Western sentinel. [volume] (Winston [i.e. Winston-Salem], N.C.) 1856-1886, 1878-05-09

/
tiop. that something specified shall
DE done, or shall not be done.
phe leEical definition Of lnzDai,
is "to make worse, to diminish in
qnan'ity, value, leuce or
strength F.; to lessen in power to
weaken ; to enfeehle to deterior
ate -Websters Dictionary.
Obligation is defined to be "the
act of obligiug or biniing. that
which obligares; the binding power
of a vow, promise, oath, or con.
tract" &c.-1dem
"The word is derived from the
Latin word obLigttio. tring up;and
that from the verb obIigo. to bind
or tie up: to engage by the ties of
a promise or oath or form OF law
and obLigo is compounded of the
verb ligo, 10 tie or bind fast, and
the proposition OBJ. which is pre-
! fixed to Increase its meaning
Blair VS.. Williams and Lapsley VS..
Brashears. 4 Littel, IS.
The obligation of a contract in
cludes everything within its oblig.
atory scope. Among these ele
ments nothing Is more important
than the means of enforcement.
This is The bfeath Of its vital exis-
tence. Withour it the cnDtract, as
such, in the view Of tue law, ceases
to be and falls il to the class of
those imperfect obligations. as
they are tern ed, which depend for
their fnlfillnent upon tie will and
conscience of those upon whom
they rest. The ideas of right and
remedy are inseparabIe "W ant
of right and want OF remedy are
the same thing. II BAG, Abr, tit.
Actions in General, letter B.
10 Vrn Hoffman VS.. Qaincy, 4
Wall. $50, it was said "a statute
of frauds embracing PIE existing
parol contracts not before required
to be in writing wouid affect It's
validity. A statute declaring that
the word ton should, in prior as
well as subsequent contracts, be
held tn mean half or double the
weigh. before pr escribed, would af-
feet It's construction. A statute
providing that previous contract
Of lndebtmen' may he extinguished
by d process Of bankruptcy, would
involve lis discharge, aud a statnte
forbldding he sale of any of the
debtors property under a judg
ment upon such contract, would
relate to the remedy"
1t cannot be doubted, either
upon plInciple or authority, that
each of such laws would violate the
obligation of the contract, and the
last not less than the first. These
propositions seem to us too clear
to require discussion 1t is also
the settled doctrine of this court
that The laws which subsist at the
time and place of making a con-
t'act enter into and form part of
1T as 1t they were expressly referred
to or incorpofa ed III It's terms.
This rule embraces alike those
which affect its validity, construc-
ti"n, discharge, and entorcement.-
Von Hoffman vs. Qnincy, supra;
McC'aken VS.. Hay ward, 2 How,
6l2.
In Greene vs.. Blddle, s Wheat,
92 this court said, touching the
point here under consideration
ST is 40 answer that the acts OF
Kentucky now in question are reg
uiations Of the renaedy aud not OF
the 1aght to the lands. Ii these acts
81 change the nature and erte7at OF
e;ciSti1ag remedies rs Daate,idlty to
impair the rights and interests OF
the owner, they are just as much a
violation of the compact as if they
oOerturned his rights and interests.
''One of the tests that contract
has been impaired is that ats Udtut
has by legislation been diminished
1t is not by the constitution to be
impaired at all, This is not 8
question of degree or manner OF
cause, bnt If encroaching in any
respect on its obligation-dispen
ting with nuy part of It's force. =
Planters Blk. VS.. Sharp ct al,
How, 327.
1t is 10 be understood that TIE
encroachment thus denounced mus
be material. If it be not materia
it will be regarded AS of no account
These rules are axioms IN the
Jurisprudence of this court. We
think hey rest on solid foun
dation. Do they not cover this
case =? and are they not decisive o
the question before us?
We will, however, further exam
inc the subject.
It is the established law of Nortl
Carolina that stay laws are void
because they are in conflict will
the national Constitution. Jacob
VS.. Smsllwood. 63 n. @. R., ll2
Jones W.. Csittenden, l Car. Law
1856 Barnes VS.. Barnes, s jones
500. This ruling is clearly COZ
rect. Such laws change a term Q
the contract by postponing the i'm
Of payment. This impairs its obi
gation by making it less vaIuabl