United States v. Conway.
UNITED STATES vs. JAMES S. CONWAY,
- The "Act to regulate the sale of property on execution," approved 23d December, 1840, commonly called the valuation law, is constitutional, according to the doctrine in Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311, and its provisions must be followed in executing the final process of the court.
- The obligation of a contract and the remedy to enforce it are distinct things, and whatever belongs to the remedy may be altered according to the will of the State, as to both past and future contracts, provided the alteration does not impair the obligation of the contract.
- The obligation of a contract may be destroyed by den,ing a remedy altogether, or impaired by burdening the proceedings with new restrictions and conditions so as to make the remedy hardly worth pursuing; but a law which reserves property from sale one year, if two thirds of the appraised value shall not be offered, is not of that character.
- A writ of venditioni exponas issued before the expiration of the year is irregular, and will be quashed on motion, and a supersedeas thereto ordered.
July, 1843.—Motion to quash a venditioni exponas, determined before Benjamin Johnson, district judge.
A. Fowler, district attorney, for the plaintiff.
Chester Ashley, for the defendant.
OPINION OF THE COURT.—This is a motion made by the defendant, Conway, to have stayed, set aside, and quashed an execution issued in this case against him, on the 9th day of June, 1843, now in the hands of Thomas W. Newton, the late marshal of this district, on the ground that tbe same has been irregularly and illegally issued. The only question I deem it material to determine is, whether the execution law of this State, entitled "An Act to regulate the sale of property on execution," approved 23d December, 1840, (Acts, p. 58,) providing for the valuation of property taken on execution, and that it shall not be sold unless it brings two thirds of its appraised value, be a valid and constitutional law. If it be a valid law, having been adopted under acts of congress as the law of this court, (4 Story, Laws U.S. 121; 8 L. U.S. 62; 10 Ib. 244; 17th Rule of 6th October, 1842; Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 20; U.S. Bank v. Halstead, Ib. 51,) it follows that the venditioni exponas has irregularly and erroneously issued, one
