tutional. Still a very important point remains to be examined; and that is, to what contracts such laws can rightfully apply. The result of the various decisions on this subject is, (1.) That they apply to all contracts made within the state between citizens of the state. (2.) That they do not apply to contracts made within the state between a citizen of a state, and a citizen of another state. (3.) That they do not apply to contracts not made within the state. In all these cases it is considered, that the state does not possess a jurisdiction, coextensive with the contract, over the parties; and therefore, that the constitution of the United States protects them from prospective, as well as retrospective legislation.[1] Still, however, if a creditor voluntarily makes himself a party to the proceedings under an insolvent law of a state, which discharges the contract, and accepts a dividend declared under such law, he will be bound by his own act, and be deemed to have abandoned his extra-territorial immunity.[2] Of course, the constitutional prohibition does not apply to insolvent, or other laws passed before the adoption of the constitution, operating upon contracts and rights of property vested, and in esse before that time.[3] And it may be added, that state insolvent laws have no operation whatsoever oh contracts made with the United States; for such contracts are in no manner whatsoever subject to state jurisdiction.[4]
§ 1385. It has been already stated, that a grant is a contract within the meaning of the constitution, as much as an unexecuted agreement. The prohibition, there-