Bloomington herald. [volume] (Bloomington, I. T. [Iowa]) 1840-1849, 1844-05-10
BLOOMINGTON, IOWA FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1874.
vdlu0ttOn Lars asiitutfonas- D<c1s-
len Of Supreme Court.


len Of Supreme Court.
For the Information Of our readers We
publish the, decision Of the Supreme Cour
Of the United States, ON the unconsli,u.
tionalily Of The Valuation law Of Illinois
It will be perceived ,ha. the points decide,
by the court are applicable 10 most Of ille
Valuation laws of the United States, in
GLIDING also ,ha. Of Iowa:
JANUARY TEFM, 1914.
John i H. McCracken vs. Charles Hay.
ward. Ona certificate OF division in opin.
ion between the Judges Of the Circui,
Court Of the United States for The Dis,ric,
Of Illinois.
Mr.. Justice Baldwin delivered The opin
ion Of the Court. s.
Itappears from The record in this ease,
that the plaintiff obtained a judgment a.
gainst the defendan, ia June, 1910, on
which pluries fl. "a. issued at the Nav
term 1912; real property was levied on,
appraised according to the provisions Of a
law Of Illinois passed on the 9Th Febru-
airy. lS4l-and the rule Of the Circui,
Court of .ha. State, adopted in June of the
same year.
The property levied on was advertised
for sale by the marshal in August, 1912,
but was not sold, as no one bid two thirds
Of the appraised value. In March, ls43.
The plaintiff sued out vendi. exponas,
with directions TO The marshal 10 sell the
property regardless Of The State law, which
the marsl,l refused to obey. considering
himself bound by the aforesaid rule OF
court wi'ereupon the plaintiff moved the
court for an order directing the marshal TO
sell to the highest bidder, without yalua.
ton. or any regard 10 the State law.
l. The plaintiff. by Arnold, his a.tor.
ney, comes and mov,s The court to set a.
side The return 10 the p'nries Of execution
issued in this cause. dated 10Th day OF
May, 1912, under which the property lie
We'd upon wac appraised and mol sold. be
cause 40 one would bid two thirds of the
appraised value.
2. That the court direct the marshal 10
sell saiJ property 10 the highest bidder.
wi.hou. regard TO the valuation already
made, and wi,hou. having i, valued again.
3. Tha; the marshal proceed to sell said
property wi.hou, regard to the provisions
Of the Iawsregu!a,ing the sale Of property,
passed since ,he rendition of the judgment.
and the making tue contract between the
parties.
4. That the marshal be directed 10 pro.
coed aud sell the properly levied upon,
without regard TO the provisions of the ac
Of February. 1871, Of the Legislature Of
Illinois, and Of January. 1913, regulating
the sale Of property above referred 10.
On the argument Of this motion. the
court were divided in opinion on the fol.
lowing points:
Isl. Whether the said motion shall be
granted in manner and form as the same
is asked or refused, or any part thereof
I'd. " heller The return Of The marshal
on the execution above set forth. dated
10th NAV, 1912. under which The proper.
" was appraised and not sold. because
two thirds Of the appraised value was mol
bid therefor, shall or shall not bc set aside
as insufficient.
Sd. Whether the Court shall or shall
not make an order directing the marshal
TO sell the property levied on in the usual
mode at public auction 10 The highes, bid.
der, without having the same valued by
three househnl.!ers, and witAout regard to
valuation which has been made, and with
on, requiring two thirds Of valuation 10 be
bic therefor.
4'h. Whether the court shall or shall
not difec, the marshal TO proceed and sell
the property levied upon without regard
70 the provisions Of the act Of Feb. 27:l,.
!s4l, Of the Legislature Of Illinois, and
the luIe adopting said law al The June term
1871.
5lh. Whether the court will or will not
direct The enforcement Of said judgment
according to the laws regulating the REM
edy when said judgment. was entered and
the contract made. &s
These questions must he considered in
two aspects. /. In reference TO the con-
stituiion. 2. The laws tf the United
States as The tests uf The validity Of The law
Of Illinois and the rule Of COURT which, il
is SAID, affect only the remedy. but not
The right Of the plaintiff arising on the
contract betv cen The parties and The iudg.
men. rendered upon il.
In placing The obligation Of contracts
under the protection Of the Constitution.
It's trainers looked TO The essentials Of The
contract more than 70 The forms and modes
Of proceeding. by which, il was 10 be car
ried into execution 1annuling AL State
Legislation which impaired The obligation.
il was lief. to the States 10 prescribe and
shane the remedy 10 enforce il.