§ 1369. With these remarks the subject is dismissed. And yet, perhaps, there is not a single clause of the constitution, which has given rise to more acute and vehement controversy; and the nature and extent of whose prohibitory force has called forth more ingenious speculation, and more animated juridical discussion.[2] What is a contract? What is the obligation of a contract? What is impairing a contract? To what classes of laws does the prohibition apply? To what extent does it reach, so as to control prospective legislation on the subject of contracts? These and many other questions, of no small nicety and intricacy, have vexed the legislative halls, as well as the judicial tribunals, with an uncounted variety and frequency of litigation and speculation.
§ 1370. In the first place, what is to be deemed a contract, in the constitutional sense of this clause? A contract is an agreement to do, or not to do, a particular thing;[3] or (as was said on another occasion) a contract is a compact between two or more persons.[4] A contract is either executory, or executed. An executory contract is one, in which a party binds himself to do, or not to do a particular thing. An executed contract is one, in which the object of the contract is performed. This differs in nothing from a grant;[5] for a contract- ↑ The Federalist, No. 44.
- ↑ 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 19, p. 387.
- ↑ Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheaton's R. 197. See also Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. R. 92; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat R. 256, 297, 302, 312, 335; Garden v. Prince, 3 Wash. Cir. Ct. R. 319.
- ↑ Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 136; S. C. 2 Peters's Cond. R. 321.
- ↑ Id. and 2 Black. Comm. 443.
vol. iii.31
