Court Opinion

ID: 9299388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-12-02 17:05:58.24258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:13:37.554027
License: Public Domain

GRIER, Circuit Justice.
[The demurrer to the bill in this case has been entered for the purpose of having a final hearing and judgment of the court on the validity of the act of the legislature of New Jersey, authorizing the receiver to sell the premises in question free and discharged from the lien and estate of the mortgagees.
[It is contended that this legislation is forbidden both by the constitution of the state and that of the United States.] 3
*905Previous to the 29th of June, 1844, the state of New Jersey was governed by the old colonial constitution, adopted on the 2d of July, 1776. This contained no bill of rights nor any clear limitation of the powers of the legislature. The history of New Jersey legislation exhibits a long list of private acts and anomalous legislation on the affairs of individuals, assuming control over wills, deeds, partitions, trusts and other subjects usually coming under the jurisdiction of courts of law or equity. Consequently the decisions of the courts of New Jersey on questions arising under the old constitution, cannot be cited as precedents applicable to the present one, which carefully defines and limits the powers entrusted to the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It is very desirable that the constitution of a state should be construed by its own tribunals, and we regret that the researches of counsel have not furnished us with such precedents. The case of Potts v. Trenton Water Power Co., 1 Stockt. [9 N. J. Eq.] 592, has reference to an act passed before the adoption of the present constitution. That act was declared by the court “not to impair the obligation of any contract, and to be remedial only.” The first mortgagees gave their assent to the sales made under it, and others could not object to it as made without their authority. In this important respect it differs from the present case, and cannot be relied on as a precedent.
The validity of this act has been challenged on several grounds. If found invalid on any one, we need not examine the others. The constitution of New Jersey has not only carefully limited the powers of the legislature, and separated them from those of the judiciary, but it adopts the prohibitions of the constitution of the United States against “ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts,” and with this addition, “or depriving a party of any remedy for enforcing a contract which existed when the contract was made.” It is not contended that this act comes under the category of an “ex post facto law;” and if it be merely remedial in its character, as defendants contend, there can be no valid objection to it under this head of the constitution.
Does it impair the obligation of the contract between the mortgagees and mortgagors, or deprive the mortgagees of any remedy which existed when the contract was made? The act and supplement must be construed together as forming one act. It is entitled, “An act to relieve the creditors and stockholders of the Somerville Water Power Company,” &c. It sets forth, in its preamble, certain representations, made no doubt by those who procured the act, showing plausible reasons for such legislative interference, but the validity of the act must be judged from its actual operation on the rights of parties subjected to it, and not by the pretences put forth by the preamble. This may show that the legislature acted in good faith, and believing that their interference would wrong no one, but not that such was the actual result Legislatures cannot be too cautious, when asked to interfere with special legislation for particular persons or particular cases, on ex parte representations. They cannot call all parties before them and judge upon a full hearing; this is for the courts. Their action may not always be unjust, but it may be and often is tyrannical and injurious.
Let us inquire what is the contract, and how is it affected by this act? The mortgagees of this property hold the legal title in trust for the several bondholders, who may properly be treated as the real mortgagees. They may be said in common parlance, to have a “lien” or “security” on the property mortgaged, but they have it by force of their legal title to the property. It is an estate in fee simple, defeasible only by the payment of the debt When the condition of the obligation is broken, the mortgagees may enter on the premises and recover the rents, issues and profits thereof, till their debt is satisfied. If they see fit, they may appoint an agent or attorney, who may enter on the lands under their direction, and make sale of the same in satisfaction of the debt. This disposal of the mortgaged premises is to be made according to the discretion and judgment of the mortgagees, and not of another. No subsequent en-cumbrancer or assignee of the equity of redemption can divest their estate contrary to their will, unless by a tender of the debt due. They cannot be compelled, to suit the convenience of others, to put up the property to sale at a time or in a manner which might lessen or injure their security. Now by this contract the estate of the mortgagees is de-feasible only by payment of the debt. But' this act permits the receiver to dispose of their estate, and does not provide that the debt shall be first fully paid. It permits the receiver to sell for any sum, whether it be sufficient for such purpose or not. And the receiver has made a contract of sale for a sum insufficient by many thousands of dollars. This is making a new contract for the parties and impairing the obligation of the mortgage. It may be truly said, “ ’tis not so written in the bond,” The mortgagees may dispose of their security for less than the amount of their debt, but no other person can.
2. The obligation of this contract is moreover impaired by this act, in that it gives a precedence to certain indefinite costs and charges (not costs of the sale merely) to be paid out of the proceeds of the property before the mortgage debt. This is in direct contravention of the contract by which the estate was conveyed to the mortgagees free from all charges and encumbrances.
3. The mortgagees had, by their contract, a remedy to be used at their own option and discretion as to time and mode of sale, and by law they had the remedy of entry on the premises and receiving the rents and profits. *906This act deprives them of both, contrary to the letter of the constitution of New Jersey, without invoking the aid of the cases of Bronson v. McHenry, 1 How. [42 U. S.] 311, and McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. [43 U. S.) 611.
[See 9 Barb. 48.]
[The plaintiff is entitled to a decree making the injunction perpetual, but the defendants have leave to answer as to the other charges of the bill.] 4
We have not thought it necessary to review the very numerous cases on this subject, or to attempt any metaphysical definition of what constitutes the “obligation of a contract;” as it is clear that any legislation which defeats the estate of the mortgagee, without payment or tender of the whole debt due on the bonds, which gives a preference to posterior liens,' and which deprives the mortgagee of his remedy given by the covenants of his contract, as also that given by the law of the land, “impairs its obligation,” and is contrary to the letter and spirit of the constitution of New Jersey. This act may be remedial as to the owners of the equity of redemption and those having liens against it, but the mortgagees have a right to say “non in hoec foedera veni” — we have never agreed to have our estate defeated to suit the convenience of others.

 [From 5 Am. Law Reg. 400.]