The Fairfield herald. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1849-1876, 1873-05-07
law iupairing the obligation of con-


law impairing the obligation of con-
tracra."
If the remedy is part of the obli-
gntion Of tho coLt,'acr, clearer case
III llnpaIrn.eht can hardly occur than
IS presented in the record before us.
Tho cllect of tho act in question,
under the circumstances of this iudg-
ment, does not indeed NJ merely impair,
1t annihilates the romely. There is
none left. But the &c; reaches still
further. 1t withdraws the land from
the lien Of the Judgment, ard thus
destroy vested right Of property
which tho crnditor had acquired in
the pursuit Of .he remedy to which he
was entitled by tho law as it htool
when tho judgment was recovered.
1t is in effect taking ono person's
;; property and giving it to another
without compensation. This is con-
trary to reason and Justice, and to tho
fundamental princi p!o of tho social
CONF act. Calder vs. Bull, 8 DALI,
1888. But we must contino ourselves
to the constitutional aspect Of the
case. y fow further remarks will be
sufficient to ,lsprsp Of it.
1t involves no question which has
not been more than once fully CON-
sidorod by this court.
Georgia., sin'tr che came into the
lluion n one Of Ito original thirteen
States, has never boon a State out of
the Union. Her constitutional rigLts
were, for time, neccs, ariIy put In
nbcyance, but her constitutional dis:
abilities and obligations NoIo in no.
wise Affected by her rcbc lion. Tho
| same Wow is to 10 taken of the pro.
visions in her organic law and of the
statute IN question, as if size had
been in full communion with her
sister States when she gave them
being.
Though her constitution was sane
toned by Conglcss, this provision can
IN no sense te considered an act of
that body. The sanction was on
~ pcrmisSivc rs part of the proce So
other rehabitati. n, and involved no.
thing affirmative or negative beyond
that event. II it werc cypress and
uncquiyocal, the rcaull woul ii ho the
same. Congress caunct, by authori.
zltlon or ratification give the slight
est effect to state Law or constitution
in conflict with tho Constitution Of
the United States. That instrument It
Is above and beyond the power o.
Congress and the $tatc5, aud i. alike
y obligatory upon both.
A State can no moro impair n ex-
listing Contract by cons,itu-
titnAl provision, than by o legisln.
tive act; both are within tho
prohibition Of tho national Consti-
tuition.
The legal remedies for the enforce
mcnt of contract, which belong to
it at the time and place whcro it is
made, are part of i,s obligation. A
State may change them, provided the
change involve no impair tmcnt of O
substantial right.
lfthe provision of the constitution
or the Legislative act of State, fall
within tho category last mentioued d
they arc, to that oxtent utterly void.
They arc, for 81 shc ;nrp .4,s of the
contract which s;oJ i".patr, as f til, y
had never existed.
Tho constitutional provisions and
statute here in question, are c,earI ,
within that category, and a.e, there
fore, void.
The jurisdictional prohibition
which they contain with respect to
the courts Of the state, can therefore,
form no impcdinent of the plaintiff
in error in tho enforcement IF his
rights touching thiO Judgment, as
those rights recognized by this court.
Whlto vs. Hart, l3 Wall GIG Ven
Hoffman w. The City OF Quincy,
535..
Tho Judgment of the Supre nj, Q
Court of Georgia Is reversed, and tho
cause will be rcmanded to that court
OF Randolph county, and tho, eaftor t o
proceed in conformity to this
opinion.
D. W. MIDDLETON,
&. s. E. II. s.