#### Den on the demise of Lane, v. Rebecca Davis.

The act of 1784. Rev. c. 204, s. 3, will bar a remainder dependant up on an están- tail, in possession of tenant in tail, at the time of passing the act.

Ejectment. Upon the trial of this cause at the last term, the jut y found a verdict subject to this question of law, whi ttle! the ac> of 1784, c. 22. S. 5. for docking entails, could bar a remainder dependant upon an estate tail. *320in possession of tenant in tail at the time of passing the art. If it could, diey found for the Defendant ; :f it did not, then the verdict to be entered for the Plaintiff".

At. tiiis term, it was argued by Mr. Hamilton, that the Legislature of North-Carolina had no power to pass any law having a retrospective view. The Bill of Rights, which is a part of our Constitution, sec, 24, expressly negatives the power of passing ex post facto laws. The act in question, not only forbids the making estates tail after the passing the act, but also attempts to bar and do away all such entails in remainder as existed, and had bren legal 1> created before the passing of it. Tne 43d article of the Constitution, enables the future Legislature to regulate entails, in such manner as to prevent perpetuities. It gives them no power to destroy rights that had been acquired legally, by means of entails prior to that time. It was not only against reason to give retrospective operation to acts of the Legislature, but the common law is expressly against it. 19 Tin. M. 4 Ba. M. 637, 2 Mo. 31' J. 2 Show. 17. L. Ray, 1352. 5 Bac. Jib. 407. 4 Bwfr. 2161. 19 Vin, 544. 10 Rep. 55. Standon v. Morgan, in Plow, Cum. 1 Salk. 198

Curia advisare — And a few days afterwards gave judgment for the Defendant.