EX PARTE TA LIS
EX PARTE TALIS. A writ that lay for I baillii’ or receiver, who, having auditors appointed to take his accounts, cannot obtain of them 113:! sonable allowance, but is cast into [ii'l.~"lll Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 129.
Ex pnnnis dictis intendera plurimn. possis. Lllt. § 384. You can imply many things from few expressions.
Ex paucis plurima cnncipit ingenium. Lllt § 550. From a few words or hints the iii-vl-'-istiiiding conceives many things.
EX POST FACTO. After the fact: by an act or fact occni-rim: after some pievious or nr f‘»|Ci, and rclating thereto; by siihse- -iumt in-itn .; the opposite of ab initio. iii-is, .i dccil may he good ab -iniiw, or, if liniliii al its inception, may be confirmed by llli’u!l' er post fade.
nx POST FACTO LAW. A law passed after the oc('iii'i-once of a fact or commission of un act, which retrospectively changes the if-,‘.'i1i consequences or relations of such fact or deed. By Const, U. S. art. 1, § 10, the states are forbidden to pass "any at post faclo law." In this connection the phrase has a much narrower meaning than its litei-:il translation would justify, as will appear from the extracts given below.
The phrase “ex post fizctc," in the constitution. extends to criminal and not to civil cast-s. And under this head is included: (1) Every law that makes an action. done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action. (2) Exciv law that aggravates R. crime, or makes it greater than it was when committed. Every law that changes the punishment, and iniilets a greater punishment than the law annexed to rhe crime when committed. (4) Every law that aitors the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the olfense. in onicr to convict the offender. All these, and similar laws, are prohibited by the constitution But a law may be ea‘ post fucto, and still not amenable to this constitutional inhibition; that is provided it moliifies. instead of aggravating. the rigor of the criminal law. Boston v. Guminii v. lti Ga. 102. (10 Am. Dec. 717; Cummings 1'. Missouri, 4 “'all. 277 18 L. Ed. 336: U. . v. Hull, 2 Wnsii. C. Ci. )6. Fed. cw No. 1525.): “'0-vrt v. Winnirlt. 3 N. H . 14 A . Dec 384: Calder v. Bull. 3 Dali. 390. 1 L. Drl. (HS; 3 Story. Coast. 212.
An 2.2 post fzwta law is one which randera an nu punisiiiibie. in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. Such a law may inflict penalties on the person, or pecuniary pun- l'lill'! which svreii the public treasury. The ie:i..‘ature is thercfore prohihited from passing ii law by which a man's estate, or any part of ii. sh-iii he seized for a crime, which was not declared. ii!‘ some previous law. to render him iialile to such punishment. Fletcher v. Peak. 6 Crzinch, 87, 138. 3 L. Ed. 162.
The plain and nhvious meaning of this pro- hibition is that the legislature shall not pass iinv imv, afler a fact done by any citizen, which shall have relation to that fact, so as to piin- lsh that which was innocent when done; or to 'll_'i(i to the punishment nf that which was criminal; or to increase the malignitv of s invue; or to retrench the rules of e\'i(len('t‘. so ‘H to make conviction more easy This defini-
tion of an em post fizcto law is sanctioned b
- ill§l:l):‘; usage. Strong v. State, 1 Blnckf. (Ind.
The term “em post frwta law," in the United States constitution. cannot be construed to icniude and to prohibit the cum.-tin any law after a fact, nor even to prohibit t e depriving ii citiven of a vested right to property. Calder v. Bull, 3 Dali. 386. 1 L. Ed. l3-18.
“Ear post facta" and “retiospective" are not con\'er‘l'ibie tn-inis. The latter is a term of wider significafion than the former and includes ir.. All on post fuolo laws are necessarily retro- spective, but not c comxrso. curative or confirmatory statute is retrospecti\e, but not es: post fa!-lo. Constitutions of nearly all the states contain prohibitions against ea: past far-to liuvs, but only :1 few forbid rctrospnctiic lczislatinn in specific terms. Black, Coust Prohib. §§ 170. 172, -32.
Itotrospective laws divesting vcstcd rights are impoiitic and unjust; but they are not “ei- post fizcto laws.“ within the meaning of the constitution of the United States, nor repugnant to any other of its provisions: and, if not repugnant to the state constitution. a court cannot pronounce them to be void. merely because in their jud,-znicnt [iil“" are contrary to the pricniples of natural jlIStII,e. Alhee v. May. 2 Paine, 74 Fed. (‘as. No 11-1.
Every reti-osiiecfive act is not necessarily nn as past facto law. That phrase emhrat.-es only such laws as impose or alfect penalties or forfcitures. Locke v. New Orleans, 4 “Hill. 172. 18 L. Ed. 334.
Retrospective laws which do not impair the obligation of contracts, or affect vested rights, or partake of the ihariicter of on post facto laws, are not prnliiliitcrl by the constitution Bay v. Gage, as B.-irh. (N. 1'.) 4-47.
Ex prmcedentibns et uonseqnentilznn optima fit interpretatio. 1 Roll. 374. The best interpretation is made from the context.
EX PR1!-JCOGITATA malice aforetbought. Reg.
MALICIA. Orig. 102.
EX PROPRTO MOTU. cord.
0!! his own ac-
EX PROPRIO VIGORE. By their or its own force. 2 Kent. Comm. 457.
EX PROVISIONS HOMINIS. By the provision of man. By the limitation of the party as distinguislied from the disposition of the law. 11 Coke, SOD.
EX PROVISIONE IVIAJIITI. provision of the husliand.
EX QUASI CONTRACTU. contract. Fleta, lib. 2, c. 80.
EX RELATIONE. Upon relation or in- formation. Legal proceedings which are institlited by the attorney general (or other proper person) in the name and hchalf of the state, but on the information and at the instigation of an individual who has a private interest in the matter, are said to be taken "ou the relation" (cw relations) of such person, who is called the “rel:itor." Such ii cause is usually entitled thus: “State e.r rcl. Doc 1;. Roe."
In the books of reports, when a wise is said M