, 1868-11-06
unregIstered conntr scrlp.

perIect, is lmpalring the OoigauOn OF the con>I
tract, and is repugnant to the provision Ia the
Constitution Of the United States, declaring that
NO state shall pass any law impairing the obli'
CATION Of contracts" The provisions Of the act
Of January 49, 1867, passed BY the Legislature of
this Territory, requiring all orders issued pre-,
vious to that time, on the County treasury, to be
presented to the Auditor for registration, on or
before the 1st of January 1868, or that the same
should be barred from payment and be void,
impose new conditions on the holders of these
orders, and are therefor repugnant to the Consti-
tuition of the United States, and hence invalid.
In 1866, certain orders were issued by the
Auditor of Walla Walla county, on the County
Treasurer, in favor of the plaintiffs, and for the
sum of 81, Alb OF, which were duly presented to
the Treasurer and not paid for the want of funds.
An act was passed and approved, January %,
1867, by the Legislature Of this Territory, requ.
ring all orders to be presented to the Auditor
for registration on or before the lst of January
1868, and providing in the Sd section thereof
that, " Any person failing to present to the Au-
ditor for registration, any piece of scrip, or order
upon the treasury of the county, from which it
has been issued within the time specified by this
act shall be forever barred from recovering or
receiving any payment upon such scrip or order
aud the same shall be actually void" The
plaintiffs failed to present the orders in contro,
versy for registration within the time limited by
the act, and the Treasurer refuses payment on
that ground, and so the plaintiffs right to main
tain this suit is dependent on the validity of the
legislative act of January %, 1867.
The 10th section of the Constitution of the
United States, among other limitations on the
powers of the States, declares, "No state shall
pass any law impairing the obligation of con-
tracts, ~ and the question now to be determined,
is, whether this legislative act is repugnant to
this clause of the Constitution Probably no
provision in that great instrument has been more
fruitful of litigation, or has received more vari-
Gus and exhaustive discussion, and the question
is much too large, and the field too extensive for
any thing more than mere LOOK down the track
of the judicial mind. The first case, it is believ.
ed, where this prohibtory clause was subjected
to direct discussion in the Supreme Court of the
United States, is the case of Fletcher VS.. Peck,
9Th Crauch, 81 followed by State of New Jer-
sey vs. Wilson, 7th Cranch, l64; Terrett vs. Tay-
lor, 9th Cranch, 43 ; Sturges vs.. Crowninshield,
4th Wheaton, 1872 Dartmouth College VS.. Wood
ward, 4th Wheaton, 5l8 Mcmillan vs. Mcneil,
4th Wheaton, 2O9 Green vs.. Biddle, 9Th Wheat
ton, l (; Ogden VS.. Saunders 18th Wheaton.
2l3, and among other elementary discussions
may be cited I'd Story, on the Constitution, 236
lst Kent, 463.
Without going into a detailed statement of the
principles established by these decisions, t5ey.
in substance, define the meaning aud scope of
the word contract; apply this prohibitory pro-
OtateS, "A
contracts between individuals, recognize a dis
tinction between the obligation of a contract and
the remedy on it, aud concede to the States the
right within certain limits, to regulate the rem
edy, but deny to them the right to impair the
obligation OF the contract, CHASING under the
remedy, statutes Of frauds and periuries of usurv
limitations, and some others not necessary 10
mention.
In Green vs.. BiddIe, Sth Wheaton, l, the court
declared that the objection to a law on the
ground Of its impairing the obligation of a con-
tract, could never depend upon the extent of the
change which, the law made in the contract
that any deviation from its terms by acceleratiue
or postponing the time of performance, or impo--
sing conditions not expressed in the contract or
dispensing WHh-conditions, expressed however
minute or apparently immaterial, impaiis its
obligation. Story declares /" the manner or de-
respect influence the conclusion; for whcthcr
the law affect the validity the construction, the
duration, the discharge or the evidence of the
contract, it impairs its Obligation though it
may not do so to the same extent in all the sups
posed cases.
This clause of the Constitution has received
numerous adjudications in the State courts, of
which only two will be here noticed, as they
present cases much like the one before the court
Ia the case of Varicks Executors vs.. Briggs,
p Wend., 543, the, court held " that it is not
competent to the Legislature to pass an act de
claring deed, which previous to the passage of
the act was a good and valid conveyance of
lands, fraudulent and void unless recorded pre-,
vious to the recording of a subsequent deed or
conveyance, obtained by bona fds purchase or
mortgage" In the case Of Robinson VS.. Magee
9th CAL, S4 the court held, " the power to
impose conditions after a contract is once per-
feet and complete, is power to impair its obli.
cations, and this the Constitution Of the United
States and of this State, have prohibited )" and
hence " the provisions of the act of April 27
1855, requiring all persons holding certain war.
rants upon the Treasurer of Calaveras county, to
present the same for registry before a certain
day, or be forever barred from enforcing the
payment thereof are therefor unconstitutional" :"
10 the light therefore, OF these authorities, is
the registry act of the Legislature valid When
these orders were issued to the plaintiffs they
had performed all the conditions required of
them to give them the right to be paid out OF
the treasury, so soon as funds should be received
applicable to their payment; but the act of Jan
uary %, 1867, imposed on tae holders of these
orders, other and new conditions and upon a
failure to perform these conditions, they should
be forever barred from receiving payment oil the
same, and the orders should be void Now in
the decisions of the Supreme Court, and partcu-
larly in the case of Green vs.. Biddle, it is held
no new conditions can be imposed, and it will
| be seen that the decided cases from New York
and California, are similar in principle with this
case, and in fact the case from 9th California, is
in all respects similar to the before the
court, the Legislature of that State having at
tempted to do precisely what was attempted by
the Legislature of this Territory. From these
authorizes and views, it follows that the act of
the Legislature, of January 2s, 1867 is repug-
/ nant to the Constitution of the United States
and so not valid, aud that therefore, the
right of the plaintiff to recover is in no wise af.
fected by said act.
1t has been urged upon the court, adverse TO
the conclusion here reached, that the act under
consideration is analogous to statutes of bank
ruptcy, of usury, and of limitations, which have
been held valid by the courts, but it is a suffi-
cient answer to this, to say the analogy is appa,
rent rather than real, and that an examination OF
the authorities here cited will show that the act
under consideration is not confined to the RENE.
| dy but reaches the obligation of the contract
aud may be permitted to add that the doctrine
of the righ: of States to withhold remedies, has
probably been carried quite far enough by the
Supreme Court, and it is not improbable that