Arkansas intelligencer., 1843-07-15


er nos1 facto, and consequently not unconstution-
al in that respect. If the act is obnoxious to any
charoe what is II? 1t is that it is retrospective in
ito oneration, The power Of the Legislature of
State to mass such laws has been recognized in all
tho states. and particularly in Pennsylvania, in
the following cases: Underwood VS.. Lilly, lO 5.
and R., 81, Barnbaugh, VS.. Barnbaugh, llth 8.
and R., ~, and also in the Supreme Court OF the
United Suites, in the case OF Satterlee VS.. MAI
Peters, $50. To illustrate my posi-
ton will suppose a case. BY the act OF the Le'
gslature of 1886. Justices judgements, were bar
red after three years from the rendition or from
the issuing of the last execution. In lS4O the
time. will say, was extended to seven years
Here under the operation of the act Of 1886, the
Judgement would be barred for one year, and yet
recovered under the act of 1910. 1t is not con-
tended that such dormant right Of recovery, is not
revived by tho act of 1910, or that this act is er
post acto in relation to such claims, though it does
affect rights existing previous toits passage. II,
then, the Legislature have the power, to call into
existence rights, which by operations of law, have
been cxtingushed, have they not the power, fer
tori, to prevent the extinguishment of those which
are still in existence, and which, by the operation
of tho law, might expire!
Another argument or reason assigned by the
friends of the Real Estate Bank, why the act in
question is imperative and void, which hereto
fore glanced at, is, that it disturbs and intereres
with pested rights. This presume is predicated
upon provision of the common law, that upon the
civil death of corporation, all its real estate re-
naming unsold, reverts to the grantor and his
heirs for the reyersion in such event, is a condi-
tion, annexed by the law, inasmuch as the cause
of the grant has failed; see Coke Lit i, l3 b., l02
b., and Angel and Ames, on corporations, 5l3.
This objection, consider, has been answered a
bovo, but in order to make it moro clear, will
dwell still longer upon it, hoping that may at
least dispel error from the minds Of those who ell
tertain opinions contrary with my own. What is
rested right, and how is the phrase defined by
our courts in the United States! 1t is ''the power
to do certain actions, possess certain things ac
cording to the laws of the land;" see LIST Adams
New Hampshire Reports, 2O3 and 18th S. & R.,
800. ''The power to do certain actions and pos
sess certain things" must be in presente. The
capabiIity must exist at tho same time with the
right. Now, though it is the common law, that
tate to corporation, in of dissolution civ.
il death Of the corporation, that it should revert to
the grantor, still, before dissolution civil death
the grantor has no rights which rested, because
the condition is remote and may never happen.-I
1t is a contingency in law which is not favored,
and one which will not be protected. This would
be the same case if grant of land were made
to private individual and there were no laws of
escheat, and he were to die without heirs or rep.
reseatatvos there being no one to hold tho land,
by operation of the common law it would "revert
to the grantor and his hers," just as in the case
Of corporations. Have the debtors to the Bank
any rested rights, so far as regards the extin-
guishment of their debts duo to that institution!
Certainly not. would ask them, who has No
one. Because the event must first happen-the
right must be in possession-the ertinguishnct
must actually take place before tho right accruos.
This was the point settled in the case Of Buona-
pare vs.. the Amboy and Camden Rail Road Com
pany, lst Harringtons New Jersey Reports, be-
fore quoted, and this case is confirmed by all the
decisions of all the courts made since. II a con-
trary doctrine could, upon principles OF law be
maintained, our country would, in short time, be
the scene of fraud the most baro-faced. How!
Why, how easy would it be for the directors of
our banking institutions throughout the country,
to help themselves 10 as much Of their Banks mo-
ncy as they desire-exocute their notes Tor the
amount-turn round and perform some act which
would be cause of forfeiture of their charter,
have proceedings instituted, forfeiture declared
and thus extinguish their own and all other dobts
ask every rational and intelligent man, does tho
law warrant and favor such absurdities! Most cor
tainly not, such would be a mockery of tho PLAIN
est principles ofjustice. 1t follows then as con-
sequence, that tho act OF the Legislature III quoS
ton not obnoxious to this charge, that is it docs
not violate resiea rights. With these remarks.
will dismiss this branch of my subject for tho pre-
sent, and hasten on to those which remain 10 be
noticed.
Much more might be added in support of the
positions which have taken, but deem it unne-
cessary, further to labor the points. presume
that if these positions be settled as assume, it fol-
lows as necessary consequence, that the net
would not have the eliect contemplated by the
friends of the Real Estate Bank or those who
maintain the converse of my propositions, there.
fore will proceed, without further noticing this
question, at the present, to the consideration of the
other points involved in the inquiry. have
clearly shown. think, in the foregoing, that the
act Of tho Legislature will not operate as an ex.
tingnishment of the debts in case of u forfeiture,
and that the Legislature had the power consltu-
tionally, to pass such an act. The only remain.
ing subjects Of inquiry, are those which !, in the
commencement of this article, mentionod as such,
as would probably result from these just noticed.
ms Ior he difficulty and delay and embarrass.
men!s to the bank, which may result from pro-
ceedlnS OF forfeiture, these all should betraced to
their proper cause, which is the resistance of the
present Trustees.-Should they Peaceably. and
quietly, yield to the legitimate act of the Legsla-