Iowa territorial gazette and advertiser. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa Territory [Iowa]) 1840-1846, 1844-04-27

Valuation LAWS Unconstitutional
-Decfsfoa 81 supreme Court. &
For the information Of our re ,ders we
publish the decision Of the Supreme Court
Of the United States, on the demonstrations
atty Of the Valuation law Of Illinois. It
will Be perceived that the points decided
BY the court are applicable to most Of the
Valuation laws Of the United States, includ-
ing also that Of Iowa:
JANUARY TERM. 1914.
John T.. n McC,acken vs. Charles Hay
ward Sn certificate ol division in op,n
i'm brtw~~t, the Judges 81 the Ct,cutC"u {
1T The United States Tor the District y,
Nr Jusrics BALDWIN delivered the
IspiniOn ofshs C"urt.
q sppea - from tho record ia this case,
l,at sire plsinihT obtained judgmrn, u
:ainst Inc. defendant in June. 1870. ON
which pluries 4. Ia. issued at the Nay
i'erm. i842; real property was levied on,
appraised accosdng to the pro.isIU Of
law O. lllauoia passed on ,he eth Feb
=sary.dl64l-and the rule 81 the ircuit
'ourt0t that Stale, adopted in June Vi the
sne year.
| The property levied on was advertised
nr sale by the marshal in August, I84s,
u; was sold, as no une bii two thirds
'f the appraised value. In March. l8l3,
he plaintiff sued on, vendit.oni expunas,
i IL hal IL
property regardless Of the State law,
winch the marshal refused To obey. cuu.
>ldcring himself bound by the aforesaid
rule ,ot rnurt-whertupo the plaintiff
moved the court for an ., der directing the
ina shnl 10 sell IL the highest bidder, with
gu, valuation, or any regard 10 the State
law. . 4F
!. The plaintiff, by Arnold, his a,,or
ncy, comes aud moves The courl TO sci
aside the return to the puri-s al execution
issued in ,Liscaus+, GATED l6h day ol May,
1919, under WHICH the properly levn
upon was appraised and no, sold, because
nnu one ould bid Two thirds oil the apprais
I'd value.
2 That The court direc, the marshal to
sell said properly TO the highest bidder,
without regard 10 the vaua ion aIrcaJ y
made, and with ut having It valued aga,n
1 3 That the marsha proceed 10 sell
said property without regard 10 the prl-
visions OF the laws regulating the sale Of
property, passed since t,.e rendition uI the
Judgment. and the making the CONTRACT
between the parties.
4. Tina, the ma rshal DO directed TO pro-
coed and sell the property levied upon,
without regard 10 the provisions OF the nc,
Ut February. 1871, Q! the Legislature OIL
illinois, and OF January, l843, regulating
the sale OF property above re.errrd 10.
| On the argument Vi this moi.on, ihe
court were divided in opinion on the iul
lowing points:
| Isl. Whether the said motion shall be
granted in manner aud form as the same
IS asked or refused, or any pat thereof
! Cd Whether the return ut the marshal
OH the execution abovc set forth, dated
18th May, ;8l2, under which the proper
~ was and not sold, becaus. two
thirds ot, the appraised value was not bud
therefor, shall or shall not bc set aside rs
insufficient.
81. Wntther the Court shall or shall
not make All order tirecllnp the marshal
10 sell the property levied On IN the usual
mode at pubic auction IL the highest bid
der. without having the SAME valu. d by
three hnuschoidcrS, and without regard
to valuation winch has been made, and
without requiring two thirds vi vaiua,,nn
| to be bid tnefe!0r.
9Th. " neither the court shall or shall
not direct the marshai 10 proceed aud sell
the property Isv,ed upon without regard
to the provisions u III. act uf Feb. "a.
l8ll, ol The Legislature Of l.i,ni<, aud me
| RUE Adopting said Jaw ut the June term.
| l84t.
5.h. Whether the court will or will III,
direct the euiurceni.nt at SAID Judgment
act.uf,ilng to tie laws regulating the rem
ely when said judgment. was en.e,ed aud
the contract m,ade.
I these questions must BE- considered in
two aspecls. Ia reference To the con
s,llul,ul,. 2. The laws ot the Un,,ed
States as The tests Ut the validity vi the
law vi limos mud the rule uf ,ou,t=
which, II Is said, aft c, or Y the remedy.
but not tho right ~ the plaintiff arising
IN the cunt ruct between ii, parties aud
the judgnie..t rrnd. red UPON il.
Ia plac,ng the ob'lsatlOn OF contracts
unuer the prOtec,,nn Ot the constitution,
! i 5 trainers iuoked Ia The essentials vi tho
c,Miracl more than Ia the forms AMI ms1ss
ii prescribing. by which II was to be cur
RED INTO execution; annuliing all State
lrgis'allan whlcn impaired tho obligation,
il was leit y the States To- prescribe aid
shape the remedy 10 eatorc- il.
The obligation Of u contrac, consists in
its binding force oa tho party who makes
III this depends IN The laws in existence
where Il 10 made: these are necessarily
referred u in all cont,ac;s. aud (orm q
part Of them, ~ the measure oil the obli.
CATION TO perform them by tho one party,
and the tight acquitted BY the other. There
can b. no other standard BY which to as
tcr,N.n ,ae extent y. Gather, than that
which thes,erms 81 the Contract IN ilcI,1
accurdieg s"lreir settled legal inca, ing !;
When il b..coars coasumna,ed the law
q, tinys tho duty and the right, cumpcls
Que PATTY To perform the thlag cont rac,ed
Tor, and gives the other right To enforce
the performances by the remedies then in
torco. 8 .M
3 ~ ~nv ..,b..k .,D~s L., =. : q ,-,s - l,~.s-