must reside in every State to enable it to secure its citizens from unjust and harassing litigation, and to protect them in those pursuits which are necessary to the existence and well-being of every community."1

2

And laws which change the rules of evidence relate to the remedy only; and while, as we have elsewhere shown, such laws may, on general principles, be applied to existing causes of action, so, too, it is plain that they are not precluded from such application by the constitutional clause we are considering. And it has been held that the legislature may even take away a common-law remedy altogether, without substituting any in its place, if another and efficient remedy remains. Thus, a law abolishing distress for rent has been sustained as applicable to leases in force at its passage; and it was also held that an express stipulation in the lease, that the lessor should have this remedy, would not prevent the legislature from abolishing it, because this was a subject concerning which it was not competent for the parties to contract in such manner as to bind the hands of the State. In the language of the court: "If this is a subject on which parties can contract, and if their contracts when made become by virtue of the Constitution of the United States superior to the power of the legislature, then it follows that whatever at any time exists as part of the machinery for the administration of justice may be perpetuated, if parties choose so to agree. That this can scarcely have been within the contemplation of the makers of the Constitution, and that if it prevail as law it will give rise to grave inconveniences, is quite obvious. Every such stipulation is in its own nature conditional upon the lawful continuance of the process. The State is no party to

1 Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311, per Taney, Ch. J.; Rockwell v. Hubbell's Adm's, 2 Doug. (Mich.) 197; Quackenbush v. Danks, 1 Denio, 128, 3 Denio, 594, and 1 N. Y. 129; Morse v. Goold, 11 N. Y. 281; Sprecker v. Wakeley, 11 Wis. 432. "Statutes pertaining to the remedy are merely such as relate to the course and form of proceedings, but do not affect the substance of a judgment when pronounced." Per Merrick, Ch. J., in Morton v. Valentine, 15 La. An.

153.

2 Neass v. Mercer, 15 Barb. 318. On this subject see the discussions in the Federal courts; Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311; McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How.

608.

3 Van Renselaer v. Snyder, 9 Barb. 302, and 13 N. Y. 299; Guild v. Rogers, 8 Barb. 502; Conkey v. Hart, 14 N. Y. 22.

their contract. It is bound to afford adequate process for the enforcement of rights; but it has not tied its own hands as to the modes by which it will administer justice. Those from necessity belong to the supreme power to prescribe; and their continuance is not the subject of contract between private parties. In truth, it is not at all probable that the parties made their agreement with reference to the possible abolition of distress for rent. The first clause of this special provision is, that the lessor may distrain, sue, re-enter, or resort to any other legal remedy, and the second. is, that in cases of distress the lessee waives the exemption of certain property from the process, which by law was exempted. This waiver of exemption was undoubtedly the substantial thing which the parties had in view; but yet perhaps their language cannot be confined to this object, and it may therefore be proper to consider the contract as if it had been their clear purpose to preserve their legal remedy, even if the legislature should think fit to abolish it. In that aspect of it the contract was a subject over which they had no control." 1

But a law which deprives a party of all legal remedy must necessarily be void. "If the legislature of the State were to undertake to make a law preventing the legal remedy upon a contract lawfully made, and binding on the party to it, there is no question that such legislature would, by such act, exceed its legitimate powers. Such an act must necessarily impair the obligation of the contract within the meaning of the Constitution." 2 And a law which takes from certain classes of persons the right to maintain suits, because of having participated in rebellion against the government, is void on the same ground. And where a statute does not leave a party a substantial remedy according to the course of justice as it existed at the time the contract was made, but shows upon its face an intention to clog, hamper, or embarrass the proceedings to enforce the remedy, so as to destroy it entirely, and thus impair the contract so far as it is in the

Conkey v. Hart, 14 N. Y. 30; citing Handy v. Chatfield, 23 Wend. 35; Mason v. Haile, 12 Wheat. 370; Stocking v. Hunt, 3 Denio, 274; and Van Rensselaer v. Snyder, 13 N. Y. 299.

