The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-11-15
THE sUPREME coUnr IN SESSION.
A Decisio, " hich u Thought to Have =
Hearing on the ChIcnao Ink Front

WASHINGTON. Nov. 14.-The Supreme Court
met to-day. with n full attendance Justice
Lamar. entirely recovered from his slight in
disposition OF Saturday. was on tho bench
The court handed down n number OF opiriops.
hut none in the Chicago lake front case. A
decision rendered by Justice Shras in the
case OF Administrator Prouty agninst the Lake
shore and Michigan Southern ltnilroad Com
pany. an appeal from the Court OF Appeals of
the State ~ New York. was regarded by the
bar rs having n significant bearing upor tho
attitude OF tho court in the Chicago case
Tho question in this case arose upon n iudr.
ment obtained by prouty against the railroad
company, which judgment bore mt tho time Of
It's entry interest ut tho ratio OF seven per cent
Aiterward the ratio Of interest was changed by
tho Legislature of the state Of New York TO
Six per cent On the subsequent execution
tho Sheriff received money sufficient to pay
principal and interest at the rate OF seven per
cent. w to the time Of tho change ma TO In the
Inte OF interest 10y ho statute. and after that
time at tho rate Of sin rcr cent.
Tho owner Of the judgment objected TO this.
~ New York. cOntendinG that tho existing
s,a, u,e changing the rate Of interest provided
and further cGntcnding that his Judgment was
contract fnll"g within the constitutional
provision against imrnirinE tho validity OF
contracts; nlso hat II was properly within tho
moaning OF The Fourteenth amendment
JUSTICE Shiras said that ms the Court OF
appeals OF New York had held that this ludg:
m me S siS not iaI within the saving clause Of
iiCatory upon this court. He further held that
ne , aG. changing the rate of interest did not
Constitution. and that tho Judgment rendered
Tor seven per cont interest dill not constitute
properly within ho meaning of the Four
teenth amend mcnt. He therefore announced
that the Court sustained tho judgment of the
New York Court OF Appeals.
!ustlre Harlan in an elaborate opinion. dis
scented from the views Of III. majority Of the
interest from tho time it was rendered at tho
rate 81 seven pcr cent. so that the question for
the Court to determine was whether 1t was
So nnn for the Legislature of the state Of
after 1t was PASSED. With significant einphn-
sis Justice Harlan said: flights MAY he nc
Gulred by legislation which cannot be taken
away by subsequent enactment"
AS this is one Of the e. sential POINTS involved
IN the chicago case; which Judge Harlan HIM
Soil decided in the lower court. his reasoning
on this point was listened to with much ntten-
ton by the bar He said it seemed to him that
the law made 1t part of the contract upon
wnich tho Judgment was founded. whether
tnn' contract was expressed or implied .hat
Tor any breach OF it the plaintiff should DO
the, time allowed The statute in question
took away part Of that interest. and might
rs well, and constitutionnlly. in his opinion.
further held that, if the Judgment was not u
cnntract withn the meaning Of the cOnstitu-
tionnl prohibition agains In pairing contracts.
( was properly within tho meaning Of the
quoted with much force an opinion rendered
by the lato Justice Bradley in n Louisiana
case, Justice Harlan concluded by announce
ing that he had not had the opportunity of
Field and Brewer but that he was authorized
10 Say that they dissented from the judgment.