heath, 2 East. P. C. 609; Rex v. McKenzie, R. & R. C. C. 429; Leschi v. Territory, 1 Wash. Ty, 13; Saco v. Gurney, 34 Me. 14; Gaul v. Brown, 53 Me. 496; Welch v. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 149; Heald v. State, 36 Me. 62; Broughton v. Branch Bank, 17 Ala. 828; Taylor v. State, 7 Blackf. 93; State v. Loyd, 2 Ind. 659; Thompson v. Bassett, 5 id. 535; State v. O'Conner, 13 La. Ann. 486; State v. Cress, 4 Jones (N. C.), 421; State v. Van Stralen, 45 Wis. 437; State v. Campbell, 44 id. 529; State v. Ingersoll, 17 Wis. 631; Fisher v. N. Y. etc. R. R. Co. 46 N. Y. 644; Calkins v. State, 14 Ohio St. 222; Wood v. Kennedy, 19 Ind. 68; State v. Fletcher, 1 R. I. 193; Greer v. State, 22 Tex. 588; Town of Belvidere v. Warren R. R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 193; S. C. in error, 35 id. 584; 2 Commonwealth v. Welch, 2 Dana, Snell v. Campbell, 24 Fed. Rep. 880; 330. State v. King, 12 La. Ann. 593; Mouras v. The A. C. Brewer, 17 id. 82; Keller v. State, 12 Md. 322; Lewis v. Foster, 1 N. H. 61; Speckert v. Mulkey v. State, 16 Tex. App. 53; State v. Long, 78 N. C. 571; Hubbard v. State, 2 Tex. App. 506; Montgomery v. State, id. 618; Rood v. Chicago, etc. R'y Co. 43 Wis. 146; State v. |