Abbeville press. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1860-1869, 1866-07-20

''.b>'N 'eo "uo HaAeu ~, 10 suppose
that it was designed to protect mere bar
-ren and abstract right without any practi-
cal operation upon the business of, life. 1t
was undoubtedly adopted as a part Of the
Constitution for a great and useful purpose.
1t was to maintain the integrity of con-
tracts, and to secure their faithful execution
throughout the Union, by placing them
under the protection of the Constitution of
the United Statea. And it would but i'll
become this Court, under any circumstan-
ces, to depart from the plain meaning Of
the words used, and to sanction distinc-
ton between the right and the remedy,
which would render this provision Elusive
mere and nugatory, words Of form affording
no protection, and produc ing no practical
result" He then applies these principle E:
"The mortgagee is entitled to the aid OF
this Court; for this purpose it is his abso-
lutte and uudoubted.right, under an ordina.
~ mortgage deed, ifthe money is not paid
at the apponted day, to 60 in the Court of
Chancery and obtain an order for the sale,
etc. This is his right by the law of the
contract; and it is the duty Of the Court
TO maintain and enforce it without any un-
reasonable delay" "When this contract
was made, no statute had been passed by
the State changing the rules of Law of e9ui.
ty in relation to a contract Of this kind" I"
'They wero the laws Of Illinois At the
time; and therefore, entered into the con-
tract, and formed part of it, with out any
express stipulation to that effect in the
dead; !" and, any subsequent law, impair.
ing the rights thus acquired, impairs the
obligation which the contract imposed.
He then comments upon the Act Of Illi-
nois of February, 1s4l. 'rTbe observa-
tions already made, (saya hey in relation to
the other Act, apply With equal force to
this. 1t is true that this law apparently
acts upon the remedy, and not directly up.
on the contract. Yet, its effect is to de-
prive:th party Of his pre.existing right to
forselose, etc."
In the tfes!!!oming year the same .ubject
was discussed in McCracken vs.. Hayward,
2 How, COG. The opinion of the suf:ens
Court was delivered BY Mr' Justice Bald '
win. "The obligation Of contract, (says
hey, consists in its binding force on the
party Who makes it.: ''This depends on
the laws in existence when it is made: {:
these are necessarily referred to 10 all con-
tracts, and forming part of them 90 the
measure of the obligation to preform them
BY the neparty, and the right acquired
by the other. There can be- no other stan.
dard by which to ascertain The extent !: OF
either, than. that which the terms of the
contract indicate, aceording to their settled
legal meaning; when It becomes coriisum-
mated, the law defines the DUTY and the
right, compels one party to perform : the
contract, and gives the other Alright to en-.
force the performance by the remedies then
in force. II any subsequent Law affect to
diminish the duty, or to impair, the right,
it necessarily bears on the obligation Of
the contract, in, favor Of one party. to the
injury Of the other; hence, any law, which, J,
in it's operation, amounts TO denial or Oh.
struotion Of the rights accraiag by con.
tract, though protesting TO saet only on
the remedy,is directly obnoxious TO. tie
Constitution. ), This principle is so clearly