The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1867-01-12

any law which in its operation amounts
to denial, or obstruction of the rights ac-
cruing by contract, though protesting TO
act only on the remedy, Is directly obnox-
ious to the prohibition Of the Constitu-
tion." Speaking Of the case before him,
he added: The obligation Of the con-
tract between the parties in this case was
to perform the promises and undertakings
contained therein; the right Of the plain
tiff was to damages for the breach thereof,
to bring suit and obtain Judgment, to
take out and prosecute an execution
against the defendant till the judgment
was satisfied, pursuant to the existing
laws of Illinois. These laws giving
these rights were as perfectly bind
ing on the defendant, and as much
part of the contract, as If it had set forth
its stipulations in the very words OF the
law relating to judgments and executions.
ANY subsequent law which denies, OBJ
structs, or impairs this right, by superad-
ding condition to the sale, &C., affects
the obligation of the contract, for it can
be enforced only by sale Of the defend
ants property and the prevention of such
sale is denial of right. The same
power in Legislature may be carried to
any extent, if it exists at all. If the
power can be exercised to any extent, its
exercise must be matter of uncontrolla-
BILE discretion in passing laws relating to
the remedy which are regardless Of the
effect on the right of the plaintiff"
In the Planters Bank Us. Sharp, How,
327, Mr.. Justice Woodbury. said: "One Of
the tests that a contract has been impaired
is that its value has, by legislation, been
diminished. 1t is not, by the prohibition
of the Constitution, to be impaired at all.
This is not question Of degree, or man
ner, or cause, but of encroaching in any
respect on its obligation, dispensing with
any part of its force"
Mr.. Justice Curtis, in delivering the
opinion of the court in Curran Us. the
State of Arkansas, Is How, 3l9, said: " 1t
BY no means follows, because law affects
only the remedy that it does not impair
the obligation of contract. The obliga-
ton of contract in the sense in which
these words are used in the Constitution
is that duty of performing it which is re-
cognzed and enforced by the laws; and if
the law is so changed that the means OF
legally enforcing this duty are materially
impaired, the obligations of the contract
| no longer remain the same" The same
principle was affirmed in Howard Us. Bug
bee. "a How, 46l ; and in Hawthorne Us.
Calef, 2 Wallace, p. 10. This last case was
decided as late as 1864.
The decisions by the Supreme Courts OF
several of the States are to the like effect.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina,
in 1861, in the case Of Barnes Us. Barnes,
held "That the plea, claiming for the de-
PENDANTS the benefit Of what is commonly
called the stay law, presents for our deci-
sion the question of the consttutionality 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 certain case1Hs Our
province is to give Judgment on tH0S S4ues-
| tion of the constitutional power Of the Le-
gislature to pass the statute. In the dis
charge of this duty We are relieved by the
fact that a question of such importance is
not now presented for the first time, so as
to put upon us the responsibility of making
decision on the strength of our own con-
victons; for we find that the line has
been plainly marked, in fact "blaZed out
by many previous adjudications, so that it
can be easily followed, and all we have to
do is to make an application of well-estab-
lished principles" "Our opinion is, that
| the statute under consideration, so far as
it opposes the rights of the plaintiff to a
| Judgment in the court below, or the motion
for Judgment in this court and execution,
is void and of no effect, because it is in
violation of the Constitution Of the United
States" &c.
In the State of Mississippi the doctrine
is thus stated in Briscoe Us. Anketell, 2S
Miss. Rep, 37l: " 1t is too well settled to
admit of question at the present day, that
it is within the power of the State Legis-
latures to regulate the remedy and modes
of proceeding in relation to past as well as
future contracts. This power is subject
only to the restriction that it cannot be
exercised so as to take away all remedy
upon the contract, or to impose upon its
enforcement new burdens and restrictions,
which materially impair the value and
benefit of the contract"
In Mather rs. Bush, l6, Johns. Rep,
233, Chief Justice Spencer, referring to the
distinction between an act of the Legisla-
ture operating directly on the contract and
one relating TO the remedy, said: AL
though we may not feel the full force OF
the distinction, it does not become us to
analyze the opinion lin Sturges Us. Crown
| ingshield) or TO reason upon it any further
than to observe that the remedy Is essen
tial in many cases to the contract; to mo-
dify, so as to Illustrate the contract or rem
der it less valuable, must have the indirect
effect to impair its obligation"
The same principle is affirmed in l
| nan;n I30 apd in "a Rar AT
In Lapley rs. Brashear, etc., Lift, "a,
il was held that: "In state Of civil go
vernment, contracts derive an additional
obligation-an obligation which arises from
the civil laws Of the Government, and
which, but for the Limitation contained in
the Constitution, might have been i'm.
paired and totally annihilated by the Legis-
iatures of the States. This obligation
operates through the medium of the sane
tion of the law, and consists emphatically
in those remedies which the law supplies,
and may be denominated the legal obliga-
ton of a contract" ST, therefore, the
legal obligation of contracts consist in the
legal remedy, an unlimited control over
the remedy is equivalent to an unlimited
control over the right for in the same pro-
position, as the legal obligation is dimn-
ished, suspended, or entirely destroyed by
relaxing, suspeDding, or abolishing the
legal remedy, so in the same proposition is
the legal right impaired or destroyed"
"Agreeable to our notion Of what consti.
tutes the obligation Of contracts, we &C.
knowledge that as respects remedies upon
preexisting contracts the Constitution O
the United States has prescribed limits tc
the power of the Legislatures Of the seve.
raj States"
This series of decisions by the Supreme