The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1874-02-05
GUNN V. BARRY.


age of sixteen years, the land to include
the dwelling house, if the same and im'
provements do not exceed two hundred
dollars one farm horse or mule one COW
and calf; ten head of hogs; fifty dollars
worth of provision, and five dollars worth
for each additional child beds, bedding
and common bedsteads sufficient for the
family; one loom, one spinning-wheel
two pair of cards, and one hundred pounds
of lint cotton; a militia soldier and troop.
er's horse; ordinary cooking utensils and
table crockery; wearing apparel of himself
and family; family bible; religious works
and school books; family portraits; the
library of professional man shall not ex,
ceed three hundred dollars in value, to be
selected by himself"
While this act was in force, in the year
1866, Gum obtained a judgment against
Hart, who owned real estate to the amount
of fourteen hundred dollars, which was
bound by the judgment
In 1868 constitution was adopted
that contaised the following provision
which was subsequently enacted in the
form of statute:
each head of a family, OF guardian or
trustee of a family of minor children. shall
be entitled to homestead of realty to the
value of two thousand dollars in specie,
and personal property to the value of one
thousand dollars in specie, to be valued at
the time they are set apart"
"And no court or ministerial officer in
this State shall ever have jurisdiction or
authority to enforce any judgment, decree,
or execution against said property so set
apart, including such improvement as
may be made thereon from time to time,
except for taxes, money borrowed or ex-
pended in the Improvement Of the home
stead, or for the purchase money of the
same, and for labor done thereon, or ma
terial furnished therefor, or removal OF
membranes thereon"
The constitution as thus framed was
ratified by Congress in 1870.
Gum applied to Barry, who was the
proper officer. to make levy under his
Judgment aforesaid, the constitution and
statute above rected being in force, which
was refused aud the refusal held to be
right by the Supreme Court Of the State.
The only question was the validity Of
the provisions made since the judgment
as affecting Gums rights.
Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the opin-
ion of the court in substance as follows:
Section 10 of article l of the Constitu-
tion of the United States, declares that
''no State shall pass law impairing the
obligation of contracts"
If the remedy is part of the obliga-
tion of the contract, clearer sense of ;m.
pairment can hardly occur than is pre-
sented in the record before us The effect
! Of the act in question, under the circum.
stances of this judgment doe. not indecd
merely impair; it annihilates the remedy
| There is none left. e.
But the act reaches still further. II
withdraws the land from the lien Of
the judgment. and thus destroys a
vested right Of property which the credit
or had acquired in the pursuit Of the
remedy to which he was entitled by the
law as it stood when the judgment was
recovered. It's in effect taking one person
property and giving it to another without
compensation. This is contrary to reason
and justice, and to the fundamental prin.
ciplos Of the social compact. Cahir V.
Bull, 3 Dallas. 3S6. But we must con
fine ourselves to the constitutional aspect
of the case. A few further remarks will
be sufficient to dispose Of it. 1t involves
no question which has not been more than
once. fully considered by this court.
Georgia, since she came into the mo"
as one Of the original thirteen States, has
never been a State ont of the Union
Her constitutional rights were, for short
time, necessarily put in allegiance; but he'
constitutional disabilities and obligations
were in nowise affected by her rebellion
The same view is to be taken of the pro
vision in her organic law, and OF th'
statute in question, as if she had been II
full communion with her sister State
when she gave them being. Though he
constitution was sanctioned by Congress
this provision can in no sense be consider
ed an act of that body. The sanction wa
'only permissive as apart OF the process Q