The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1861-07-24
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
~ Decision ON the stay Law,
oHN B.RNEs 70. Jouy r. B.

the issuing of executions, and sales under ex-
ecutiOns, and deeds OF trust, held to be un.
constitutional and void,
This was an action of Debt, tried before
Heath, j., at the las, Spring Term Of Wilson
Superior Court.
During the tendency Of this case in the
Superior Court. the defendants pleaded, since
the last continuance, the following act Of As
sembly:
I'VE ou, the act reci,ed here, having published ii in
the Recorder Of the 18th Of May.l
And on the cause being called for trial,
defendants counsel urged the provisions Of
80 to trial. and why judgment should not go
against him. His Honor over.ruled the OBJ
lection, and ordered the trial 10 proceed, and
on verdict being rendered for the plaintiff.
passed a judgment and ordered execution,
iron which the defendants appealed to this
court. Questions involving the constitution
ality Of the Stay Law arose at this term on
motions for the issuing of executions on judy.
ments in this Court, which are all consider.
ed in the opinion Of the Court.
B. Z. Moore, for the plaintiff.
Strong for the defendants.
PEARsoS, G. j.: The plea, since the last
continuance, BY which the defendants claim
the benefit Of what is commonly called the
Stay Law" presents for our decision the
question Of the constitutionaiity of an act Of
the last session OF the General Assembly
entitled An Act TO provide against the sac
rlfice OF property and to suspend proceedings
in certain eases" The same question was
raIaeH IN HarsIa1 - hts
where the judgment in the court below is AZ.
hrmed. b.y motions for judgment, aud that
executions shall be issued.
Whether, in The present condition Of the
country, the statute be expedient, is ques-
tioa Of which We have no right to judge.
Our province !. TO give judgment on the
question OF the constitutional power of the
Legislature TO pass the statute.
IN The discharge Of this duty, we are re.
iieFed by tue fact, thai a question of such
importance IS mol now presented for the first
time, 80 IS to pat upon Us the responsibility
OF making decision on the strength OF our
own convictions; for We fad thar the line
has been plainly marked, in fact. blszed
out" by many previous adiudicatIons, so
that 4 can be easily followed. and all we have
70 %, Is 10 make our application Of we'll es-
iah.shed principles.
The right and the duty Of this court to
give judgment on The constitutional power Of
The Legislature in making statutes, Is estab-
lished BY so many elaborated opinions Of this
court, aud Of the Supreme Court OF the Uni
led States, aud ot our sister States, as to
make further discussion or citation Of au-
thorities, . useless attempt al a display Of
learning; 50 We assume that question set
tied.
Our opinion is, that the statute under con-
sijeration, SO far az it opposes the right OF
the plaintiff 10 judgment in the court be-
low, or the motions for judgment in this
court snd for execution, is void and Of no ef.
feet, because il is in violation OF the Const.
sutton Of the United States, and Of the Con.
stitution Of The Confederate States, which, il |
this respect, is the same. and. also, Of The
Consultation Of this State.
ist. II is patent, By the face Of the star.
ute, that II does Impair the Obligation Of
contracts" This is settled. Jones vs. Crit /
tenden, | Car. Law Rept. ss5. Ia that case
the argument is exhausted, aud we only add /
" We concur 10 IL"
tits suggested that this case i distinguish. /
able on the ground, that when the statute
in question was passed, The country was 10 a
state Of established revelation. or 10 q state
Of contemplated revelation" in reference
% which the Legislature acted. which reyo
ltIon has been carried out and consgnmaied
BY subsequent ordinance of the Conyen.
ton, By force Of which all acts done 10 ref /
,rence 70, and 10 anticipation Of, the revolu-
ton, are ratified and confirmed as incidents |
thereto.
This proposition, however much weight il
may be entitled to in political forum, can.
not, By reason Of is generality, be apprecia.
ted By legal tribunal, and mind accus.
toned TO the investigation Of questions Of
law "grasps a. II A. at shadow But 70 /
avoid complication Of our question, We pass
over the legal difficulty Of tie maxim i" that
which il void cannot be confirmed and LEI
q Se admitted, that on the Goth Of Nav,
wien tle ordnance Of the Convention, BY
w5.e1 iala State was Withdrawn from the
government q the United States, went into
eject, ile statute under consideration was ia
I'LL lofce and effect, 30 far a. restrictions by
The Constitution Of the United States we're
concerned. II the same manner and to The
same eKtea, A. II the State Of North Carolina
had never been member 81, Or 10 any way
.oraetted with the Government 81 the Uni.
.sd states. s0as ~ briag Up the paked qaes.
leo. shss was the legal effect d the ordi.
isHty Adopting the Constitution Of the pro.
.aaua government Of the Confederate
States. made on The sIme day, bit some few
.asri aiter. the ordinance above referred 10.
lht afa nanse sltersanIs passed BY which ,
.hs permanent Constitution was adopted. /
Here . As period, ssy seven hours, duting
lEt.ot sateh time the Stste VI North Carroll. ii
~ z reference 70 her connection either with {
ne ltiisd states or with tie Confederate i
,ialsk, tas aJsoigtsIy sovereign, aud the 1
taigte q question, by The admission made 4
o. ne SAKE OF The argument. Wa il lail IUrce Y
I'D elect. j. L not clear 10 the certainty I
( , Concentration, that the eject u the or. i
'iaauee adopting the Constitution of tie I