saving clause in Puerto Rico

1987The suit in this case being one in equity to enforce a common-law remedy, the state courts were correct in assuming jurisdiction.’ ” (Énfasis suplido.) 1 Benedict on Admiralty, supra, págs. 8-7 a 8-8, cita a Red Crossline v. Atlantic Fruit, 264 U.S. 109 (1924), a los fines de que: “ ... the right of a common-law remedy includes: ‘all means other than proceedings in admiralty which may be employed to enforce the right to redress the injury involved.

1987Under the circumstances here presented, without regard to the court where he might ask relief, petitioner’s rights were those recognized by the law of the sea. (Énfasis suplido.) Véanse, también: Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 88-89 , esc. 5 y texto que le acompaña (1945); Kermarec v. Compagnie General, 358 U.S. 625 (1959); Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406 (1953). 1 Benedict on Admiralty, supra, Sec. 122, págs. 8-5 a 8-8.

1987Under the circumstances here presented, without regard to the court where he might ask relief, petitioner’s rights were those recognized by the law of the sea. (Énfasis suplido.) Véanse, también: Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 88-89 , esc. 5 y texto que le acompaña (1945); Kermarec v. Compagnie General, 358 U.S. 625 (1959); Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406 (1953). 1 Benedict on Admiralty, supra, Sec. 122, págs. 8-5 a 8-8.

1987Under the circumstances here presented, without regard to the court where he might ask relief, petitioner’s rights were those recognized by the law of the sea. (Énfasis suplido.) Véanse, también: Seas Shipping Co., Inc. v. Sieracki, 328 U.S. 85, 88-89 , esc. 5 y texto que le acompaña (1945); Kermarec v. Compagnie General, 358 U.S. 625 (1959); Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U.S. 406 (1953). 1 Benedict on Admiralty, supra, Sec. 122, págs. 8-5 a 8-8.

1949United States v. Reisinger, 128 U. S. 398 .” (Italics ours.) The amendatory Act of September 27, 1949 contains no provision whereby the Legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication, intimated its intent to exclude the saving clause contained in § 44 of the Political Code.

1946The general rule established by the federal' decisions which we have examined is that “when an act of the legislature is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions past and closed, as if it never existed,” and that the courts lack jurisdiction to render judgment in a suit after the repeal of the act under which it was brought and prosecuted, where the repealing statute does not contain a saving clause covering the jurisdiction over pending cases. 1 In Smallwood v. Gallardo, 275 U. S. 56 , suit was brought, in the United States District Court, for an injunction to restrain the c

1943But Act No. 228, which superseded and took the place of Act No. 6, specifically provided, by a saving clause, that all regulations under the previous Act shall continue in effect. 1 We therefore need not determine whether, in the absence of such a saving clause, the lower court would have had jurisdiction under the circumstances herein (cf. United States v. Powers, 307 U. S. 214 ).

1942The rights of the parties thereto are preserved; the case will be decided in accordance with the old law; the proceedings which have already occurred are not affected, and the form of action also will remain Unchanged, but the further procedure, so far as possible, must be in conformity with that prescribed by the new law.” In Demarse v. Bruckman, 298 N.Y.S. 736 , there was construed a saving clause which, read as follows: “ ‘Unless otherwise specially provided by law, all actions and proceedings, civil or criminal, commenced under or by virtue of any provision of a statute so repealed, and pe