Democratic standard. [volume] (Georgetown, Brown County, Ohio) 1837-1850, 1843-04-11
From the Ontario Messenger,
IMPORTANT DECISION.

The Supreme Court Ofihe United
Stales at its present session, has made
very important decision respecting The
meaning and construction ofthat provis-
ion OF the Constitution Of the United
States which prohibits the states from
passing any law impairing the obligation
of contracts, All the judges, except
Judge Story aud Judge McKinly, we're
present and cOncurred in the decision.-
tits said, however, that Judge Mclean
dissented from some OF The positions as,
sumed in the very able and lucid opinion
of the court which was delivered by Chief
Justice fancy.
The case is this:-Arthur Bronson
loaned sum Of money TO one Kinzie
and took from bin, a security, a Lnor;s
gage on real estate in Illinois. By the
laws Of that state which were in force at
the time of the execution ofthe mortgage,
Bro nson on the failure Of Kinzie to pay
the sum which it was given to secure,
would be entitled, on application 10 the
proper court, 10 decree for the sale nf
morigaged premises TO the highest bid
der. ,t,,f.
Subsequent to the execution Of the
mortgage, the Legislature of Illinois pass
ed two laws, one providing for the re.
demption, by morIgagors and their judg.
ment creditors, GLANDS sold under mort.
cages, and the other providing that, bet
fore the sale Of mortgaged premises, they
should be appraised by three persons Sc.
lecied for that purpose, and that they
should not be sold unless as much as two
thirds of the sum at which they had been
appraised, should be bid,
The money for which Bronson's mort.
gage was given, not being paid, he insti-
tuted proceeding for its freclosure, in
the Circuit Court of The United States fcI
the district Of Illinois. When the cause
came before The court for decree Of
sale the question was raised whether the
decree should direct the mortgaged
premises 10 be appraised and not to be
sold for less than two thirds Of the ap.
praisment,and that the sale should be sub.
iected TO redemption, as provided by the
acts beforeImentioned, or whether the de,
cree should direct the sale 10 be made ir'
respective Of The provisions of those acts
On this question, the Judges Of the Cir
cult Court disagreed, and on their dsa.
greement, the cause was carried to the
Supreme Court Of the United States.
The Supreme court have decided that
the laws of III! nois, which were in force
at the time when Bronson's mortgage was
given, entered into and formed part Of
the contract between the parties; that
the two acts before mentioned, in as
much as they materially and injuriously
affected the remedy Of Bronson 10 enforce
his rights under his mortgage, were in
conflict with the provision of the Consti,
tuition ofthe United States, prohibiting
the states from passing laws impairing
The obligation of contracts, and we're
therefore, void in respect TO that Bron.
son was entitled to decree fo- the sale
of the mortgaged premises TO The highest
bidder, without regard to the provisions
of these two acts.
This decision is now the established
law Of the land. II is founded upon rea.
son, justice and sound constitutional
principles; and we believe that ''it will
abide unshakon, the test Of human scru.
tiny; oftAlents and OF time"
We rejoice that an effectual veto has
thus been put upon most vicious and
unwarrantable system of Legislation,
which, in effect, abrogates contracts
which the parties TO them have made,
and, without their consent, substitutes
others in their stead. All such legisla.
tion is completely nullifed by this decis.
| ion,