A osnomm v. cnr on DETROIT. 41
cross-walks, and culverts" on the same in good repair. In the case of
Detroit v. Putnam,.45Mich. 263, 7 N.W. Rep. 815, it was held that the act
of 1879 did not allow damages for injuries sustained by reason of defect-
ive sidewalks. In 1885 an act was passed to amend the act of 1879, in
which the word "sidewalk" was inserted with the words "highway, street,
bridge, cross-walk, and culvert," and new sections were introduced, lim- ,
iting the amount of recovery upon the basis of population, and provid-
ing that "the common-law liability of townships, villages, and cities in
· this state for such injuries is hereby abrogated? This act was approved
J une 17, 1885, but did not take efiect until August 17th.
The accident in this case took place November, 1883; suit was begun
September, 1884; and in June, 1885, the case was first tried upon plea
to the jurisdiction. We think it clear that the act should be construed
as prospective only in its operation. There were doubtless many other
cases pending in the federal courts and in the courts of the state at the
time this act took effect, and, if it were intended that the act should ap-
ply to these cases, no doubt the legislature would have so declared. Not
only is there nothing in the act indicating that its operation was intended
to be retroactive, but it was not even given immediate eifect, as would
almost certainly have been the case if it had been intended to operate
upon actions already commenced, or causes of action theretofore accrued.,
We understand the law to be well settled, as. stated by Mr. Justice
Cooley in his Constitutional Limitations, 370, that " it is a sound rule
· of construction to give a statute a prospective operation only, unless its
terms show a legislative intent that it should have a retrospective ef-
fect." See, also, Clark v. Hall, 19 Mich. 369; Smith v. Auditor General,
20 Mich. 398;_Horrisor». v. Metz, 17 Mich. 377. `
Indeed, we consider it extremely doubtful whether, if the law were in-
tended to be retroactive, it would not be in conflict with the constitution.
Kay v.-Railroad Oo., 65 Pa. St. 269. Wood, Retroactive Laws,§ 172,
and cases cited; Bucher v. Railroad Co., 131 Mass. 156; Frasier v. Tomp-
kins, 30 Hun, 168.
6. That the court refused to give defendant’s third request, under
which it claimed immunity, because the property in front of which the
accident happened was in the custody and power of the police commis-
sioners. - The facts were that the entire lot and the station-house standing
thereon belonged to the city, and was in charge of the police depart-
ment. The witnesslltobinson testified that the vacant part of the lot
was a sort of lawn, which the police also had the care of; that the side-
walks were put down by the city; and there was no evidence that the
police department laid the walks or assumed the care of them. It is
true the police commissioners are appointed by the governor, and may
perhaps be considered the otlicers-or agents of the state rather than of
thecity; but the station-houses they occupy remain the property of the
city, although within the custody and control of the police. Had this
accident happened by the negligenceof the police as custodians of such
property, it is entirely possible that-this action would not have lair;
against the city; but Church street, upon which the accident occurred,