
    Danks vs. Quackenbush.
    
      [Affirmance of Quackenbush v. Danks, 1 Denio, 128.]
    Statutes not in terms retrospective, should not be construed to affect past transactions, especially where such construction would work injustice.
    So it, seems that the act to exempt certain property from sale on execution, (Stat. 1842, p. 193,) does not affect executions for debts contracted before its passage ; but if it admits of that construction,
    
      Held that it conflicts with the provision in the constitution of the United States forbidding any state to pass a law impairing the obligation of contracts, and is so far void.
    On error to the supreme court to review a judgment of that court reversing one rendered by the Onondaga common pleas. For a report of the case see 1 Denio, 128. The question was whether the act exempting certain property from distress for rent and sale under execution, (Stat. 1842, p. 193,) constitutionally extended to contracts existing when the act was passed. The supreme court held that it did not.
   The cause having been argued by counsel, and time having been taken for deliberation, the judgment of the supreme court was affirmed.  