The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1861-07-16
DECISION ON THE STAY LAW.
Pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court of North Carolina.

!
on 18th day of May, 1861, commonly called the
Stay Law forbidding jury trials, and trials be-
fore Justices of the Peace, ard the issuing of ex-
ecutiOns, and sales under executions and deeds of
trust, held to be unconstitutional and void.
! This was an action of Debt tried before Heath
j., at the last Spring Term Of Wilson Superior
| Court.
During the tendency of this case in the Supe-
rior Court, the defendants pleaded, since the last
continuance, the following act Of Assembly:
AN CT to proride against the sacrifice property and to
suspend proceedings IN certain
SECTION Be it enacted by the General Assembly of
the State of North Carolina and is hereby enacted by
the authority of the same, That execution of feri
fdcias vendoni erponas founded upon judgment in
any suit action for debts and demands due bonds
promissory notes. 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 against nonresidents shall be issued
from the passage of this Gc by court of record
magistrate for the sale of property, until otherwise
provided by law: shall there be any sales under
deeds of trust DEGREES, unless by the consent of
parties interested, until otherwise provided by law
Sec. q Where such executions have issued and are
in the hands of officers, whether levied not the
officer having such executions shall return the
the magistrate court from whence they issued with
further execution thereof and executions upon the
same judgments shall not issue again until the operation
OF ;hs act ceases; Provided That this act shall not be
construed to discharge the lien which has already been
acquired by taking out such execution.
Sec. 3. There shall be no trials of any requir
ing the intervention of jury, nor upon warrants be-
fore Justice of the Peace in any suit action for
debts demands due bonds promissory notes bills
of exchange, covenants for the payment of money
Judgments accounts, and all other contracts for money
demands contracts for specific articles.
SEC 4. This act shall not apply to liabilities upon
the part of public officers either to the State countless
corporations individuals; state, county
poraton taxes debts hereafter contracted;
to debts due the State to debts due from
dents, to the annual collection of interest; Provi
ded, That note, bill of acceptance, other ohliga
tion the consideration of which is any debt obga-
ton at present existing, shall be held considered
a debt hereafter contracted.
SEC 3. The interest which has accrued since the first
day of January, A. D. 1861, which may hereafter
accrue upon any bond or promissory note which was
payable before the passage of this act may be collect
ed by action of debt assumsit before any justice of
the peace if the amount of interest sued for be within
his jurisdiction and if not, then in the county
peror courts; Provided however, That warrant
or more always making an even number) by computing
the time from the day when the interest upon such
bond or promissOry note began to accrue.
SEC 6. That any person who is about to remove his
property of the State without the consent Of his
creditors, shall be entitled to the benefit of this
SEC. Z That all mortgages and deeds in trust for the
benefit of creditors hereafter executed, whether regis
tered not and all judgments confessed during the
continuance of this act shall be utterly void and of
effect.
SEC. g. The time during which the law is in force
limitations comes in question.
SEC. g. That this shall be in force from and after
it's ratification.
Read three times and ratified in General Assembly,
this 18th day of May, A. D., 1861.
And on the cause being called for trial, defend
ants counsel urged the provisions of the said act
as reason why he should not 90 to trial, and Why
Judgment should not go against him. His honor
overruled the objection and ordered the trial to
proceed, and on verdict being rendered for the
plaintiff, passed judgment and ordered execu-
ton, from which the defendants appealed to this
Court. Questions involving the constitutionality
of the Stay Law at this term motions for
the issuing of executions jud gments in this
Court, which are considered in the opinion of the
Court.
b. F. Moore, for the plaintiff G Strong for the
defendants.
BY PEARSON G. 1.-THE plea, since the last
continuance, by which the defendants claim the
benefit of what is commonly called the "Stay
Law" presents for decision the question of
the constitutonality of act Of the last session
of the General sembly-entited Gan Act to
provide against the sacrifice of property and to
suspend proceedings in certain cases" The same
question raised in every case decided at this
term, whore the judgment in the court below is
affirmed, BY motions for judgment, and that execu-
ton shall be issued.
try, the statute be cxpedient, is a question Of
which We have no ight to Judge. Our province
is to give judgment on the question of the consti-
tutiona power of the Legislature to pass the
statute.
In the discharge of this duty, we are relieved
by the fact, that question of such importance is
not now presented for the first time, so as to put
upon US the responsibility Of making decision on
the strength of our own convictions; for we find
that the line has been plainly marked, in fact
"bazed out" by many previous adjudications, 50
that it be easily followed, and all we have to
do, is to make applications Of we'll established
principles.
The right and the duty of this court to give
Judgment on the constitutional power of the Legis
lature in making statutes, is established by so
many elaborated opinions of this court, and of the
Supreme Court of the United States, and of our
sister States, to make further discussion or
citation Of authorities useless attempt at dis
play of learning; SO We assume that question to be
settled.
Our opinion is, that the statute under considera-
ton, far as it opposes the right of the plaintiff
to udg ment in the Court below or the motions
for judgment in this court and for execution,
is void and Of effect, because it is in violation
Of the Constitution of the United States, and
of the Constitution of the Confederate States,
which, in this respect, is the same, and, also, of
the constitution of this State.
lst. 1t is latent, by the face of the statute, that
1t DOS Impair the obligation Of contracts" This
Is settled. JONES Us. Crittenden, Car. Law Rept,
$50. In that case the argument is exhausted, and
we GEIcn in