The daily clarion. [volume] (Meridian, Miss.) 1863-1866, 1866-01-04

they had been set forth in its stipulatlons IN 5
the very words of the law relating 20 Juug-
ments and executions. Ii the defendan1 las I
made such an aTran -eInent as to autnoflze .
a sale OF his property, when snouid oe .
levied oil by the sheriff. for such price rs /
should be bid for it at a fair public sale on .
reasonable notice, it would have conferred /
3 right on the plaintiff which the constltn-
/ tion made inyi1iable; and it can MAKE no /
difference whether such right is conferred
| by the terms or law of the contract. Any
| subsequent law which denies, obstructs, or
| impairs this right by superadding a condl-
| tiOn, that there all be no sale for any sum
/ less than the vau of the property levied
| on. 10 be ascertained by appralSement, or
any other mode OF valuation than public
sale, affects the obligation of the contract as
much in the one case as in the other, for II
can be enforced only by sale of the defen-
| dant's property; and the prevention of slleh
sale is the denial of right. The same
power in a State Legislature may he carried
| to any extent, if it exists at all it may pre-
| hibit sale for less than the whole appraised
value, or for thrap-fouIths, niae-teaths, 5
| wei as for two-thirds. fol if the power can
| be exerciz 4 to any extent, its exercise E}IIst'
| be a ma T Of uncomfortable dlscra 5lo1, I'M
posing IS relating 10 the remedy which
| ;,re re- Less OF the effect on the right OF
! the plaintiff
Ia the case of Gratltly's lessee vs.. Ewing,
3 Howard [. 5. Rep. -, S. T., 10 Curtis
| Decisions L. S, case ar"se on
law of the State of Indiana Th orlsage
on which the proceedings now mad was
made prior to the passage OF the
act Of Indiana, declaring that all
sales on mortgages should be prohlb-
ited for less than half the appraised value
OF the land included in the mortgage. The
question considered aI,i Decided BY the
court was a. to the validity of this aC5 uu
der the prohibition IN the constitution OF
-. tn tlE 30 IN
States OF laws impairil.s, the obligations Of
contracts.
Catron J., delivering the opinion OF the
court III this case, says: The contract OF
mortgage was a vested interest, and It's
main incident Il right TO have the land APP
piled in discharge OF the debt, either by AZ
sH -,.i,tiall executed, as On q Judgment at
law, or III some form Ot REMEDY suhstan-
TALLY equal The new remedy prescribed
By the act of 1541, changed the contract
and required among other things that the
mortgaged premises should not he sold 10
satisfy the debt unless they were first val
ued, and one half of that value was bad Tor
t them If the legislature could make TINS
alteration in the contract, and III the de
; cree enforcing it, so ii could declare the
, property should bring its e. siue. c.
: Thai ii should not be sold al al, tn2reDy nm
d l9irinr or defeating the obligation under
the disguise Of regulating the remedy.
This court held IN 6Tohso, vs.. hihzle' l
How Rep 3I9, Cnat the right and a RENE
: DIV substantially in accordance with the
rjpht. were equally parts OF the contract,
: secured by the laws of the State where 1t
was made, and that change OF these laws
imposing conditions and restrictions on-the
mortgag,s, in the enforcement OF his contract
: and which affected its substance, impaired
the obligation and could not prevail, as an
: act directly prohibited, could not be ndI-
rectly DONE"
l In the State of Kentucky, in the case of
: Lapsly VS.. Brashears, Littells Rep. Az,
which arose upon the act If that State, au-
: tborizine executions on judgments rendered
/ prior to the passage of the act, to be stayed
: for one year upon defendant entering into
e bond with surity, to replevy the property
1 levied OH.
t Owslev, J.. in delivering the very able and
t conclusive opinion of the court, holding that
e the law impaired the obligation OF contracts,
: and was void under the constitutional pro-
4 hibition. saws: "But in a state of civil gov
e ernment, contracts may derive an additional
: obligation: an obligation which arises from
e the civil laws of the government, and winch
! but the limitations contained IN the constr
= l-.+;o-, ,,,ierI+ have hneY .nnairo1 and 70
a tally annihilated by the legislatures OF the
0 fates This obligation operates through
the medium of the sanction of the law,-and
consists ennh . Il
What we have supposed, the consequences
E would seem naturally TO follow, that rs res
) Pects the present case, the act of the leois
lature IN question is in conflict With thai
provision Of the constitution OF the TrpitaI
States which forbids any State from passinc
a Law lmpdIrins the obligation Of coItfacts
by the act IN question, it is true the
obligation Of the defendants prior contract
has not been entirely DESTROYED.
but during the time of the replevin, which is
'' allowed ef by the act all pre-existing remedies
a
! tAe oblIgat ion of the contract thereby weak
| ened and impaired. To be in conflict with
the constitution, it is not necessary that the
| act OF Che legislature should import an act,1aI
| destruction q thc obligation of contracts. if |
Is Suihc!ent thar fhe act imports an irnpair- |
lIti5 4 y oI the obilSatlon Hby the legislative !
ac' the obligation Of contracts be III any de-
gree impaired; or what Is the same thif,r if
the obhgatIon be weakened, or rendered less
operative, the constitution is violated. 3,,5
t1e act Is so far inoperativa
In The S=ate of North Carolina, the S7-
preme % & Ii the case of Crittendel rs
Jones, 'olina Law Repository. 3ss. haIT
tlat q ute. which directed that arr
court rendering Judgment against a dei,es,
between december 3tst, 1872 and February
lSt, 1911, should stay a''v execution until thp
-, ~ 'eIiI Vi the "' fr the liter day
-: ii,'''i',A s5If my TWO Iree- .leTs as
SuIltIes for the debt, is Unconstitutional
And III Tennessee in the ease of Townsend i,
vs. Townsend. Pecll's Red; / tie Supreme
Courts held "a statute which directed tltat :
upon any Judgement to be hereafter obtain
ed execution should not issue until two
years have eNnire;i, unless the plaintiff shan &
morse on the execution, that the oficers1aU
'nu may receive III satisfaction thereof notes
n e r'aln specified banks, to be nnaonstitu- :
iOnaI" i
In Vanvant VS.. Waddoll, : Yergar's Rep. m
3D. the same court says. Had the IeeisIa- y, :,
fF0f 10.
recess for the collection of is debts, or thai
ne court should not be open to its com
la!nts, such law would have been void
These decisions rest on the broad ana ,,er,.
'al principle that State law, which Drn
SSedly provides remedy for enforcing the
'ntr2ot, which impairs the rights incident
and attached to it by the laws in force at srt
: date or which denies, obstr1lcts or DELAYS
ch remedy, IS void as coming within t6e g'a g,'a
Institutional prohibition The PRINCIPLES I /
clded In these cases dc not leave room I,,f IL
Ibt s.o co the invalidity of the acts OF 1861
q Icb0. The provisions of these conn, 4;