The southern enterprise. [volume] (Greenville, S.C.) 1854-1870, 1869-08-11

ui"AVaoouSS III OlACe, duu Oh COD-
yiction, shall be fined not less than
$500 and not more than 81, 900;
and for the second offence shall be
dismissed from Office,
The Constitution and these Acts
prescribe so clearly the duty of
public officers in making. sales un.
der process from any Court, it
would seem to be hardly necessary
i'll decree to direct the officer or
dered to sell to set off and assign
a homestead to the head Of q fam
lily, as failure to do 80 would be
at his peril, without an order.
But as the question is raised in
the pleadings, in the report of the
special referees in this case and in
the argument of counsel as to de-
fendant's right to, have the family.
homestead set of and assigned, L
will state my views on the ques-
ton. -ar.- ..a. .ar1,-rz' 81. o.
It is objected TO the Constitution
of the State and the Acts Of Assem-
bly, securing homestead as to an
tecedent debts, liens and judg.
ments, that they are a violation of
that clause in the Constitution of
the United States which prohibits
any State from passing "any law
impairing the obligation Of con
tracts."n .......-........ ....... .....
Is not the objection met by
numerous authorities i'm the Courts
of sister States, and by eminent
legal writers, recognizing the right
o: State Legislatures to pass laws
exempting property of q debtor
from levy or sale even for antece-
dent debts, and is not the principle
recognized in various decisions of
the Supreme Court of the United
Statesa .'ss' " o. .. .... .
In Morse vs. Gould, 1 Herman
IN. Y 2S1, Judge DEMO, deliver
ing the opinion of the Appeal
Court, said: "I regard the Act of
1S42 Extending the exemption
law of that State to a team and
additional household effects) as a
provision clearly within the com
potency of the Legislature, and one
which they might lawfully apply
to all future proceedings in Courts,
whether such proceedings shall re.
late to existing or future causes Of
action" In this case a Judgment
and execution had been obtained
in an inferior Court before the ex-
emption law was passed, and the
Court held that the exemption was
valid even as against such judg
ment. The abstract of J d q e
Denios opinion is: "First. The
Act exempting certain property
from levy or sale on execution IN.
Y. Statutes, 1S42-193) applies to
| judgments and executions on debts
contracted before as well as after
it's passage. Second. This Act
merely modifies the remedy for
enforcing contracts, and neither
destroys it nor substantially inn
pairs it's efficiency. Therefore, it
does not conflict with the provi-
sions Of the Constitution of the
United States forbidding any State
to pass law impairing the obli-
cation Of contracts, and ID valid"
In Bigelow Us. Pritchard, Judge
Putnam, delivering the opinion of
the Supreme Court Of Massachu.
sets, said "that the Legislature
might lawfully diminish the cred
itor's remedy to enforce payment
by exempting a part Of tho prop
eTty of the debtor from attachment
or nsesne process, Or levy or exc
cution."
In Rockwell Us. Hubbell, Q Doug
lass 1917, in the Supreme Court Of
Michigan, it is held "that proper.
ty may be exempted from execu-
ton for debts contracted 6efore the
LGao of exemption soas enacted"
The Supreme Court Of Georgia,
in a recent case, has decided that
the exemption of a homestead OF
the value of two thousand dollars,
authorized by the Constitution of
that State. from levy or sale even
for antecedent debts, liens and
judgments, is valid, and does not
impair the obligation of contracts.
The same point has been ruled, or
the same principle involved, has
been decided, in other States of the
Union. .a raa -. .
In 8 Parsons on Contracts, $50,
the learned author, after review.
ing many of the cases decided in
| different States. saws: " At the