The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1866-09-05

remedy which are regaroless of the effect on the
right of the plaintiff. This was the rnling princl
pie of the case OF bronson Us. Kincie."
The law of Illinos prohibiting q sale under exc
cution for less thai two-thirds OF the APPRAISED
value, was held to le unconstitutional and void.
In Planters Banl Us. sharp,6 How, 301. and
again in Curran 0s, State of Arkansas, 15 How
319, these principals we're re-affirmed. In the
former case Mr.. Justice Woodbury. says: zone
of the tests that a contract has been impaired il
that it's value has By legislation been diminished
1t is not by the prohibition of the Constitution
to be impaired at al. This is not a question o
degree, or manner, or cause, but OF encroaching
in any respect on its obligation, dispensing with
any part Of it's forse." Up. 327. In the latter
case (15 How.) the doctrine is we'll condensed by
Mr.. Justice Curtis. SIT by no means follows be.
cause a law affects only the remedy, that it does
not impair the obligation OF q contract. The OBJ
legation OF contract in the sense in which these
words are used in tie Constitution, is that duty o
performing it which is recognized and enforced
by the laws, and if the laws are so changed that
the means Of enforcing this duty are materially
impaired, the obligations OF the contract no long,
er remain the same
This last case was decided A. D. 1858; and so
lately as December, 1864, in Hawthorne Us. Calf,
Q Wallace TO- the Supreme Court OF the United
States, by Mr.. Justice Nelson, took occasion to
recognize and reafirm "the principle decided in
Bronson vs. Kncie, and the several subsequent
cases of this GLASS;" and held that the Acts then
under consideration 30 seriously affected the
remedy Of the mortgagee as to impair the obllga-
ton of the mortgage contract within the meaning
of the Constitution, and declared them void
It would seem superhuous to add that this
series of decisions by the Supreme Court OF the
United States is conclusive upon this tribunal in
settling the construction of tile Constitution upon
this subject. But we are not left without the
light of instruction from the adjudications of our
sister States. During the war Of 1872, when the
people Of our country were greatly harassed IN
their affairs, the Legislature of North Carolina
passed an Act staying execution upon Judgments
until the first term OF the Court after February,
1914, upon the defendant giving security, &c. The
Supreme Court OF North Carolina held the law to
be null and void, as violating the prohibition of the
Constitution against mpairing the obligation OF
contracts. (Crittenden Us. Jones, Car. Law Hep,
385 ] That case came under review before the same
tribunal in the case of Barnes Barnes, decided
June ard Aug. term, 1861 The opinion OF the Court
was announced by Chief Justice Pearson: "lhe
plea (says he) claiming for the defendants the
benefit Of what is commonly called the Stay Law,
for our decision the question OF the con-
OF an Act OF the last session OF the
General Assembly, entitled IAN Act to provide
against the sacrifice of property, and to suspend
in certain cases.. Our province ls to
give Judgment on the question of the constitu-
tiona power of the Legislature to pass the
statute. In the discharge Of this duty we are re-
lieyed by the fact that a question of such i'm
is not now presented for the first tlme
so as to put upon us the responsibility of making
tor we find that the line has been plainly Marked
in fact, sblazed ont by many previous adjudlca-
tons, so that it can be easily followed and all we
have to do is to make an application OF we'll es-
tablished principles" "Our opinion is that the
statute under considt ration 30 far as it opposes
the rights OF the plaintiff to judgment in the
Court below or the motion for Judgment in !, this
Court and for execution, is void and of no effect,
because it is in violation OF the Constitution OF the
United States, &c. 1st. It is patent, by the face
of the statute, that il does impair the obligation
of contracts This is settled in Jones Us. Critten-
den, 1 Car. Law j., 1856. In that case the argu-
ment is exhausted, and we only add, We concur
in it,"
Lapsley us Brashears is a case from Kentucky,
Lift. Rep, 40. The Legislature had authorized
a stay of execution on judgments obtained prior
to the Act for one year, upon defendants giving
bond to replevy, &c. The Court declared the
Act null and void, as violating the prohibition OF
the Constitution. The opinion OF Mr.: Justice
Owaley speaking fer the Court, is instructive :
.But (says hey in a state Of civil government, con.
tracts may derive an additional obligation-an
obligation which arises from the civil laws OF the
Governments, and which, but for the limitations
contained in the Constitution, might have been
impaired and totally annihiIated by the Legisla-
lures Of the States. This obligation operates
and enna;=ts emphaticalry in those remedies which
the law supplies, and may bs denominated the
legal Obligation 'The Act OF the Legislature is
in conflict with that provision of the Constitution
OF the United States which forbids aay State from
passing law impairing the obligation of con-
tracts" "By the Act in question, it is true the
oblig alton of the defendants prior contract has
been entirely destroyed" "But during the time
of the repevin. which is allowed by the Act, all
pre-existing remedies upon the prior contract are
suspended, and the obligation of the contract
thereby weakened and impaired. To be in con.
flict with the Constitutional is not necessary that
the Act Of the Legislature should import an actual
destruction of the obligation OF the cUntract it il
sufficient it the Act imports an Impairment OF the
obligation. Ifby the Legislative Act the obligaa-
ton OF the contract be in any degree impaired,
or, what is the same thing, il the obligation be
tuition is violated and the Act 80 far imperative.
In the State of Mississippi the doctrine is thus
stated in Brlscoe Us. Ankete, 26 Miss r. 371: "lt
is too woll settled to admit of question at the
present day. that it is within the power OF the State
Legislatures to regulate the remedy and modes OF
proceeding in relation to past as we'll as to future
contracts This power is subject only to The
restriction that it cannot be exercised so as tc
take away all remedy upon the contract, or to i'm
pose upon its enforcement new burdens and re.
strictions which materially impair the value and
benefit Of the contract"
But the case of Coffman Us. Bank Of Kentucky
is recent decision OF the Supreme Court OF Mis-
sisspp
The Legislature of Mississippi had passed Acts
in 1861 and 1865 not unlike those passed in the
same years by the General Assembly of South
Carolina By the Act Of 1865 all laws for the col
lection of debts, &c, were suspended until 1s
January, 1868. Chief Justice Handy delivered
the Judgment OF the Court. After admitting, il
itv of State legislation in regard to the
remedy for the enforcement OF contracts, and yiu
d1nat thls authuritY ua aauctinnal bY previous