
    John Doe, ex dem. James Forbes, Appellee, against Philip Smith and Solomon Barnum, Tenants, Appellants.
    Decision under the act establishing the division of lands in the town of Shorehain.
    
    EJECTMENT. This was an action of .ejectment brought to recover the possession of Lot No. 31, in the third division of lots' in Shoreham, laid to the original right of James Forbes, junior. Common rule entered. Lease,' entry, and ouster confessed, and the cause put to the country on the trial of the title under the general issue.
    
      S, Storrs, for the plaintiff,
    in support of the title of the lessor of the plaintiff* read the charter of Shore-ham, dated 9th October, 1761, by which it appeared, that James Forbes, junior, was indorsed as original grantee.
    2dly. A deed executed by James Forbes, junior, to Isaac Leach, conveying the premises' in fee, dated 12th October, 1761.
    3dly. A deed from Isaac Leach to the lessor of the plaintiff, dated May 23d, 1787.
    
      He then moved to introduce certain records of the proprietors of Shoreham, to shew that the land described in the declaration was severed to James Leach, junior. He stated, that the doings of the proprietors, as exhibited by their records, were not in pursuance of the then existing statutes. To remedy this defect, he moved to read the following act, and to introduce the defective records under the provisions of it:
    “ An act establishing the division of lands,in the town of Shoreham.
    
    
      “ Whereas the proprietors of the town of Shoreham have formerly, in proprietors’ meetings, voted several divisions of the lands in said town into severalty, and the proprietors and land-owners in said town have made large improvements under said divisions, and do now hold all their lands and improvements by virtue of the same; and whereas, through some inaccuracies in the proceedings in making said divisions, or in the proprietors’ Clerk in making records of the same, disputes may arise respecting the illegality of the divisions pitched and laid out in said town:
    “ Therefore it is hereby enacted, &c. that the several divisions of land in said town, whether laid by draft or pitches, or in any other manner heretofore agreed upon and pursued by the proprietors in their meetings, shall be considered good and valid in law. Any person or persons concerned in the trial for any lands in said town, are hereby empowered to give the records of the divisions of said lands in evidence, the same as though they had been made in a legal manner, any law, .usage, or custpm to the contrary notwithstanding.”
    
      
      Daniel Chipman, for appellants,
    objected to this act going in support of the defective records on two grounds:
    First. That the act was in itself unconstitutional, and therefore void; being manifestly repugnant to that restrictive clause in the constitution which declares, that the General Assembly shall pass no laws which shall have a retrospective view.
    Secondly. That it is incumbent in the plaintiff to make out a good title in his lessor at the time of the commencement of his suit. It appears by the files, that the present action was instituted at the September term of the County Court, 1793 ; that this act having passed since, if it has any operation upon this suit, it must be retroactive, confirming a title which was defective at the time of the institution of the suit.
    
      S. Miller, for the appellee,
    insisted, that the act was constitutional; that almost every legislative act might in one view be considered as retrospective, as almost every act operated more or less upon past contracts and proceedings. He instanced the act for quieting possessions, commonly called the quieting act. This act had passed some years since, had been generally acquiesced in by the people, sanctioned by the decisions of the State Courts, and of those of the United States, and had not been censured as unconstitutional by several councils of censors; and yet that act was flagrantly retrospective, doing away trespasses on the freehold, and giving the trespassers a right; that this present act may be compared to a statute declaring the mode of taking testimony after the commencement of an action. This would be iii bne view retrospective, but surely'not repugnant to the constitution. As to the inapplicability of the act to the present cause, he observed, that the situation of the landholders in the town of Shoreham called loudly for legislative interference; that the appellants,' being strangers, ought to be estopped ...rom disputing the proceedings of the proprietors to obtain the peaceable enjoyment and possession of their own lands ; that the dispute in this as in every other cause which hath or may arise on these defective records, must be considered as existing from the origin of these records; and if the act cannot in this case confirm the records so far as to authorise us to read them in evidence, it cannot, in any action hereafter* to be commenced; and so the act cannot have operation, which would be an absurd and inadmissible construction.
   Chief Judge.

It is contended by the appellant’s eounsel, that this act is unconstitutionaL The Court have had several acts of this kind under Consideration, and have ever considered them constitutional.

It is further cohtended, that the act does not reach the pi'esent case. It appears, that the proprietors of the town of' Shoreham made certain divisions of their lands, in which, for a length of time, and indeed to the present day, they have acquiesced; but they found, by after inspection, that the records of their proceedings wei'e not pursuant to the existing statutes, uniformly agreeing in the propriety, although not-in the legality of such divisions; they sought legislative aid, and this act was passed. The act is remedial, and ought so to be construed as to give the remedy intended. The act does not declare that the records may be given in evidence hi any action “ hereafter” to be commenced, although the preamble of the'act mentions any disputes which may arise, yet the enacting clause manifestly contemplates actions “pending,” “ any persons concerned in the trial of any lands f See.

S. Miller, for appellee.

Daniel Chipman, for appellants.

Let the act and the records of the proprietors be read to the Jury.

Hall and Smith, Judges, concurred.

Verdict for plaintiff.  