Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1861-07-13
RENE COURT OF NoRrn.cARoL1NA
Decision on the Stay Law.
JOHN BARNES vs. JOHN T. BARNES ct al.

e Decision ON the Stay Law.
8 JOHN BARNES VS.. JOINT. BARNES ct al.
IA The provisions Of the Act of Assembly, passed on
tn of May, 1851 commonly called the "Stay Law,
forbdding jury trials and trials before justices of
Sthe Peace and the issuing of executions and sales
under executions, and deeds of trust held to be
Unconstitutional and void
81 This an action of Debt tried before Heath
81, at the last Spring Term of Wilson Superior
&Court -s.7-u-,.s.,.,.,-
g During the tendency Of this case in the Superior
Court the defendants pleaded since the last contin
szuance, the following act of Assembly:
GAN ACT TO PRovlDE AGAINST SACRIFICE PRoPsRTY
"A TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS IN CERTAIN CASES.
n SEC Be 1t eNacted By ths General assembly of tie
q State of North Carolina and is hereby enacted By the
0,ity Of the same That execution of feri ticiqs
0eRdt0Rt aPOnds founded upon judgment in any suit
for debts and demands due bonds prOmissory
Quotes bills of exchange covenants for the payment of
money, judgments accounts and all other contracts for
money demands, contracts for specific articles, other
than those upon official bonds, in favor Of the State
nonresdens shall be issued from the passage of
act by any court of record magistrate for the sale
of property until otherwise provided by law; shall
be any sales under deeds of trust DEGREES unless
by the parties interested until otherwise prov
ssded by law.
SEC q Where such executions have issued and are
n the hands of officers, whether levied not the officer
havng such executions shall return the the mag
court from whence they issued, without further
executon thereof and executions upon the judgments
Pr0rded That this act shall be construed discharge
he lien which has already been acquired by the taking
S1out such execution. 80.
Sd SEC There shall be trials of any cases requiring
the Intervention of jury, upon before Jus
ce of the Peace in suit action for debts demands
due bonds promssOry es, bills of exchange, cove
for the payment of money Judgments accounts and
gall other contracts for money demands, or contracts for
SzSpecic articles.
q SEC This shall apply to liabilities upon the
apart of public officers either to the State counties, cnrpo
atons or individuals; to State county corporaton
taxes to debts hereafter contracted; debts due
he State to debts due from nonresdents, to the
annual collection of interest," Pr0Vded That note bill
o acceptance, other obligation, the consideration of
lwbich is any debt or obligation at present existing shall
be held considered debt hereafter contracted.
SEC 5. The interest which has accrued since the first
day of January A d., 1861, which may hereafter ac
crue upon any bold prOmissOry note which paya
be before the passage of hs act be collected by ac
lion of debt assumpst before Justice of the peace
the amount of interest sued for be within his jurisdiction
ard if then in the couaty superior courts Preceded
oUerer That no warrant or suit shall be brought except
fJr the interest of year more, (sways making
even numbcr) by computing the time from the day when
he interest upon such bond or promssoy note began To-
.Saccrue.
q SEC 6. That any person who is about to remove his
Improperly out of the State without the his cred
tors shall not be entitled to the beiet of this act
"a SEC T. That all mortgages and deeds in for the
of creditors hereafter executed whether registered
not and all judgments confessed during the continuance
q IF this act, shall be utterly void and of no effect
q SEC s. The time during which this law is in force shall
not be luted question where the statute of linn
q ations con es in question.
SEC g. That this act shall be in force from and after its
81 qualification.
"a Read three times ratified in General Assembly, this
e 18th day of May, A. d., 1861.
q And on the cause being called for trial, defend
ants counsel urged the provisions of the said act as
"a reason why he should not go to trial. and why
Employment should not go against him. His honor
overrued the objection and ordered the trial to prof.
ssceed, and verdict being rendered for the plaintiff
sspassed a Judgment and ordered execution, from
(which the defendants appealed to this court Cues
:ations involving the conSttutiOnality of the Stay
CLAW at this term motions for the issuing of
executions judgments in this Court, which are
Ssall considered in the opinion of the Court
9 B. F. MOORE, for the plaintiff.
"a STRONG for the defendants
II PEARSON, G. j.: The plea, since the last contnu-
lance, by which the defendants claim the benefit of
eawhat is commonly called the "Stay Law" presents
or decision the question of the constitutionalty
o act of the last session Of the General Assembly,
ss-enttled "An Act to provide against the sacrifice
5of property and to suspend proceedings in certanI
sscases." The question was raised in every case
ssdecided at this term, where the Judgment in the
court below is affirmed, by motions for Judgment and
Sthat execution shall be issued
Il Whether, in the present condition of the country,
she statute be expedient is question of which We;
shave no right to judge. Our province is to give
ajudgment on the question of the constitutional pow
Ger of the Legislature to pass the statute.
q In the discharge of this duty are relieved by;
the fact that question of such importance is nots
Snow presented for the first time so to put uponi
: JUS the responsibility of making decision on Lhei
strength Of convictions; for we find that
Sthe line has been plainly marked, in fact "bazed
tout" by many previous adjudicaons that it cant
be easily followed and all we have to do is to make
. our applications of well established principles
s The right and the duty of this court to give judg
mert the constitutional power of the Legislature
Sin making statutes is established by many elabos
Grated opinions OF this court, and of the Supremes
sCourt of the United States and of sister States
Gas to make further discussion or citation of author
Cities, useless attempt at display of learning; so:
1--WE assume that question to be settled.
Our opinion is, that the statute under considera-
ton far it opposes the right of the plaintiff to-
judgment in the court below, the motions for a.
Eudgment in this court and for execution is void and
of effect because it is in violation of the Consti
tuton of the United States and of the Constitutions
Sof the Confederate States which, in this respect is
the same and Also Of the Constitution of this State.
1St 1t is patent by the face of the statute that It'll
zdoes "impar the obligation of contracts" This Isl
gsetted. Jones cs Crittenden, Car. Law Rept,
1885. In that the argument is exhausted, andi
Eve only add "we concur in it."
3 is suggested that this case is distguishablc on
sthe ground that when the statute in question was
@passed the country in state of established rev.
solution in state of Contemplated revolution
Gin reference to which the Legislature acted, which,
.5revoluton has been carried out and consummated:
Shy subsequent ordinance of the Convention, by;
orce of which all acts done in reference to- and ni
participation Of the revolution, ratified and CON-
1frmed as incidents thereto
g This proposition, however much weight it may be!
entitled to in political forum, cannot by Of
Sits generality be appreciated by legal tribunal and
ga mind accustomed to the investigation of questons
of law, "grasps at it. as at a shadow" But to avoid
ala complication of our question, pass the lie
sga difficulty of the maxim "that which is void can
Snot be confirmed" and let it be admitted, that onI
the Goth of May, when the ordinance of the Conven-
ston, by which this State was withdrawn from the
government of the United States went into effect
the statute under consideration in full force and
eect, far restrictions by the Constitution of
the United States concerned, in the same man
ner and to the same extent as if the State of North