Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Remedies principal and interest were in arrears for five years and the State had issued to a subsequent purchaser another certificate for the same land, the first purchaser's right to the land and to complete the contract of purchase was cut off unless he should pay all unpaid interest within six months from the passage of the act. Aikins v. Kingsbury, 247 U. S. 484. Recording acts. It is within the undoubted power of State legislatures to pass recording acts by which the elder grantee of land shall be postponed to a younger if the prior deed is not recorded within the limited time. And the power is the same whether the deed is dated before or after the passage of the recording act. Though the effect of such a law is to render the prior deed fraudulent and void against a subsequent purchaser it is not a law impairing the obligation of the contract. Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 289. Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102 U. S. 204. Vance v. Vance, 108 U. S. 518. Power to change remedy-In general.-A change in the remedy to enforce a contract may be made without impairing its obligation. Wilson v. Standefer, 184 U. S. 415. Pittsburg Steel Co. v. Baltimore Equitable Soc., 226 U. S. 455. In modes of proceeding and forms to enforce the contract the legislature has the control, and may enlarge, limit, or alter them, provided it does not deny a remedy or so embarrass it with conditions or restrictions as seriously to impair the value of the right. Penniman's case, 103 U. S. 720. It is competent for the States to change the form of the remedy or to modify it otherwise as they may see fit provided no substantial right secured by the contract is thereby impaired. No attempt has been made to fix definitely the line between alterations of the remedy, which are to be deemed legitimate, and those which under the form of modifying the remedy impair substantial rights. Every case must be determined upon its own circumstances. Whenever the result last mentioned is produced the act is within the prohibition of the Constitution and to that extent void. Von Hoffman v. Quincy, 4 Wall. 553. In placing the obligation of contracts under the protection of the Constitution its framers looked to the essentials of the contract more than to the forms and modes of proceeding by which it was to be carried into execution, annulling all State Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Remedies legislation which impaired the obligation it was left to the States to prescribe and shape the remedy to enforce it. McCracken v. Hayward, 2 How. 608. Particular remedy abrogated.-Modes of procedure in the courts of a State are so far within its control that a particular remedy existing at the time of the making of a contract may be abrogated altogether without impairing the obligation of the contract if another and equally adequate remedy for the enforcement of that obligation remains or is substituted for the one taken away. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Louisiana, 157 U. S. 224. Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S. 74. Railroad Co. v. Tennessee, 101 U. S. 339. Oshkosh Waterworks Co. v. Oshkosh, 187 U. S. 439. State statute enabling corporations in other States and countries to lend money and to enforce their securities, etc., when making its provisions applicable to existing contracts and securities does not impair the obligation of contracts when "the statutes and public policy of that State, prior to the enactment of the statute, forbade a foreign corporation from taking a mortgage upon real property in that State to secure the loan. of money." Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 488. Supplying a remedy where none existed.—Where parties have, in good faith, and for a valuable consideration, entered into an engagement that is not contrary to good morals, and is invalid only because of some legal impediment, the legislature may, by subsequent enactment, provide a legal remedy, and thus give validity to the obligation that the parties intended to create. National Surety Co. v. Architectural Co., 226 U. S. 276. Changes interfering with or denying enforcement.—The court said in Barnitz v. Beverly (163 U. S. 122) that the laws prescribing "the mode of enforcing a contract, which are in existence when it is made, are so far a part of the contract that no changes in these laws which seriously interfere with that enforcement are valid, because they impair its obligation within the meaning of the Constitution." See also McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662. Walker v. Whitehead, 16 Wall. 314. Rights of action and defenses.-A statute creating a right of action on a contract previously executed or on a debt previously incurred does not impair any contract obligation; it rather declares a means by which the obligation may be enforced. Ewell v. Daggs, 108 U. S. 151. See also League v. De Young, 11 How. 202. Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Lampeyreac v. U. S., 7 Pet. 222. Cl. 1.-Contracts-Remedies Laws regulating procedure.-Laws regulating procedure and practice in the courts are valid if they operate only on the remedy, and the forms and system of courts and proceedings may be changed at the will of the legislature. Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 349. Terry v. Anderson, 95 U. S. 633. Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S. 170. Laws Affecting Contracts What constitutes a "law" within the prohibition.-This prohibition applies only to laws which are retrospective in their operation; contracts are not impaired by laws passed prior to their execution, and States are free to legislate as to future contracts. Railroad v. McClure, 10 Wall, 515. Lehigh Water Co. v. Easton, 121 U. S. 391. Pinney v. Nelson, 183 U. S. 147. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 112. Statutes enacted by the State legislature are not alone within this prohibition; by-laws or ordinances of a municipal corporation having the force of law within the municipality are contemplated; and a State constitutional provision may be as objectionable as a legislative act, and rights acquired under one constitution can not be impaired by a later one or by an amendment. St. Paul Gaslight Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 148. