Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1874-04-09
THE HOMESTEAD LAW.
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE STATE sUPR
COITRT

IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE STATE SUPREME
John G. Cochran, executor, appellant, .us.
Michael Darcy, respondent; Michael Dar'
cy, respondent, Us. John G. Cochran, appel.
liant. Supreme Court, November term,
1874. Opinion Moses, G. j.
These cases involve the judgment of this
court IN re Remedy-2 S. G. R., 216-and
seek to reverse it, under the authority of Gum
u.s. Barry decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States at December term, 1873
Is Wallace, 610.
1t is true, as submitted by the respondent,
that in Gum us. Barry the question directly
made was as to the effect of homestead ex-
emption on judgment obtained before its al
owance by the constitution and act of the
General Assembly of the State of Georgia,
still it is so apparent that, in the view of the
court, the retrospective operation of such pro-
vision against all previous contracts was void,
because in violation of the tenth section of
the first article of the constitution of tie
United States, which declares "that no State
shall pass any law impairing the obligation OF
contracts" that we feel bound to regard the
opinion as expressive of the views of the
court to the full extent to which the reasons
which it assigns may carry it.
A respect to the duty which we owe to the
highest tribunal Of the country, as we'll as to
ourselves, requires that we should not only
give to the decision all proper effect in the
case as presented by the facts, but that we
should accept the argument of the opinion as
it affects the general question involved in its
judgment.
We yield ready assent to what Mr.. JUS
tice Grier says in Cook Us. MotaH et aL, >
Howard, 3OS: "The Constitution of the Uni.
ted States is the supreme law of the land, and
binds every forum, whether it derives its au-
thority from State or from the United States.
When this court has declared State legislation
to be in conflict with the Constitution Of the
United States, and therefore void, the State
tribunals are bound to conform to such de-
csion"
The Constitution of Georgia declared that
each head of family should be allowed a
certain amount Of realty as we'll as PERSONAL
ty, and that no court or ministerial officer
should ever have jurisdiction or authority to
enforce any judgment, decree or execution
against such property except for taxes, and so
forth. The Legislature of the same State, in
October, 1868, passed can act to provide for
setting apart the homestead as required by the
constitution" In the cases before us, the ex-
ception was claimed under the constitution
and acts of the General Assembly of this
State, which, except as to the amount of home
stead allowed and the prohibition of jurisdic-
ton by the courts, were of the same character
as those provided by the constitution and laws
of Georgia. In the application of the princi-
piles which are to govern their enforcement,
as proposed by the two States no difference
can be found to exist. The emphatic Ian
guage of the opinion bears directly upon the
general powers of the State to withdraw from
a contract any substantial right which attach
ed to it at its inception, and must be viewed
and accepted as the expression Of the court
in regard to all homestead exceptions. 1t is
in these words:
"The legal remedies for the enforcement of
a contract, which belong to it at the time
and place where it was made, are part ofits
obligation. A State may change them, pro.
vided the change involve no impairment Of
substantial right If the provision of the
constitution or the legislative act of State
fall within the category last mentioned they
are to that extent utterly void. They are for
all the purposes of the contract which they
impair, as if they had never existed. The
constitutional provision and statute here in
question are clearly within that category and
are therefore void"
The contracts on which these actions are
founded were entered into before the adoption
of our constitution, and we can perceive in
them no element in regard to the homestead
law, which withdraws them from the princi-
Piles announced in Gunn Us. Barry.
The motions are granted and the cases re-
manded to the Circuit Court.
I certify that the foregoing and preceding
pages are correct copy of the original opin-
ion of the Supreme Court in the case of Oar.
cy Us. Cochran and Cochran rs. Darcy, filed
18th March, 1874.
Witness my hand and the seal of the Court,
at Columbia, this 18th March, 1874.
ALBERT NJ. BoozER,
Clerk of the Supreme Court.