36 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND [Arts. 17-19]

wife, held not to be an ex post facto law, although it was applicable by its terms to
cases instituted before the passage of said act—see notes to art. 16, secs. 40 and 41.
Elliott v. Elliott, 38 Md. 362. And see Baugher v. Nelson, 9 Gill, 299; State v. Norwood,
12 Md. 206.

The legislature may release a penalty or forfeiture created by act of assembly for
the benefit of a particular county, such releasing act is not an ex post facto law. State v.
B. & O. R. R. Co., 12 G. & J. 435.

Generally.

The legislature may not change a rule of law so as to give it a retroactive opera-
tion, since this would be to take property of one man and give it to another; the
legislature may however alter and remodel rules of evidence and remedies. Thistle v.
Frostburg Coal Co., 10 Md. 144. And see Baugher v. Nelson, 9 Gill, 303; Wilderman
v. Baltimore, 8 Md. 656.

A, repealing ordinance cannot destroy or affect any right which was acquired under
a prior ordinance before its repeal. McMechan v. Baltimore, 2 H. & J. 45.

The legislature may have the power by a retrospective statute to cure mere defects
and irregularities in legal proceedings, but not to make a decree or judgment rendered
without jurisdiction, valid and binding. Willis v. Hodson, 79 Md. 331.

The act of I860, ch. 271, validating all marriages theretofore celebrated between
persons related within certain degrees, held not to violate this article. This article
does not prohibit retrospective laws in civil cases. Harrison v. State, 22 Md. 491.
Cf. Grove v. Todd, 41 Md. 644.

Where a deed is defectively acknowledged, and subsequently a curative act is passed,
but prior to such passage the grantor dies and his widow's dower thereby vests, the
curative act does not bar her dower; the deed is valid, however, as to the grantor and
his heirs. The legislature may, in proper cases, by retroactive legislation, cure or con-
firm conveyances or other proceedings defectively acknowledged or executed; such
legislation is sustainable because it is supposed not to operate upon the deed or
contract, but upon the mode of proof only. Grove v. Todd, 41 Md. 638.

The act of 1890, ch. 187, validating sales made under powers in mortgages between
1860 and 1878 as if the person making the sale had been named in the mortgage and
whether such person was a natural person or a corporation, held to operate retro-
spectively and to apply to a case pending at the date of the passage of said act.
Madigan v. Workingmen's Assn., 73 Md. 320.

The registry act of 1865, ch. 174, disfranchising Confederate soldiers and providing a
test oath, held not to be ex post facto. The term "ex post facto" defined and limited.
Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 604, 584 and 565.

Art. 18. That no law to attaint particular persons of treason or felony,
ought to be made in any case, or at any time, hereafter.

The registry act of 1865, ch. 174, disfranchising Confederate soldiers and providing a
test oath, held not to be a bill of attainder—see note to art. 1, sec. 1, of the Constitution.
Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 604.

Art. 19. That every man, for any injury done to him in his person
or property ought to have remedy by the course of the Law of the Land
and ought to 'have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any
denial, and speedily without delay, according to Law of the Land.

'Nothing in this article prevents a court from adopting rules requiring the trial
of cases within a reasonable time. This article referred to in upholding a rule of the
circuit court for Howard county relative to the stet docket. Laurel Canning Co. v.
B. & O. R. R. Co, 115 Md. 642.

This article referred to in holding that the warden of Maryland penitentiary might
be made a defendant in an ejectment suit; the immunity of the state from suit does
not prevent an action against state official wrongfully withholding property for state
uses. Weyler v. Gibson, 110 Md. 653.

Private rights are amply secured by this article and art. 23. This article referred to
in discussing the liability of a street railway company for the erection, by authority,
of an elevated railway in the street. Garrett v. Lake Roland R. R. Co., 79 Md. 290
(dissenting opinion).

The contention based upon this article that a judgment creditor may (in the ab-
sence of statute) execute upon the land upon which railroad tracks are laid, overruled.
McColgan v. Baltimore Belt R. Co., 85 Md. 522.

This article cited in dissenting opinion in In re Rickell's Estate, 158 Md. 665.

This article referred to in construing art. 3, sec. 40A of the Constitution. Krebs v.
State Roads Commission, 160 Md. 584.

City ordinance permitting specified amusements, games, etc., and certain retail sales
on Sunday does not involve such discriminations as to be in violation of the 14th
Amendment to U. S. Constitution or of articles 19 and 23 of the Maryland Declaration
of Rights. Ness v. Baltimore, 162 Md. 530.