Phenix Gazette

INSOLVENT LAWS.

Yesterday, the Judges of the Supreme Court delivered their opinions on the very important question of the Constitutional validity of the State Insolvent Laws. The subject was discussed by the learned Judges in a manner becoming its interest and magnitude. Mr. Justice Trimble, Mr. Justice Thompson, Mr. Justice Johnson, and Mr. Justice Washington, each delivered his own separate opinion. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the joint opinion of himself, and of Mr. Justice Story, and Mr. Justice Duvall.

Of course we cannot recapitulate the heads of argument and grounds of decision, embraced in these opinions, and, perhaps, we may not be entirely accurate in stating their results. As we understand the matter, however, the result is—That the Chief Justice, and Judges Story and Duvall are of opinion, that State insolvent laws, purporting to discharge the contract, are void, and inoperative in all Courts, as well when applied to contracts entered into after the passage of such laws, as to those entered into before their passage; that the four other Judges are of opinion that such laws, when so applied, are not null and void to all intents and purposes, but that, to some purposes, and in some cases, they are valid. As far as we could collect, however, one or more of these four Judges was of opinion that such laws could not discharge contracts entered into out of the State where the law existed, or where the circumstances are such as to enable the creditor to sue in the Courts of the United States. We are not entirely certain, we repeat, that we have accurately described the general result of the whole case, or that we entirely comprehend it. If, however, our conception of that result be right, the Court has so left the question, that State discharges, where the contract was posterior to the law, are good against creditors living in the State, but not good as against other creditors.

Nat. Int.