Court Opinion

ID: 9416948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:58:57.84352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:34.328567
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice STRONG:
I concur in the judgment given in this case, but not in all the positions taken in the opinion of the majority of the court. I cannot regard the eleventh section of the act of the General Assembly of South Carolina, passed December 21st, 1865, as amounting either to an assignment or a declaration of trust of the property of the bank in favor of the holders of the Pire Loan bonds. In my opinion it effected no transfer, either legal or equitable, and vested no interest in the creditors. Hence the repeal of the act by the legislature, in 1868, was no disturbance of any vested rights, and it is not obnoxious to the objection that it impaired the obligation of any contract. Por this reason, and for this reason alone, I think the judgment should be affirmed.
Justices MILLER and DAVIS expressed their concurrence in what was said by Mr. Justice Strong.