The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-03-16
LOCAL MATTERS.
War Interest.

TIE ACT OF ASSEMBLY RENTING INTEREST
DURING WAR DECLARED UNco CONSTITUTIONAL
OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.
In the Supreme Court OF Appeals yester-
day-Jutlgcs Moncure, Christian, and Burks
sitfing-Judge Burks delivered the opinion
in the cases OF Roberts's administrator Us.
Cooke, &C., and Murphy Us. Gaskins's ad-
ministrator the Supreme Court Of Ap-
peals Of Virginia. -
The following is summary Of the opin-
ion of the Court 49,.
These cases came before the court upon
writs OF sapersedeas to judgments OF the
Circuit Court of Fauquier county, and in
yolyed the constitutionality Of the act OF
the Legislature Of April 2, 1873, allowing
courts and juries to abate (" war interest -
on debts contracted prior TO the 10th day OF
April, 1855. ~ ,5& s.A
The Court held that the act was In con-
flict with the Constitution OF the State and
with the Constitution OF the United States,
SO far as it conferred upon the courts and
iuries power over interest on contracts
which they did not have under the laws II,
force when such contracts were entered
into; that the laws in force at the time and
place when and where contracts are mace,
or to be performed, enter into and form
part OF such contracts, and that such laws
cannot be changed by the Legislature so as
| 10 impair the obligation OF the contracts
that il was always lawful in Virginia fol
parties to contract for the payment OF in.
terest at rates within the limits fixed by
statute; that such contracts might be i'm.
piled; that in obligations to pay certain
sum OF money on demand, or on a giver
day, interest is legal incident OF the
debt, and is founded on the presumed in
tention of the parties; that it never was the
law in Virginia that courts and iuries hac
arbitrary power to remit or release Interest
which parties had agreed to pay; that tht
act of April 2, 1878, which undertook ts
confer such power in relation to past trans
actions, was so far void; that the late wal
between the United States and the Confede
rate States did not operate proprio rigore t.
arogate debts, nor to stop the running O.
interest on debts except as between alier
enemies, and its existence was not per s.
legal cause for abatement Of interest for thu
time the war lasted; but that there nigh
be special cases attended with circum
stances connected with Or growing out O
the war which would furnish legal cause fol
abatement OF interest. Such cases, how
ever, when they arise, must be decided &C
cording to the law applicableto the peculiaI
facts and circumstances Of each case.
| In one of the cases decided the court be-
| low had remitted four years. interest in
pending suit on bond which carried inter
est on its face. In the other case the same
court had, on motion OF the defendant
abated interest for the same period on
judqnent rendered before the passage Of tht
act in q suit in which the defendant had ap
peared and made defence to the action. NJ
evidence was offered in the court below il
and and. circumstances re- ms emitting the parties te
the abatement claimed The claim to abate
ment was based solely on the act OF th'
Legislature allowing it, and the judgments
had no other foundation. ~.
II, The Court of Appeals reversed both iudg
ments. 80. r-.-, ,-..<.r~-....... ... .....