The daily clarion. [volume] (Meridian, Miss.) 1863-1866, 1866-01-04
THE STAY LAW
BecisIOa oT Judge Yerger.

BecisIOn Of Judge Yerger
| William Sadler VS. John j Wilmington
AquilIa Bowie VS. Phillip Roberts
| Charles & English VS.. j. Zuber, ct al
Nathaniel Hoggatt VS. Charles J. Hester
CONCLUDED.
"When this contract was made, no sta
| tute had been nla'c = S-.~--, ell,tl4aln ny
! the rules OF law or e,1 -4Cy III relation to
/ contract of this kind. None such, CT least,
has been brought to the notice of the court,
and il must, therefore, be governed, and
| the rights of the parties under it measured,
by the rules above stated They were the
| laws of Illinois at the time, and, therefore,
entered into the contract, and formed part
of it wiuthout any express stimulation 10
that effect in the deed lhe
rights i'll the mortgage, as known to the
| laws, required no express stipulation to de-
fine or secure them. They were annexed ~
the contract a. me Time 1t was made and
| formed part of it, and any subsequent
| law inpairing the rights thus acquired, inn
pairs the obligation which the contract I'M
| posed" Again, he says, i'll the same opinion
| when speaking II the law OF io4l: The
| observations already made III relation to the
| other act, apply with equal force to this
it is true that this law apparently acts upon
the remedy and not directly upon the con-
/
of his pre-4Xisting right to fore close the
mortgage by sale of the premises. and to
impose upon him conditions which would
frequently render any sale altogether impos-
sible. And this law is still more objectlona-
BILE, because it is not a general one, and pre-
| scribing the mode OF selling mOrtgaged
premises in all cases, but is confined to Jud9-
ments rendered. and contracts made to the
| Ist of MAY, 1861 The act was passed on
the 2lst of February in that year, and 1t
operates mainly on past contracts, and not
on future. If the contracts intended to be
effected by it had been specifically enumer-
ated in the law, and these conditions applied
to them, while other contracts of the same
description were to be enforced IN the ordl-
nary course of legal proceedings no one
would doubt that such u law was uneonstl-
tutional Icre a particular class OF con-
tracts Is s-.ocTed, and encountered Win
these new conditions; and it can make no
difference in principle whether they ,a dt
~ r o, " n 5ottfirtR,a ttttfi tRastiA +, ii a deT ~
ling tne opIhon u tie court, refers with an
PtcF a. TO the extracts from the opinion of
IHiti justice Sharkey above cited, and il,
dloiher poltl1n OF the opinion. after discus-
says: 'iol'
Ahq 70 Il, II proposing to alter the remedy
o.itE' IE th9 oiues and rights Of a CONTRACT it.
a'i1 "-e changed or impaired, it comes lust
t1onal prohibition on'-BTonson VS.. Kenzie
toward, ii.,,, ZIG: ID. 6l2, Madison paners
1889, i5Sl. P"Poi9'
nus IT, the remedy is taken away entire |
~ 'ts mere, or ciogged by condition OF any |
li'i' 'Ae right oi the oWHer NAV indeed suh |
9ist' E' ana be acknowledged, bat it is imnair-
"a 81 -"feeh VS.. BIddIe, Wheat 75. And
- 80, 'S peiofe suggested, is not the ex-
ceHt OF tne violation OF the contract. but tba
!acI that IN truth it's obligation is Iesseuad
III however small particular, and not mere.
y "iLeilHS or regulating the remedy aIoner
= Howard 3l@; Wheat, l.
Li.S case, LAST referred to, arose upon tbe
g.. =, - l0+o' OF TINS State, prohibiting any of
I eite banks OF this State from making \ trans
iei OF notes, &c., by endorsement or ..T -. =
y y -Se' ana erecting the suit to abate if the {
-. = = 7 oi Such transfer should appear on the /
Ia the case OF McCraclzen vs.. Havva~5 . fl
do"afd5 > l. 5. Rep sos, S. C. Is Curtis lie. o
:lIsloiiS' I. :. p. rs, which arose upon
80 - ID" winch prohibited property from
5:IliS sofa on an execution, emiEatinp from V
Judgment rendered prior t0 q SAGE If Z
.lo Ia"' Ior Less than rNo-thirds of the yaIu-
= .loh made by appraisers, pursuant to the e.
lrectlons contained = the law. "
Baldwin j., in declaring the opipion of ~
q te court says: In placing the obligations .,
contracts under the protection Of that -
'I' AtS hdlHefS looked to the eS-
'nIlalS OF the contract more than to tbn -.
rms and modes OF proceeding. bv wbich -
was TO be carried into execution am " 20
iiIng all State legislation which impairod r. r.
e obligation, it was left to the States to 'I 'ii
eScIloe and shape the remedy to enfnrca -,
nc oDllgatIon OF = sutraCt consists in -
elndlng force on the party who makes &C.
ms depends on the laws in existence ao, r1
len 1t is made these are necessarily ra COZ
req TO III all contracts, and form a part IF ~
EN- as the measure of tie obligation to nor H rs
M them by one party, and the right sue
ifed by the other. There can be no other J Son
nu3tfu oy which to ascertain the extent 10,
either than that which the terms ot tne 81
~ StoV hidicate, according to their settled r4
81 meaning when it becomes cops1mma- -
> the law defines the duty and the ripht =. lte4 y
hpeis one party IN perfoII.. tho Ahinr con y =
tea i%f, ana gives the other q right TO o+;
oice the performance by the remedies 60,
liminish tba dI,+y !tent law anect ticIe
'lliiailIsl tne duty, or to impair the right Tho
ecessarlly bears ON the obligation of the t.-rh,
tract IN favor of one party to the ininrv Ill III
nc otheF hence any law which in its iroad
~tion amounts to denial or obstruc- Cd,
VI Tue IlSnts accruing by a contract 49,!
leh processing to act only on the remedy | al
llfeetiy obnoxious to the principles of ~
Constitution Do
ie obligation of the contract hatzvaan dno =
loaftles IN this case, was to perform tT,a tract,
ilses and undertakings contained there ia ~,
TIE iight q Plaintiff was to the dam DENY
Iot the preach thereof, to brin7 sait qad tiffs
: q judgment, TO take out and ,Y,osecyto IN mir
faon against the defendant tn TIE i,,d1- t,e,Ys
S,t"' -, Pafs"dht 70 fhe er1stiFg taacs lay' i
'Ao'S. These laws giving these rights. Ga n
as perfectly binding on the defendant | embra
8 much part of the contract as If tract