* Call v. Hagger, 8 Mass. 430. See Griffin v. Wilcox, 21 Ind. 370.

Rison v. Farr, 24 Ark. 161; McFarland v. Butler, 8 Minn. 116; Jackson v. Same, Ibid. 117.

19

power of the legislature to do it, such statute cannot be regarded as a regulation of the remedy, and is void.1

And where a statute dividing a town and incorporating a new one enacted that the new town should pay its proportion towards the support of paupers then constituting a charge against the old town, it was held that a subsequent statute exonerating the new town from this liability was void as impairing the contract created by the first-mentioned statute.2. And in any case the lawful repeal of a statute cannot constitutionally be made to destroy contracts which have been entered into under it.3

So where, by its terms, a contract provides for the payment of money by one party to another, and, by the law then in force, property would be liable to be seized, and sold on execution to the highest bidder, to satisfy any judgment recovered on such contract, a subsequent law, forbidding property from being sold on execution for less than two thirds the valuation made by appraisers, pursuant to the directions contained in the law, though professing to act only on the remedy, amounts to a denial or obstruction of the rights accruing by the contract, and is directly obnoxious to the prohibition of the Constitution. So a law which takes away from mortgagees the right to possession under their mortgages until after foreclosure is void, because depriving them of the right to the rents and profits, which was a valuable portion of the right secured by the contract. "By this act the mortgagee is required to incur the additional expense of foreclosure, before obtaining possession, and is deprived of the right to add to his security, by the perception of the rents and profits of the premises, during the time required to accomplish this and the time of redemption, and during that time the rents and profits are given to another, who may or may not appropriate them to the payment of the debt, as he chooses, and the mortgagee in the

1 Oatman v. Bond, 15 Wis. 28.

2 Bowdoinham v. Richmond, 6 Greenl. 12.

3 Tuolumne Redemption Co. v. Sedgwick, 15 Cal. 515; McCauley v. Brooks, 16 Cal. 11; Commonwealth v. New Bedford Bridge, 2 Gray, 339; State v. Phalen, 3 Harr. 441; State v. Hawthorn, 9 Mo. 389.

McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. 608; Willard v. Longstreet, 2 Doug. Mich. 172; Rawley v. Hooker, 21 Ind. 144. So a law which, as to existing mortgages foreclosable by sale, prohibits the sale for less than half the appraised value of the land, is void for the same reason. Gantley's Lessee v. Ewing, 3 How. 707; Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311.

mean time is subjected to the risk, often considerable, of the depreciation in the value of the security."1 So a law which extends the time for the redemption of lands sold on execution, or for delinquent taxes, after the sales have been made; for in such a case the contract with the purchaser, and for which he has paid his money, is, that he shall have title at the time then provided by the law; and to extend the time for redemption is to alter the substance of the contract, as much as would be the extension of the time for payment of a promissory note.2 So a law which shortens the time for redemption from a mortgage, after a foreclosure sale has taken place, is void; the rights of the party being fixed by the foreclosure and the law then in force, and the mortgagor being entitled, under the law, to possession of the land until the time of redemption expires. And where by statute a purchaser of lands from the State had the right, upon the forfeiture of his contract of purchase for the non-payment of the sum due upon it, to revive it at any time before a public sale of the lands, by the payment of all sums due upon the contract, with a penalty of five per cent, it was held that this right could not be taken away by a subsequent change in the law which subjected the forfeited lands to private entry and sale.1 And a statute which

1 Mundy v. Monroe, 1 Mich. 76; Blackwood v. Vanvleet, 11 Mich. 252. Compare Dikeman v. Dikeman, 11 Paige, 484, and James v. Stull, 9 Barb. 482. In the last case it was held that a statute shortening the notice to be given on foreclosure of a mortgage under the power of sale, from twenty-four to twelve weeks, was valid as affecting the remedy only; and that a stipulation in a mortgage that on default being made in payment the mortgagee might sell "according to law," meant according to the law as it should be when sale was made.

