Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1892-11-17
me supaEn1 couar u SESSION.


wA.u,xsrox. Nov l6.-The supreme
court Is in session with fHil attendance
Justice Lamar. recovered from bis sigh,
in.lisposi,iou of SATURDAY, Was ON the bench.
The court handed dow n number of de-
c,sions hut none in the Chicago lake front
ease. A decision rendered by Justice
Shiras in the case of Administrator frouty
against the Lake Shore and Michigan
Southern Railroad Company. an appeal
from the conrt of appeals of the state Of
New York, was regarded BY the bar as hav-
ing a significant bearing upon the attitude
of the court in the Chicago case.
The question in this case arose upon \
Judgment obtained by Prouty against the
railroad company, which Judgment bore at
the time of its entry interest at the rate of
seven per cent Afterwari the rate of IN
terest was changed by the Legislature of
the state of New York to six per cent. On
The subsequent execution the sheriff re-
ceived money sufficient 10 pay principal
and interest at the rate of seven per een,
up to the time of the change made in the
rate Of interest by the statue and after thai
time ut the rate of six per cent.
| The owner of the judgment objected 10
this, and carried the case to the court OF
appeals in New York, contending that the
existing statute changing the rate of inter
est provided that it should not apply to ex-
listing contracts, and further eontending
that the Judgment was contract falling
within the constitutional provision against
impairing the validity of contracts; also that
! it was properly within the meaning of the
| 18th amendment
| Justice Shiras said that as the court OF
| appeals of New York had held thai this
| judgment did not fall within the saving
clause of the New York statute, that
| decision was obligatory upon this
| court. He further held that the
act changing the rate of interest did not
1 impair contracts within the meaning OF the
constitution, and that the judgment rem
dered for : per cent interest did not consti-
tnte property within the meaning of the
! Fourteenth amendment. lie therefore an
nounced that the court sustained the judg-
ment of the New York court of appeals.
Justice Harlan, in an elaborate opinion,
dissented from the views of the majority OF
the court He contended that the Judgment
bore interest from the time it was rendered
| ut the rate of per cent, SO that the ques-
ton for the court to determine was whether
it was competent for the Legislature of the
state of New York to reduce the interest oil
a Judgment after it was passed. With sig
nificant emphasis Justice Harlan said I:
Rights may be acquired by legislation
which cannot be taken away by subsequent
enactment"
As this is one of the essential points in
volved in the Chicago case, which Judge
Harlan himself decided in the lower court,
his reasoning on this point was listened to
with much attention by the bar. He said
it seemed TO him the law made il a part of
the contract upon which Judgment was
founded, whether that contract was ex-
pressed or implied that for any breach OF
! il the plaintiff should be entitled to such in
terest as the law in force at the time al
lowed. The statute in question took away
part of that interest, and might as we'll,
and constitutional,y, in his opiuion, have
, taken away all interest whatsoever.
| lie further held that if the Judgment was
not Il contract within the meaning of the
constitutional prohibition against impairing
contracts, it was properly within the mean
ing of the fourteenth amendment, and on
this point he quoted with much force an
opinion rendered by the late Judge Bradley
| in a Louisiana case. Justice Harlan con
cluded by announcing that he had not had
| the opportunity of submitting his opinion
to my brothers Field and Blsvcr," bn,
that he was authorized to say that they dis
sented from the Judgment.
l