and treated as so well settled in itself and all its logical consequences, that in 1832 (Hart _v._ Heilner, 3 Rawle, 407) the Supreme Court, declined to hear the counsel, who relied on its authority, invested his money in the purchase of a claim which could be proved only by the testimony of the assignor, found himself stripped of his property by a decision in 1845, the results of which were broader than even the legislature itself would have been competent to effect, or indeed the people themselves in their sovereign capacity, at least so long as the Constitution of the United States continues to be "the supreme law of the land, anything in the _constitution_ and laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." But judicial is much worse than legislative retrospection in another aspect. The act of Assembly, if carefully worded, is at least a certain rule. The act of the judicial legislature is invariably the precursor of uncertainty and confusion. Apply to it a test, which may be set down as unerring, never failing soon to discover the true metal from the base counterfeit: its effect upon litigation. A decision in conformity to established precedents is the mother of repose on that subject; but one that departs from them throws the professional mind at sea without chart or compass. The cautious counsellor will be compelled to say to his client that he cannot advise. One cause is the general uncertainty to which it leads. Men will persuade themselves easily, when it is their interest to be persuaded, that if one well-established rule has been overthrown, another, believed to be quite as wrong and perhaps not so well fortified by time and subsequent cases, may share the same fate. Shall counsel risk advising his client not to prosecute his claim or defence, when another bolder than he, may moot the point and conduct another cause resting upon the same question to a successful termination? The very foundations of confidence and security are shaken. The law becomes a lottery, in which every man feels disposed to try his chance. Another cause of this uncertainty is more particular. A court scarcely ever makes an open and direct overthrow of a deeply founded rule at one stroke. It requires repeated blows. It can be seen to be in danger, but not whether it is finally to fall. Hence it frequently happens that there is a sliding scale of cases; and when the final overthrow comes, it is very difficult to determine, whether any and which steps of the process remain. Shortly after the decision in Post _v._ Avery, the case of Fraley _v._ Bispham was tried in one of the inferior courts; in which the Judge, thinking that Post _v._ Avery, however the intention may have been disclaimed, did in fact overrule Steele _v._ The Ph[oe]nix, rejected as incompetent one of the nominal plaintiffs, a retiring partner, who upon dissolution had sold out for a price _bona fide_ paid, all his interest in the firm to his copartners, who continued the business.