Tully

When this action was commenced, section 3336 of the Civil Code read:

There can be no reasonable doubt that the amendment was intended to be retrospective, and applicable to a case in which the conversion had occurred prior to its passage. The general language covers all cases of wrongful conversion; the expression “is presumed to be” indicates that it was intended to establish a legal presumption to operate, and which could only operate, at the trial of the cause; and section 286 of the amendatory act (Amendments to the Codes of 1873-74, p. 268) repeals all provisions of law inconsistent with the act-It is true the same section provides, “no rights acquired or, proceedings taken under the provisions repealed shall be impaired, or in any manner affected by this repeal.” But this only renders it the more apparent that—except as to the rights acquired or proceedings taken under the repealed law— the amendments were intended to operate retrospectively, so as to include all cases of previous conversions.

In the present ease there is no question as to the validity of any proceedings prior, to the time when the amendment to section 3336 took effect; nor can it be seriously claimed that…