Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-09-12

rlched himSelf To any amount by the natural, |
as well as the industrial products of land, to
which he had no legal title, las by the sale |
of timber, coal, ore, the lke,) is accountable
for no part ofthose profits but such AS accrued
after suit brought and On The other hand,
may demand full remuneration for all the i'm
provements made upon the laud, altho they
were placed there by means of those very
profits, in violation of that maxim of equity.
and of natural law, memo debei locupleidri
dliend jdciuud.
lfthe principle which this law asserts has
precedent TO warrant it, we can truly say, that
we have not met with il. But we feel the full
est confidence in saying, that it is not to he
found in the laws of Virginia, or in the decis
| ions of her courts.
| But the act goes further than merely giving
To the occupant substantive sclam against
| the owner of the land for the value of the i'm
provements, beyond that OF the profits rcceiv-
ed since the suit brought. 1t creates binding
lien on the land for the value of the improve
ments, and transfers the right of the successful
| claimant in theland TO the occupant, who APP
pears, jjudicially, to have no title to it, unless
the former will give security to pay such value
within a stipulated period. In other words,
the claimant is permitted 10 purchase his own
land, by paying 10 the occupant whatever sum
the commissioners may estimate the improve
ments at, whether valuable and lasting, or
worthless. and unservicenble to the owner, al
though they were made with the money just
y and legally belonging to the owners and
upon these terms only can he recover posses
sion of his land.
Ii the law of Virginia has been correctly
stated, need II he asked, whether the right and
interest of such claimant is as valid and Sc
cure under this act, IA ii was under the laws of
Virginia, by which, and ny which alone, they
were TO be determined We think this can
hardly he asserted. 1.-THE article of the COM
pact, applicable to this case. meant any thing,
the claimant of land under Virginia had right
To appear in Kentucky court, as he might
have done in Virginia court if the separation
had not taken place, and to demand trial of
his right by the same principles of law which
would have governed his case in the latter
State. What those principles are, have already
been shown
/ Ii the act in question does not render the
right OF the true owner less valid and secure
than it was under the laws of Virginia, then
an act declaring, that occupant should be
| evicted but upon the terms of his being paid
the value, or double the value of the land, BY
the successful claimant, would not be chargea-
bile with that consequence, since it cannot be
denied, but that the principle of both laws
would be the same.
The objection to law on the ground of its
impairng the obligation of a contract, can ne
yer depend upon the extent of the change
which the law effects in it. Any deviation
from its terms, by postponing. or acceerating,
the period of performance which it prescribes,
imposing conditions not expressed in the con
tract. or dispensing with the performance of
those which are, however minute, or appa-
rently immaterial, in their effect upon the con-
tract of the parties mpairs its obligation. Up
on this principle it is, that if a creditor agree
with his debtor to postpone the day of pay
nent, or in any other way TO change the terms
of the contract, without the consent of the
surety, the latter is discharged, although the
change was for his advantage
9. The only remaining question is, whether
| this act Of 1912 is repugnant to the consttu-
| ton Of the United States and can be declared
void by this court, or by the circuit court from
which this case comes by adjournment.
But, previous to the investigation Of this
question, II will be proper to relieve the case
: from some preliminary objections to the vail
dlty and construction Of the compact ITSELF
LIST. II was commended by the counsel for the
7 tenant, that the compact was invalid in toto,
because il was not made in conformity with
the provisions of the constitution of the u. s. !;
and, If not invalid to that extent, still, 2dly,
The clause oft applicable TO the point in con-
trOversy, was 80, inasmuch as it surrenders
according TO the construction given To il by
the opposite counsel, rights of sovereignty
WHICH are IHdHCHdDle.
l. The first objection is founded upon the
allegation, that the compact was made without
the consent of Congress, contrary to the tenth
section of the first article, which declares, that
no State shall, without the consent of Con-
gress, enter Into any agreement or compact
with another State, or with foreign power"
Let il be observed, in the first place, that the
constitution makes no provision respecting the
mode or form in which the consent Of Con
gIess is to be sgniied, very properly leaving
that matter to the wisdom OF that body, 10 b.
decided upon according To the ordinary rules
ofIaw, and of right reason. The only ques-
lion in cases which involve that point is, has
Congress, by some positive act, in relation TO
such agreement, signiied the consent of that
body To its validity Now, how stands the
present case? The compact was entered
into between Virginia and the people of
{ Kentucky, upon the express condition, that the
general government should, prior to a certain
day, assent To the erection of the District of
Kentucky into Independent State, and
agree, that the proposed State should imme
I dlntely, after certain day, at some COO
venIeDt time future thereto, be admitted into
the federal Union. On the 28th of July,
1890, the convention of that District assem-
bed, under The provisions of the law fVir.
giuia, and declared its assent to the terms and
conditions prescribed by the proposed COM
pact and that the same was accepted as
solemn compact, and that the said District
, should become separate State on the LIST Of
: June, 1852 These resolutions, accompanied
i. by memorial from the convention, being
communicated Ivy the President of the United
T States To O1gress, report was made by
committee, TO whom the subject was referred,
setting forth the agree G1eDt of Virginia that