Difference between revisions of "Sturges v. Crowinshield"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (link to de-orphan) |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The Court held, "the act of New-York, which is pleaded in this case, so far as it attempts to discharge the contract on which this suit was instituted, is a law impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the constitution of the United States, and that the plea of the defendant is not a good and sufficient bar of the plaintiff's action." 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 208 (1819). | The Court held, "the act of New-York, which is pleaded in this case, so far as it attempts to discharge the contract on which this suit was instituted, is a law impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the constitution of the United States, and that the plea of the defendant is not a good and sufficient bar of the plaintiff's action." 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 208 (1819). | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] |
Latest revision as of 19:49, July 13, 2016
Sturges v. Crowinshield was a U.S. Supreme Court decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall. This decision invalidated a state law of bankruptcy for its violation of the Obligation of Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1.
The Court held, "the act of New-York, which is pleaded in this case, so far as it attempts to discharge the contract on which this suit was instituted, is a law impairing the obligation of contracts within the meaning of the constitution of the United States, and that the plea of the defendant is not a good and sufficient bar of the plaintiff's action." 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 208 (1819).