The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1874-06-11
Important Decisions.

ing the rights of petitioners in bankruptcy and
waiver Of homestead. He sdeciaed that the
4 amended bankrupt law of 1873 was ulconstitu-
tional, Because not. uniform, as required by
| that clause of the Constitution of the United
States. authorizing the enactment Of a bank
fupt law. The ease in review was that OF He'll
~ Smith, d. X. Was1derlink, E. 4. Roberts d
Co, and George Selindel, against Daniel Deck
ert, bankrupt. After presenting the particular
claims OF the creditors, and the nature. OF the
several debts, the Chief Justice says:
By Article nj. Of the Constitution OF Virgin
! ia, adopted in 1869, it was provided that every
/ householder. or head of Il family should be en-
titled, in addition to the articles then exempt
from levy or distress for rent, to hold exempt
Il from levy and stlesunlereNecution, &e., issued
\ Oh any demand. for any debt heretofore OF
thereafter contracted, his real and personal
property. &c., to the value Of 50, 900, to De Sc
lected by him. Alfaetof the General Assem-
bly, OF Virginia. approved JIne ~, 'ISio gave
effect to this provision by prescribing in What
manner and upon what conditions such house
holder coull set apa.t an hold such eXemp-
ton.
Under the bankrupt law, as originally enact
ed, there was exempted from the assignment
OF property required to be made by the bank
rupt to his assignee, a.nongsother, such proper
ty as was exempt from levy and sale under eN-
eclltion by the laws of the State III which the
bankrupt had his doTnicil at the time OF the
commencement of the proceedings in bank
ruptcy, to an amount lsetieSeeeding that allow
led:by such State eNen1ptlen laws in force in
the year 1864.
BY an amend1torss act spasselson the sth
June, 1872, this proEisioffswas changed so as to
give the bankrupt the benefit Of exemptions
under laws in force in 1871. In 1872 the
Court of Appeals OF Virginia unanimously de-
cided % Graft. 266.e that the provision OF the
Constitution Just referred to, and the statute
giving effect to the same, so Tar as they applied
to contracts enteredinto, or debts contracted
before their adoption, were in violation OF the
Constitution of the United States. and there
fore void After this decision, on the 81 March,
1873, Congress passed another act in the fol-
lowing words
1ssBe 1T enacted, &C., That it was the true in-
tent and meaning of an act approved June s.,
1872, entitled. &C., that the exemptions allow
ed the bankrupt by the said amendatory act
sI,onld and it is hereby enacted that they shall
be the amount allowed by. the Constitution and
laws of each State respectively as existing in
the year 1871 and that such exemptions be
valid against debts contracted before the ado;j-
4 ton and passage suG.i State Constitution and
laws. as well as thosS contracted after the
same, and against liens By Judgment or decree
of any State court, Any decision OF any such
,
of such constitution and laws to the contrary
notwithstanding.
, THE FIRST QUESTION
which pres. mt itself forallr consideration is
whether the art. Of 1879 III SO far as it seeks,
in the admin. istration Of the bankrupt law, to
give an effect to the exemption laws OF State
different from that which is given by the State
itself, is Constitutional.
Congress has power to Establish uniform
laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout
the United States.' Constitution, art. /, see.
81 A bankrupt law therefore, to be constitu-
tional must be uniform. Whatever rules it
prescribes for one it must for all. It must be
uniform in IFS operations not only. within a
State, but within and among all the States. Il
it provides that property exempt from execu-
, ton shall BE- exempt from assignment in one
State, it mHst i'll all. lit specially sets apart
for thetlse OF the bankrupt certain property, OF
certain amounts of:propeTty in one State, with
out regard to exemption laws, it must do the
same in all. If it provides that certain kinds OF
property shall not be assets under the law il,
one place. it must make the same provision fol
every other place withiii which it is to have ef-
{ feet.
The power to except from. the operation Of
the law property liable to 'ex2ciltion Under the
exemption laws Of the several States, as they
: were actually enforcedywas at one time ques-
toned upon the ground that it was a violation
of the constitutional requirement OF rIniformi-
ty, but it has thus far been sustained, for the
reason that it is made rule Of the law, to sub
4 ject to the payment oft!ebts under its opera
ton, only. such property as could by judicial
process be made available for tliesamc purpose.
This is not unjust, as every debt is contracted
with reference to the rights of the parties
thereto under existing exemption laws, and no
creditor can reasonably complain if he gets
4 his full share Of all that the law, for the time
being. places at the disposal of creditors. One
IL to-.
eral execution issued in favor of all the credit
ors of the bankrupt, reaching all his property
subj ct to levy, and applying it to the payment
of all his debts accolylin9i to their respective
priorities. 1t is quite proper, therefore, to
confne its operation tossuch property as other
! legal process could reach. A rile Which Oper-
ates to this effect throughout the United States
is uniform within the meaning of that term, as
used in the Constitution.
The act of 1873 goes further. and excerpts
from the operation OF the assignment not only
such property as was actually exempted by
virtue Of the exemption laws, bit more. 1t
does, not provide that the exemption laws as
they exist, shall be operative and have effect
under the bankrupt law. bat that in each State
tie property SPIRITED in such laws, whether
actually exempted by virtue thereof or not
shall be excepted. 1t in effect declares by its
own enactment, without regard to the laws of
the States, that there shall be one amount or
/, ! description OF exemption IN Virginia ana an
other in Pennsylvania In this we think
1T IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
and therefore void. 1t changes existing rights
, between the debtor and the creditor. Such
changes, to be warranted by the Constitution.
must be uniform ia their operation. This is
: not. The consequence is that the act of 1872
: remains unchanged, Notwithstanding it's at
tempted amendment i'll 1873.
The act OF 1872 gives effect to the exemption
laws of Virginia as they existed in 1871. The
particular law u,l1er Which the bankrupt in
this case claims his exemption was passed in
1869; it does not apply to contracts made or
debts incurred previous to the time the new
Constitution went into effect. That certainly
was not before July g.. 1869, and the debts due
to Smith, WanderlHlk, and Schnde were all
incurred previous to tllat date. Plat of Smith
dates from the time the note was given upon
which his jadgsleirt5 was rendered, that of
. Schindel from the making Of the contract ont
Of which the indebtedness arose, and. that of
Wanderlink from the; time OF the execution of
the note which he holds. As against these
creditors the bankrupt is not entitled to the
benefit of the exemption.
8. The claim of Roberts e. Co. requires us to
determine at What time the Constitution, as
far as it relates to the provision in question,
took effect. 1t is claimed by the bankrupt
that this was on the 9th July, 1869. when the
Constitution was ratified by the people, aud by
the creditors that it was postponed until the
10Th of January, 1870, when the act was ap-
+ proved admitting the state to representation