not be said that any faith is pledged with respect to it, and no case arises for the operation of the constitutional prohibition. Garrison v. City of New York, 21 Wall. 196, 203. It is true that in Louisiana v. New Orleans, and in Garrison v. City of New York, the causes of action merged in the judgments were not contract obligations; but in both these cases, as in this, the court was dealing with the contention that the judgments themselves were contracts proprio vigore.

The further contention of the plaintiff in error, that he has been deprived of his property without due process of law, can be more readily disposed of. If, as we have seen, the plaintiff has actually received on account of his judgment all that he is entitled to receive, he cannot be said to have been deprived of his property; and whether or not a statutory change in the rate of interest thereafter to accrue on the judgment can be regarded as a deprivation of property, the adjudication of the plaintiff's claims by the courts of his own State must be admitted to be due process of law. Nor are we authorized by the judiciary act to review this judgment of the State court, because this judgment refuses to give effect to a valid contract or because such judgment in its effect impairs the obligation of a contract. If we did, every case decided in the State courts could be brought here, when the party setting up a contract alleged that the court took a different view of its obligation from that which he held. Knox v. Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 379, 383.

The result of these views is, that we find no error in the record, and that the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals is accordingly

Affirmed.1

1 How 311

MCCRACKIN v. HAYWARD.

2 Howard, 608; 15 Curtis, 228. 1844.

[SUIT was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Illinois to foreclose a mortgage. It appeared that after the execution of the mortgage in Illinois a State statute was passed requiring that in sales of real or personal property under foreclosure of mortgage an appraisement should be made of the value of the property and the sale should be for not less than two-thirds of such appraised value. This statutory provision having been adopted by rule of the Circuit Court as applicable to foreclosure of mortgages in that court, it was contended that the statute and rule were not applicable to a mortgage executed before the passage of the statute. On

1 MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered a dissenting opinion, in which MR. JUSTICE FIELD and MR. JUSTICE BREWER concurred.

certificate of division of opinion of the judges of the court, the case was brought to this court.]

MR. JUSTICE BALDWIN delivered the opinion of the court.

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 legislation which impaired the obligation, it was left to the States to prescribe and shape the remedy to enforce it. The obligation of a contract consists in its binding force on the party who makes it. This depends on the laws in existence when it is made; these are necessarily referred to in all contracts, and forming a part of them as the measure of the obligation to perform them by the one party, and the right acquired by the other. There can be no other standard by which to ascertain the extent of either, than that which the terms of the contract indicate, according to their settled legal meaning; when it becomes consummated, the law defines the duty and the right, compels one party to perform the thing contracted for, and gives the other a right to enforce the performance by the remedies then in force. If any subsequent law affect to diminish the duty, or to impair the right, it necessarily bears on the obligation of the contract, in favor of one party, to the injury of the other; hence any law which in its operation amounts to a denial or obstruction of the rights accruing by a contract, though professing to act only on the remedy, is directly obnoxious to the prohibition of the Constitution.

This principle is so clearly stated and fully settled in the case of Bronson v. Kinzie, decided at the last term, 1 How. 311, that nothing remains to be added to the reasoning of the court, or requires a reference to any other authority than what is therein referred to; it is, however, not to be understood that by that, or any former decision of this court, all State legislation on existing contracts is repugnant to the Constitution.

"It is within the undoubted power of State legislatures to pass recording acts, by which the elder grantee 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 as against a subsequent purchaser, it is not a law impairing the obligation of contracts; such, too, is the power to pass acts of limitation, and their effect. Reasons of sound policy have led to the general adoption of laws of both descriptions, and their validity cannot be questioned. The time and manner of their operation, the exceptions to them, and the acts from which the time limited shall begin to run, will generally depend on the sound discretion of the legislature, according to the nature of the titles, the situation of the country, and the emergency which leads to

their enactment. Cases may occur where the provisions of a law may be so unreasonable as to amount to the denial of a right, and call for the interposition of the court." 3 Pet. 290.

The obligation of the contract between the parties, in this case. was to perform the promises and undertakings contained therein; the right of the plaintiff was to damages for the breach thereof, to bring suit and obtain a judgment, to take out and prosecute an execution against the defendant till the judgment was satisfied, pursuant to the existing laws of Illinois. These laws giving these rights were as perfectly binding on the defendant, and as much a part of the contract, as if they had been set forth in its stipulations in the very words of the law relating to judgments and executions. If the defendant had made such an agreement as to authorize a sale of his property, which should be levied on by the sheriff, for such price as should be bid for it at a fair public sale on reasonable notice, it would have conferred a right on the plaintiff, which the Constitution made inviolable; and it can make no difference whether such right is conferred by the terms or law of the contract. Any subsequent law which denies, obstructs, or impairs this right, by superadding a condition that there shall be no sale for any sum less than the value of the property levied on, to be ascertained by appraisement, or any other mode of valuation than a public sale, affects the obligation of the contract as much in the one case as the other, for it can be enforced only by a sale of the defendant's property, and the prevention of such sale is the denial of a right. The same power in a State legislature may be carried to any extent, if it exists at all; it may prohibit a sale for less than the whole appraised value, or for threefourths, or nine-tenths, as well as for two-thirds; for if the power can be exercised to any extent, its exercise must be a matter of uncontrollable discretion, in passing laws relating to the remedy which are regardless of the effect on the right of the plaintiff. This was the ruling principle of the case of Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311, which arose on a mortgage containing a covenant, that, in default of payment, the mortgagee might enter upon, sell, and convey the mortgaged premises, as the attorney of the mortgagor; yet the case was not decided on the effect and obligation of that covenant, but on the broad and general principle, that a State law, which professedly provided a remedy for enforcing the contract of mortgage, effectually impaired the rights incident to, and attached to it by the laws in force at its date, was void. No agreement or contract can create more binding obligations than those fastened by the law, which the law creates and attaches to contracts; the express power which a mortgagor confers on the mortgagee to sell as his agent is not more potent than that which the law delegates to the marshal, to sell and convey the property levied on, under an execution. He is the constituted agent of the defendant, invested with all his powers for these purposes. The marshal can do under the authority of the

law whatever he could do under the fullest power of attorney from the execution debtor; and no State law can prohibit it. It follows that the law of Illinois now under consideration, so far as it prohibits a sale for less than two-thirds of the appraised value of the property Tevied on, is unconstitutional and void.

