Page:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol III).djvu/258

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
250
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES.
[BOOK III.

the laws act upon their contracts, whatever may be their intention.[1]

§ 1379. In the next place, what may properly be deemed impairing the obligation of contracts in the sense of the constitution? It is perfectly clear, that any law, which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the intention of the parties, resulting from the stipulations in the contract, necessarily impairs it. The manner or degree, in which this change is effected, can in no respect influence the conclusion; for whether the law affect the validity, the construction, the duration, the discharge, or the evidence of the contract, it impairs its obligation, though it may not do so to the same extent in all the supposed cases.[2] Any deviation from its terms by postponing, or accelerating the period of performance, which it prescribes; imposing conditions not expressed in the contract; or dispensing with the performance of those, which are a part of the contract; however minute or apparently immaterial in their effect upon it, impair its obligation.[3] A fortiori, a law, which makes the contract wholly invalid, or extinguishes, or releases it, is a law impairing it.[4] Nor is this all. Although there is a distinction between the obligation of a contract, and a remedy upon it; yet if there are certain remedies existing at the time, when it is made, all of which are afterwards wholly extinguished by new laws, so that there remain no means of enforcing its obligation, and no redress; such an abolition of all remedies, operating in presenti, is also an im-
  1. Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. R. 284, 324, 325, 338, 339, 340, 343, 354.
  2. Id. 256; id. 327; Golden v. Prince, 3 Wash. Cir. R. 319.
  3. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. R. 1, 84.
  4. Sturgis v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. R. 197, 198.