The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-16

actionable by assignment is to hold that
the burden of an obligation can be in
creased by assignment beyond what was
intended to be assumed by the obligor,
for it is certain that the State did not
intend nor did those who took them I'M
derstand, that there should be other
sanction for their collection than tho
plighted faith of the State.
In Tolehurst V. Cement Manufacturers.
Q90D x. B. S11 Mr.. Justice Matthew
said: whenever by reason of change OF
business or change or parties, the result
of an assignment would be to impose upon
one of the contracting parties greater
liability than he ever intended to as
sumo, the contract cannot be assigned"
The case has been reversed but this
principle was approved. 1t cannot be said
that the burden of the obligation" is
not increased but only remedy given,
because, both practically and legally, the
remedy is a very essential part of the
obligation. If to take away a remedy is
to impair the obligation, why should not
giving a remedy where none existed be
an increase, more properly a creation of
the obligation?
That comforting the quality of stability
upon obligations not originally suable is
an increase of the burden is sustained
by the authority of Chief Justice Jay,
who, towards the end of his opinion in
Chrisholm's case, said: THAT such sua-
bilty may nevertheless not extend to all
demands, and to every kind of action;
there may be exceptions. For instance,
l am far from being prepared to say that
an individual may sue a State on bills
of credit issued before the constitution
was established, and which were Issued
and received on the faith OF the State and
at time when no idea or expectation OF
judicial interposition were entertained or
contemplated.
Again it seems to be settled that when
the sovereign comes into court volun-
tarily and invokes its aid it valves its
exemption and submits to the application
of the same principles by which justice
is administered between individuals
The only exceptions to this rule being
laches and the statutes of limitations.
Notwithstanding the fact that the gov
eminent, either State or National, is not
barred by the statute of limitations. this
court held in U. s. V. Buford, Peters u.
that claim, barred by the statute OF
limitations, in the hands of the assignor
and afterwards assigned to the United
States could not be sued on and the
court stated the law to be that 1.-The
signment of a claim to the government
gives it no greater validity than 1t pos
sessed in the hands of the assignor." To
the same effect is
L. S. V. n. c. & ST. L. r. Co., 118 U.
s. 1875
These authorities seem to us to be di-
rectly in point. A person holding an OBJ
| lgation of another which is barred by the
statute of limitations, has valid moral
claim against the person whose obligation
| he holds. but it is an imperfect obliga-
ton, that is there is no remedy for its
enforcement so. an individual holding an
obligation of a State has perhaps valid
moral claim against the State, but it is
one of imperfect obligation, because there
is no remedy to enforce it, The two
cases seem to be analogous with reference
to the remedy, and. If a remedy is not
given in the one case by assignment to
another State. we can see no reason why
it should be given in the otner.
| We respectfully ask that the Dill be
dismissed.