Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1861-07-17
q y - - Ult1sUFi NOR1' H.CAHu
y 49, ~ II ~ n NJ as,
h Desisf0n on the stay Law. I,

ESl2 n AE lCOU RE OF N0RTH.CAROLINA.
[tfss Deeision on me stay Law. g !
JOHN BARNES rs John T. BARNEsss al.
The provisions Of the Act of Assembly, passed on
18th Of May. 1851 commonly called the 'Stay Law y
orbiddng jury trials, and trials before Justices Of
he Peace, and the issuing Of executions, and sales
under executions and deeds Of trust held be un
constitutional and void Is B
This'w was an action Of Debt tried betcys Heath,
b., at the last Spring Term Of Wilson Superior
court s3ss =
During the tendency Of this case in thssSuperior
Court the defendants pleaded since the last contin
Iuance, the following act of Assembly:
IAN ACT PRovlDE AGAINST SACRIFICE OF Property
AND TO SUSPEND PRocEEDINGs IN CERTAIN CASES.
c asssu aas IT. ssrsg enacted sss h. he a s
OF the same, That no execution of eri fIcias orr
eonds founded upon judgment in any suit
faction for debts and demands due bonds promssory
notes. bills Of exchange, covenants for the payment Of
money Judgments. accounts and all other contracts for
money demands or contracts for specific articles other
Than those upon official bonds in favor of the State or
against nonesidents shall be issued from the passage of
act By of record magistrate for the sale
property, until otherwise provided by law nor shall
be any sales under deeds of trust DEGREES uness
the consent parties interested until otherwise prov
aded by law. -. ,--...- n =
SEC Where such executions have issued and are
the hands of officers, whether levied or not the officer
having such executions shall return the the mag
state court from whence they issued without further
execution thereof and executions upon the same Judgments
ha not issue again until the operation of this act
roUdd That this act shall not be construed to discharged
lien which has already been acquired by the taking
1out such execution. -.
SEC 8. There shall be trials any cases requiring
Intervention of jury, upon warrants before Jus
Of the Peace in suit action for debts demands
adue bonds premissory notes, bills of exchange cove
PANTS for the payment OF money judgments accounts and
a other contracts for money demands contracts for
specific articles.
Sec T. This act shall not apply to liabilities upon the
part of public officers either to the State countless
ations, individuals to State county corporation
taxes to debts hereafter contracted debts due
State, to debts due from non-resdents the
annual collection of interest ProUided That note bill
IF acceptance, other obligation the consideration of
which is any debt obligation at present existing shall
abe held considered debt hereafter contracted.
Sec s. The interest which has accrued since the first
lay of January, A. d., 1861, which may hereafter ac
crne upon any boEd promissory note which was paya
before the passage of :hs be collected by
lion Of deb. or sSsamps before any justice Of the
ard if not then in the county superior courts Provided
tooece That warrant suit shall be brought except
the interest of one year or more always making
nnmbcr) by computing the time from the day when
interest such bond or pronissoy note began to
accrue ~.
SEC. &. That any person who is about to remove his
8propery out of the State without the consent of his cred
aors shall not be entitled to the benefit of this act
SEC. T. That all mortgages and deeds in trust for the
benefit Of creditors hereafter executed whether registered
If this act, snail be utterly void and of no effect.
Sec. g. The time during which this law is in force shall
not be oued in any question where the statute of linn
itat0ns con eS in question
SEC g. That this act shall be in force from and after m
ratification.
Read three times and ratified in General Assembly this
filth 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
u reason why he should not 60 to trial, and why
judgment should not go against him. His honor
overruled the objection and ordered the trial to pro-
9ceed and verdict being rendered for the plaintiff
passed a Judgment and ordered execution from
which the defendants appealed to this court. Cues
tons involving the constitutionalty of the Stay
Law arose at this term on motions for the issuing of
executions on judgments in this Court, which are
FALL considered in the opinion of the Court
B. F. MOORE, for the plaintiff.
STRONG for the defendants.
PEARSON, C. j.: The plea, since the last continu-
dance, by which the defendants claim the benefit of
| what is commonly called the Stay Law" presents
flor decision the question Of the constitutionaty
of an act of the last session of the General Assembly,
entitled "An Act to provide against the sacrifice;
of property and to suspend proceedings in certan|
cases" The same question raised in every case
decided at this term, where the judgment in the;
court below is affirmed by motions for Judgment and
that execution shall be issued.
Whether, in the present condition of the country
the statute be expedient, is question of which we!
have no right to judge. Our province is to give!
Judgment the question of the constitutional pow
Ter 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
1ps the responsibility of making decision on the,
strength of our own convictions for we find that
THE line has been plainly marked in fact "blazed
5out" by many previous adudieatons that it can;
1be easily followed and all have to do is to make
our applications of well established principles.
The right and the duty of this court to give judg
mert the constitutional power Of the Legislature
lin making statutes, is established by so many elabo
rated opinions OF this court, and Of the Supreme|
court ofthe United States, and of sister States
jas to make further discussion or citation Of author
ties, useless attempt at display Of learning; SOL
I've assume that question to be settled.
Our opinion is, that the statute under considera
ton so far it opposes the right of the plaintiff toi
judgment in the court below or the motions for al
Judgment in this court and for execution is void and
of no effect because it is in violation Of the Const
tuition of the United States and Of the Constitution
{of the Confederate States which, in this respect isl
the same and ALSO Of the Constitution of this State
1st It is patent by the face Of the statute that it
kuoeo tuc OuIiEdLtun VI COiitTaCIS. 1u'S Isl
settled. Jones cs. Crittenden, Car. Law Rept,
1856. In that case the argument is exhausted, and
we only add "we concur in it"
tits suggested that this case is distmguishable on
THE ground, that when the statute in question was
passed the country in state of established rev.
olution, or in state of Contemplated revolution,
lin reference to which the Legislature acted, which
revolution has been carried out and consummated
10y subsequent ordinance of the Convention, BY
force Of which all acts done in reference to, and ia
anticipation Of the revolution, are ratified and con-
'frmed as incidents thereto
This proposition, however much weight it may be
entitled to in political FORUM cannot by reason Of
its generality, be appreciated bya legal tribunal and
mind accustomed to the investigation of questions
Of law, gTasps att as alta shadow" But to avoid
. compication -four question: We pass over the le.
gal difficulty of the maxim that which is void can.
not be confirmed" and let it be admitted, that on
the Goth Of May, when the ordinance Of the Conyen.
4tion, by which this State was Withdrawn from the
government Of the United States, went into effect
the statute under consideration was in full force and
nv