• Robinson v. Howe, 13 Wis. 341; Dikeman v. Dikeman, 11 Paige, 484; Goenen v. Schroeder, 8 Minn. 387. But see Stone v. Basset, 4 Minn. 298; Heyward v. Judd, Ibid. 483; Freeborn v. Pettibone, 5 Minn. 277.

3

Cagill v. Power, 1 Mich. 369. The contrary ruling was made in Butler v. Palmer, 1 Hill, 324, by analogy to the statute of limitations. The statute, it was said, was no more in effect than saying: "Unless you redeem within the shorter time prescribed, you shall have no action for a recovery of the land, nor shall your defence against an action be allowed, provided you get possession." And in Robinson v. Howe, 13 Wis. 346, the court, speaking of a similar right in a party, say: "So far as his right of redemption was concerned, it was not derived from any contract, but was given by the law only; and the time within which he might exercise it might be shortened by the legislature, provided a reasonable time was left in which to exercise it, without impairing the obligation of any contract." And see Smith v. Packard, 12 Wis. 371, to the same effect.

* State v. Commissioners of School and University Lands, 4 Wis. 414.

authorizes stay of execution, for an unreasonable or indefinite period, on judgments rendered on pre-existing contracts, is void, as postponing payment, and taking away all remedy during the continuance of the stay. And a law is void on this ground which declares a forfeiture of the charter of a corporation for that which was no cause of forfeiture before.2 And it has been held that where a statute authorized a municipal corporation to issue bonds, and to exercise the power of local taxation in order to pay them, and persons bought and paid value for bonds issued accordingly, the power of taxation thus given is a contract which cannot be withdrawn until the bonds are satisfied; and that an attempt to repeal or restrict it by statute is void, and unless the corporation imposes and collects the tax in all respects as if the subsequent statute had not been passed, it will be compelled to do so by mandamus. And it has also been held that a statute repealing a former statute, which made the stock of stockholders in a corpo- . ration liable for its debts, was, in respect to creditors existing at the time of the repeal, a law impairing the obligation of contracts.4 In each of these cases it is evident that substantial rights

1 Chadwick v. Moore, 8 W. & S. 49; Bunn v. Gorgas, 41 Penn. St. 441; Stevens v. Andrews, 31 Mo. 205; Hasbrouck v. Shipman, 16 Wis. 296. In Breitenbach v. Bush, 44 Penn. St. 313, and Coxe v. Martin, Ibid. 322, it was held that an act staying all civil process against volunteers who had enlisted in the national service for three years or during the war was valid, – during the war" being construed to mean unless the war should sooner terminate. See also State v. Carew, 13 Rich. 498. A general law that all suits pending should be continued until peace between the Confederate States and the United States, was held void in Burt v. Williams, 24 Ark. 94. But see McCormick v. Rusch, 15 Iowa, 127. So was a law staying all proceedings against volunteers who had enlisted " 'during the war," this period being indefinite. Clark v. Martin, 3 Grant's Cas. 393. Johnson v. Higgins, 3 Met. (Ky.) 566, it was held that the act of the Kentucky legislature of May 24, 1861, which forbade the rendition, in all the courts of the State, of any judgment from date till January 1st, 1862, was valid. It related, it was said, not to the remedy for enforcing a contract, but to the courts which administer the remedy; and those courts, in a legal sense, constitute no part of the remedy. A law exempting soldiers from civil process until thirty days after their discharge from military service was held valid as to all contracts subsequently entered into, in Bruns v. Crawford, 34 Mo. 330.

In

2 People v. Jackson & Michigan Plank Road Co., 9 Mich. 285, per Christiancy, J.; State v. Tombeckbee Bank, 2 Stew. 30.

3 Van Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wal. 535. See also Soutter v. Madison, 15 Wis. 30; Smith v. Appleton, 19 Wis. 468.

Hawthorne v. Calef, 2 Wal. 10.