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 360. Pacific R. Co. v. Maguire, 20 Wall. 42. See also Delmas v. Insurance Co., 14 Wall. 667. Concord v. Portsmouth Sav. Bank, 92 U. S. 630. Moultrie County v. Savings Bank, 92 U. S. 635. New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Louisiana Light Co., 115 U. S. 672. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, 170 U. S. 261. Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 454. Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 291. Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet. 500. Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 440. Hamilton Gaslight Co. v. Hamilton City, 146 U. S. 266. New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana Sugar Co., 125 U. S. 31. Sources of laws affecting contracts-Constitutions and statutes. This constitutional provision is addressed to States, and it is applicable to States whether exercising through their legislatures ordinary law-making powers, or by conventions or other Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Laws Affecting delegated authority, or in their aggregate capacity, adopting or amending their organic laws. State v. New Orleans, 29 La. Ann. 863. See also Bier v. McGehee, 148 U. S. 140. Stewart v. Jefferson Police Jury, 116 U. S. 135. New Orleans Water-Works Co. v. Rivers, 115 U. S. 680. Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 623. White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 652. Statute providing that certain leases shall be valid and enforceable contracts held not an attempted exercise of judicial power. Roberts v. Atlantic Oil Co., 295 Fed. 16. Municipal ordinances.-A by-law or ordinance of a municipal corporation may be such an exercise of legislative power delegated by the legislature to the corporation as a political subdivision of the State, having all the force of law within the limits of the municipality, that it may properly be considered as a law within the meaning of this clause. Atlantic Coast Line v. Goldsboro, 232 U. S. 548. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Duluth, 208 U. S. 583. Mercantile Trust, etc., Co. v. Columbus, 203 U. S. 311. Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U. S. 1. Meriwether v. Garrett, 102 U. S. 472. U. S. v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381. Murray v. Charleston, 96 U. S. 432. Vicksburg v. Vicksburg Waterworks Co., 202 U. S. 453. Vicksburg Waterworks Co. v. Vicksburg, 185 U. S. 65. A municipal ordinance, the effect of which is merely to deny liability on a contract or to declare the repudiation thereof, and which prescribes no antagonistic rights or duties, is not legislation impairing its obligation, though the contract so repudiated is valid and binding. St. Paul Gaslight Co. v. St. Paul, 181 U. S. 142. McCormick v. Oklahoma City, 236 U. S. 657. Shawnee Sewerage, etc., Co. v. Stearns, 220 U. S. 462. The mere repudiation of a contract by a city, and the refusal to pay, present a naked case of breach of contract, and the fact that the city is a municipal corporation does not give to its refusal the character of a law impairing the obligation of contracts. In Dawson v. Columbia Ave., etc., Co. (197 U. S. 181), citing St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul (181 U. S. 142), the court said: Undoubtedly the decisions on the two sides of the lines are very near to each other. But the case at bar is governed by the one which we have cited and not by Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co. (172 U. S. 1), which is cited and distinguished in St. Paul Gas Light Co. v. St. Paul. Judicial decisions and administrative acts.-Judicial decisions construing a contract or statute are not "laws" within the meaning of this prohibition; to come within the prohibition a Sec. 10.-Powers Denied to States Cl. 1.-Contracts-Laws Affecting contract must be impaired by legislative act and not alone by judicial decision. So where a State may repeal a law without impairing the obligation of existing contracts, an erroneous decision that the law has been repealed does not impair the obligation of such contracts; but, on the other hand, where a State has power to exempt property from taxation a decision to the effect that a law so doing is unconstitutional impairs a contract created by that law. It is only where a decision gives effect to a law alleged to impair contract obligations that the Supreme Court acquires jurisdiction to review a State court judgment under this clause. University v. People, 99 U. S. 320. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 109. Mobile R. Co. v. Tennessee, 153 U. S. 495. New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana. 185 U. S. 351. Tidal Oil Co. v. Flanagan, 263 U'. S. 444, and cases therein cited. While, in general, legislative action is necessary in order to violate the provision against impairment, yet the law as established by judicial construction at the time a contract was made can not be changed by judicial construction so as to impair that contract. If a contract was valid at the time it was made, no subsequent legislation, decision, construction, or alteration of the law can render it invalid. Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 432. Butz v. Muscatine, 8 Wall. 584. Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678. City v. Lamson, 9 Wall. 477. Taylor v. Ypsilanti, 105 U. S. 60. U. S. v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 397. Wood v. Brady, 150 U. S. 22. Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Board of Comrs., 258 U. S. 338. The contract clause can not be invoked against a change of decision by a State court. St. Paul, etc., R. Co. v. Todd County, 142 U. S. 282. Hanford v. Davies, 163 U. S. 273. National Mut. B. & L. Assn. v. Brahan, 193 U. S. 635. Thomson v. Lee County, 3 Wall. 327. Chicago v. Sheldon, 9 Wall. 50. Douglass v. Pike County, 101 U. S. 677. Louisiana v. Pilsbury, 105 U. S. 278. Los Angeles v. Los Angeles City Water Co., 177 U. S. 558. The impairment of contracts may not be accomplished by judicial decisions or by legislative enactments. Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666. Union Bank v. Geary, 5 Pet. 99. Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537. |