1 In GUNN v. BARRY, 15 Wall. 610 (1872), the validity of a State statute increasing the exemption to a debtor, as applied to indebtedness under a contract already existing, was brought in question. MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE, delivering the opinion of the court, uses this language:

"The legal remedies for the enforcement of a contract, which belong to it at the time and place where it is made, are a part of its obligation. A State may change them, provided the change involve no impairment of a substantial right. If the provision of the Constitution, or the legislative act of a State, fall within the category last mentioned, they are to that extent utterly void. They are, for all the purposes of the contract which they impair, as if they had never existed. The constitutional provision and statute here in question are clearly within that category, and are, therefore, void. The jurisdictional prohibition which they contain with respect to the courts of the State can, therefore, form no impediment to the plaintiff in error in the enforcement of his rights touching this judgment, as those rights are recognized by this court. White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 646; Von Hoffman v. The City of Quincy, 4 id. 535.

In TERRY v. ANDERSON, 95 U. S. 628 (1877), the validity of a State statute of Georgia passed in 1869 providing that causes of action which had accrued prior to 1865, and which were not brought by the first of January, 1870, should be barred after the latter date, was called in question. It appearing that under the statute of limitation in force when the contract was made the right of action thereunder would not be barred, it was contended that the subsequent statute impaired the obligation of the prior contract. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE, delivering the opinion of the court, uses this language:

This court has often decided that statutes of limitation affecting existing rights are not unconstitutional, if a reasonable time is given for the commencement of an action before the bar takes effect. Hawkins v. Barney, 5 Pet. 451; Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 id. 280; Sohn v. Waterson, 17 Wall. 596; Christmas v. Russell, 5 id. 290; Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122. It is difficult to see why, if the legislature may prescribe a limitation where none existed before, it may not change one which has already been established. The parties to a contract have no more a vested interest in a particular limitation which has been fixed, than they have in an unrestricted right to sue. They have no more a vested interest in the time for the commencement of an action than they have in the form of the action to be commenced; and as to the forms of action or modes of remedy, it is well settled that the legislature may change them at its discretion, provided adequate means of enforcing the right remain.

"In all such cases, the question is one of reasonableness, and we have therefore only to consider whether the time allowed in this statute is, under all the circumstances, reasonable. Of that the legislature is primarily the judge; and we cannot overrule the decision of that department of the government, unless a palpable error has been committed. In judging of that, we must place ourselves in the position of the legislators, and must measure the time of limitation in the midst of the circumstances which surrounded them, as nearly as possible; for what is reasonable in a particular case depends upon its particular facts.”

In MITCHELL » Clark 110 U. S. 633 (1884), it appeared that in a State court of Missouri the validity of a statute of the United States was brought in question which prescribed a limit to actions on account of any arrest or imprisonment made or trespass committed during the rebellion by virtue or under color of any authority derived from or exercised by or under the President of the United States or by or under any

SECTION II. - PROTECTION TO PROPERTY.

MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY v. NEBRASKA.

164 United States, 403. 1896.

[AN action for a mandamus was brought in the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska to compel the plaintiff in error to comply with an order of the Nebraska State Board of Transportation which di rected the company to grant to certain persons the right to erect an elevator upon the grounds of the railway company at one of its stations in accordance with the provision of the constitution of Nebraska which declares that railways are "public highways and shall be free to all persons for the transportation of their persons or property thereon under such regulations as may be prescribed by law," and statutory provisions thereunder providing for a board of transportation and authorizing it to investigate cases of discrimination, etc. It appeared that permission had been given to two private firms to erect elevators upon the right of way at this station, and complainants who were refused permission to erect a third elevator under the same terms and conditions as those granted in the other cases asked relief on the ground that such refusal was an unjust discrimination. A mandamus having been awarded in the trial court and sustained in the State Supreme Court, the case is brought to this court by writ of error.]

MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

The order in question was not, and was not claimed to be, either in the opinion of the court below, or in the argument for the defendant in error in this court, a taking of private property for a public use under the right of eminent domain. The petitioners were merely private individuals, voluntarily associated together for their own

act of Congress, etc. The Supreme Court of that State having held this legislation to be invalid, the case was brought by writ of error to this court. MR. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, uses this language:

"It is no answer to this to say that [such legislation] interferes with the validity of contracts, for no provision of the Constitution prohibits Congress from doing this, as it does the States; and where the question of the power of Congress arises, as in the legal tender cases and in bankruptcy cases, it does not depend upon the incidental effect of its exercise on contracts, but on the existence of the power itself.

"In regard to the States, which are expressly forbidden to impair by legislation the obligation of contracts, it has been repeatedly held that a statute of limitation which reduces materially the time within which suit may be commenced, though passed after the contract was made, is not void if a reasonable time is left for the enforcement of the contract by suit before the statute bars that right."