United States v. Clarke et al.
provisions which, in the form of remedy, impair the right. But it is manifest that the obligation of the contract, and the rights of a party under it, may, in effect, be destroyed by denying a remedy altogether, or may be seriously impaired by burdening the proceedings with new conditions and restrictions, so as to make the remedy hardly worth pursuing. And no one; we presume, would say that there is any substantial difference between a retrospective law, declaring a particular contract or class of contracts to be abrogated and void, and one which took away all remedy to enforce them, or encumbered them wijh conditions that rendered it useless or impracticable to pursue it."
Now, the question here presented is, Does the valuation law of this State come within the rule here laid down by the supreme court of the United States? Does it, in the language of the court, so seriously impair and burden the proceedings with new conditions and restrictions, as to make the remedy hardly worth pursuing? I think not. The valuation law, in the event that the property will not bring two thirds of its appraised value, postpones the collection of the debt for twelve months. This can scarcely be said to make the remedy hardly worth pursuing. My opinion is, that the valuation law is a valid and constitutional law, and its provisions are to be followed in executlng the final process of this court.
The venditioni exponas must, therefore, be quashed, and the clerk, on the application of the defendant, is directed to issue a supersedeas thereto.
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiffs, vs. LORENZO N. CLARKE, JAMES PITCHER, and CHARLES P. BERTRAND, defendants.
- Different defences which may be made in an action of covenant.
- An accord must be executed before it can amount to satisfaction. An unperformed agreement is not sufficient, and cannot be pleaded in bar.
December, 1844.—Demurrer to pleas, determined in the District Court, before the Hon. Benjamin Johnson, district judge.
