Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1903 edition. Excerpt: ...for the same reason. In Sturges vs. Crowninshield, the question related to a law discharging the contract. It was held that a State insolvent or bankrupt law was inoperative as to contracts which existed prior to its passage. In Ogden vs. Saunders, the question was as to the effect of such a law upon a subsequent contract. It was adjudged to be valid, and a discharge of the contract according to its provisions was held to be conclusive. A statute of frauds embracing a pre-existing parol contract, not before required to be in writing, would affect its validity. A statute declaring that the word ton should thereafter be held, in prior as well as subsequent contracts, to mean half or double the weight before prescribed, would affect its construction. A statute providing that a previous contract of indebtment may be extinguished by a process f bankruptcy would involve its 1 How. 297. a id. 6o8. 4 Wheat. 121. 12 Wheat. 213. discharge, and a statute forbidding the sale of any of the debtor's property, under a judgment upon such a contract, would relate to the remedy. It can not be doubted, either upon principle or authority, that each of such laws passed by a State would impair the obligation of the contract, and the last mentioned not less than the first. Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the means of enforcement. Without the remedy the contract may, indeed, in the sense of the law, be said not to exist, and its obligation to fall within the class of those moral and social duties which depend for their fulfilment wholly upon the will of the individual. The ideas of validity and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation, which is guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion. The obligation of a contract...
