In the 1892 case of Hubbard v. Soby, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Connecticut. The plaintiff, Hubbard, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under an old English statute from 1833 which allowed for recovery of possession if within twenty years after the right accrued. However, defendant Soby argued that this law did not apply as it had been repealed by another act in 1874 and replaced with a new limitation period of fifteen years instead. The court ruled in favor of Soby stating that when a statutory provision is repealed without any saving clause preserving its operation for pending suits or existing causes of action, all proceedings must stop where they are and resort be had to whatever remedy existed at common law before such statute was enacted. In other words, since there were no provisions made when repealing the old act to preserve its application on ongoing cases or claims already filed under it - like Hubbard's claim - then those cases would have to revert back to what laws applied prior to enactment.

In the dissenting opinion for Hubbard v. Soby, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Connecticut law prohibiting out-of-state corporations from doing business within its borders unless they have obtained a special permit from the state legislature was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this law violated both the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S Constitution. They contended that such restrictions on interstate commerce were not only discriminatory but also detrimental to economic growth and development in general. Furthermore, they asserted that by granting certain corporations preferential treatment over others based solely on their geographical location, Connecticut had failed to provide equal protection under its laws as required by Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, these justices felt strongly that this case should have been decided in favor of Hubbard rather than Soby.