The Yazoo City Whig. [volume] (Yazoo, Miss.) 1844-1851, 1846-02-13
ImpOrtaInf Ilecfeiorl

l..
and AppeGlsof Mississippi, on theamend.
ment to tks Briscoe Bill, delisered BIZ |.
Judge CLAYTON and concurred in By
Chief Justice SHARKEx.
JoHN B. NEWT rs. BANK or PoRr GIBSON,
January Term, 1916.
The great questionin this cause, is whether
the 9Th, 9th and 10th sections Of the act of
1e4s, prescribing the mode of proceeding
against incorporated Banks, for violation !
of their corporate franchises" are constitu>
tional or not. These sections in substance,
provide shat when judgment of forfei-
lure is entered against Bank, its debtors
shall not be thereby released from their debts
and liabilities, but that the Court rendering
such judgment shall appoint one or more
Trustees to take charge Of the books, and
assets Of the same-tO sue for and collect
Eall debts due to ito sell all its property,
and apply the same as might be thereafter
directed By law, to the payment of its debts
The objection 10 the validity Of this law, is
THAT it impairs the obligation Of the contract,
between such bank and its debtor. II is
Insisted that at the time of the contract, 1t
was a part Of the law OF the land, that if
the Bank so acted that its charter should be
taken from it. the consequence was that the
debtor was released from his liability-that
this law entered into and formed part of
the contract, and that the change made by
this statute, mpairs the obligation of that
portion Of the contract, and thus violates
the constitution.
1t is moreover insisted that all the laws in
force, when a contract is made, are incorpo.
rated with and forms part Of it, aud cannot
be changed without violating this constitu-
tional prohibition. Ia other words legisIa.
llOn must not only be prospective, but il
must be construed to operate only on con-
tracts entered into after its passage. The
cases Of Bronson vs.. Kinzie ct. al. How
is. C. Rep, and McCracken vs.. Hayward
How. COS, are relied on as establishing
these principles.-The first Of these was
lease under the valuation laws Of The Stat.
to Of illinois, and it was mortgage, the dat'
of which was antecedent to the passage o
the law. The extent Of the right of th'
II, Legislature to change the remedy exist
;, ing at the time of the contract, was tn
p point before the court, and all their expires
sions must be construed with reference t
''r that point. The opinion says''it is dificu
y, perhaps 10 draw line that would be aPpli
/, cable to all cases between the legitimate a
oo,,t LEGATIONS Of the remedy, and provision
er, which in the form of remedy impair tn
/. right" -"There is no difference between
!, Retrospective law declaring particular col
e' tract or class Of contracts to be abrOgate
b,r and void, and one which took away all rer
b'r edy to enforce them, or encountered It wi
Ib'r conditions that rendered it useless or il
oeF' practicable to pursue it." No one dOut
the right or the remedy Of the mortgage
lb'r for BY the laws of the State, then in folC
: this right and this remedy, were a part
Der, the law Of the contract, without any EXPIRE
r agreement BY the parties" They were .
7, nexed to the contract at the time it v
nb'r made, and formed part Of it, and any 81
NOR sequent law impairing the rights thus
:. g'e qured, impairs the obligation which
Oct, contract imposed" The case Of McCracl
NIB ,b VS.. Hayward alcse under the same Law
mb'r illinois. In this case the Court says, 6
g.. obligation Of the contract consists in
Sep binding force upon the party who makes
a Pep This depends upon the laws in existe
ug'st where it is made; these are necessarily
us erred to in all contracts, and forming
tmb'r 81 them as the measure Of the obligatIO
Sep perform them by the one party and the 81
smb,r acquired by the other II any subseql
.mS,T law affect 10 diminish the duty, or to in
smb'r the right. il necessarily bears on the OBJ
! sep Sep ton Of the contract infavor Of one par
~ the injury Of the other. Its not 70 be
.iy' derslood that all State legislation on 6
ing contracts is repugnant 70 the con.
ton. II IS within The undoobted pow
par Stale Legislatures % pass recording acl
par which the elder graniee shall Sc postp
par. 70 the younger, Il the prior deed s no
par corded within The limited lime end The
- er Is the same, whether The deed y
before o. after the passage Of the rece
psf dol act, Such too Is lhe power % pass
o. Limitation and their effect 7 '.Ihe g
do. ton 81 ihe contract between the part
60. this case. was 70 peri gin The contract
undertaking therein; the right Ct The
n, 500 ltif was 70 damages for the breach the