Difference between revisions of "Sturges v. Crowinshield"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | a | + | '''''Sturges v. Crowinshield''''' was a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision written by Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. This decision invalidated a state [[Bankruptcy law|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). | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | [[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).