The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1869-10-01

not limited by any such restraints as I,
obligations Of this character; as arc i'm
posed by tho 10th Section of the first nr
'i'le of the Constitution of the United
States, upon States, whose relations TO ,h,
Unon have never been disturbed.
Judgment affirmed.
! McCAY, J. Coucurred in the iudomcn
but de(ers giving his reason till lie writes
out his opinion.
| WARNER, J. dissenting. disscn
from the judgment of the Cour. in thi.
case for the reasons stated in White vs.
Hart and Davis.
! A. Hood, E. N. Broy!es, for plaintiff it
error.
Herbert Fielder, for defendant in error
William White, Sr., P.ff. in error, vs.. Jno
IL. Hart, Principal, aud w. u. Davis
Security, Defendants in error. Action
on Note given for slave, from Chat.
tooga.
BROWN, G. J.
The judgment in the case Of Alfred
Shorter, vs., Jacob L. Cobb, is applicable
in this case. From the reason therein
given, Tie judgment of the Court below is
affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
McCAY concurred In the judgment, but
de'ers giving his reasons till lie writes out
his opinion.
WARNER j. dissenting.
At the time the contract y as made he
tween the contracting parties in this case
(to wi) on The 9th day Of February, 1859,
slaves were held, and recognized by the
laws OF this State as property, and cons,i-
luted leyol and raid consideration for
that contract, and the existing law of the
State at that time, imposed legal obIiea-
ton upon the maker Of the note to per
form that contract in accordance with its
terms and stipulalions. The 10th section
of the first article Of the Constitution of
tho United States declares, mo State shall
pass any law impairing the obligation Of
contracts The seventh paragraph of The
seventeenth section of the fifth article of
the Constitution Of this State declares,
That no Court, or officer shall have, no,
shall the General Assembly give ju,isdic-
ton, or auth ority 10 try, or give Judgment
on, or enforce any debt, the consideration
OF which, was slave or slaves, or the hire
thereof" The Constitution Of this State
IS the fundamental law thereof, still it Is a
fdw Of the State and when it destroys, or
'mpa'rs, the obligation Of past contracts,
valid by the existing laws Of the land pri-
or to its adoption, i: is as clearly within the
prohibition OF the Constitution of the
United States as any othor law of the
State. If 40 State can pass any law i'm
psiring the obligation of contracts. no
State can pass any law destroying the OBJ
legation Of contract. This clause of the
Constitution of this State not only impairs
but destroys the obligation OF the contract,
as the same existed under the laws of the
State at the time the contract was made.
by denying all remedy to one Of the con
tractIng parties for the enforcement of shat
obligation under the laws which existed.
and created that obligation at the time the
contract was made, and to that extent is a
palpatle violation of the Constitution OF
the United States and is therefore rul! and
void. The loss Of slave property by
emancipation, should fall sspon hilu who
was the owner OF that property, at the
time of the emancipation tbereof-unless
it shall ba held and decided, that slaves
were not property under the laws of this
State at the time the contract was made.
constituted no valuable consideration there
for in law, to support it. This portion Of
the Constitution being void, it does not
defeat, or take away The Jurisdiction of the
Superior Courts Tin all other civil cases.
as expressly conferred by the third sec,ion n
of the fifth article of the Constitution oil
1868.
W. Akin, E. N. Broyles, A. R. Wright
F. A. Kirby, for pl'fr. in error.
T. W. Alexander, Harvey d. Scott for
| defl's. in error.