Judgment of the Court
- J.-This is a very simple case. The DErespOndent's turnpike road company for a number years had erected and maintained toll gates under its V* charter within the present limits of the municipality appellant.
In 1889, the legislature decreed that no toll gates should be placed within the limits of any town or village municipality without the consent of J.
the corporation.
iDid that enactment affect toll gates existing previously, or only those to be erected thereafter, is the only question raised on this appeal. The judgment appealed from determines that this legislation has no retroactive effect and consequently does not interfere with the respondent's toll gates, which had been in existence a long time before within the limits of the municipality appellant.
And this, in my opinion, is clearly right. The appellant's case rests mainly on the following curious piece of legislation. To the enactment of the Act of 1889 to which I have referred was added " this Act shall have no retroactive effect." But in the following year, an Act was passed repealing these words. Now, what is the effect of this repeal ? It is simply to leave the statute of 1889 as if the said words " this Act shall have no retroactive effect " had never been in it. And no Act has a retroactive effect if nothing to the contrary appears therein. So that the words "this Act shall have no retroactive effect " in the statute of 1889 were unnecessary, and their being struck out leaves the construction to be given to the statute the same as if they had never been in it, and has no other consequence.
As found by the Court of Appeal, as a matter of fact, this turnpike road company has erected no new toll gates since 1889 within the limits of the municipality appellant.
The shifting of its gates, and removal from one place to the other, did not constitute new gates.
The municipality has extended its limits, but that cannot affect the respondent's pre-existing rights.
An objection to our jurisdiction to entertain this appeal was taken in limine by the respondent.
But as we are of opinion that we should dismiss the appeal we assume jurisdiction, without determining the we asumejuridictonROAD question raised thereupon, as we have often done in .
such cases, and as the Privy Council has done in J. many instances, amongst others, in Braid v. The Great Western Railway Co.
The result is that the judgment of the Court of
Appeal, which dismissed the appellant's action, is affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.