DETERMINEDCASES

IN THE

THE STATES.UNITEDCOURT OESUPREME

TERM, 1823.FEBRUARY

others v. Biddle.Green and

contracts.law.—Mesne profits. ObligationConstitutional of—February occupying1797, concerning claimantsKentucky, of ofact the of theThe of state 27th

States, but itthe the Unitedland, force, repugnantwas was to constitution ofwhilst it inofact;subsequent January 1812, the and theto saidrepealed by a act of the 31st of amendwas

States, beingas in viola-of Unitedrepugnantis also to the constitution thelast-mentioned actKentucky, the act of thecompact contained inVirginiathe states of andtion of the between

incorporated constitution of1789,of and into thelegislature Virginia,of of the 18th DecemberKentucky.

law,of, principles equity, and civil thelaw, Virginia, the theBy law ofthe common the statuteprofits,suit, an mesne receivedlands, in his is entitled to account ofclaimant of who succeeds

priorperiod judgmentby occupant, to the of eviction or decree.1the from sometitle,possession land, aof which has betterlaw, takes and holds to anotherAt common whoever

possessor, for all the rentsor liable to the true ownerhe a bond a maid iswhether be fidefidedisseisor, occupant, may recoupprofits he has received: but the if he be a bondand which fide

by him, damages.2againstof meliorations made the claim ofthe value thecases,^Equity profits the titlean account of and in all from the time ofallows rents ,■

*•circumstances; as,specialit not six unless under(provided years),accrued does exceedtitle, deed, inplaintiff which theno notice of the ■ had thewhere the defendant had nor

plaintiff incustody, notplaintiff appeared,■ in or has laches in thetitle his where there beenwhich,by custody; in alltitle, appeared stranger’sor title in aasserting his where his deeds

cases, filing bill.and other similar the account to time of theis confined the

1 by herecovery ejectment improvements, made one whose title hasA in is of theconclusiveRobinson,purchased. SIprofits; lengthnot to Morrison v. Penn.right to mesne but as the

407;456; Humbert,possession. Bailey 66 Id.Wat­ Walkerthe v. St. v.of defendant’s102; Loomis,Ege, v.son, 450; Harrold, Penn. Kille v. 82 Id. Jackson6 Binn. v. 72Lane

occupant, under color267; Stephens 92 233. 4 168. A bondStrosnider,v. Cow.Id.St. fidetitle, permanent valuableHenry, of who has made and84 Id. 33.And see Miller v.

2 theymay a fullprofits equi­ improvements, arebeing show thatThe action for mesne anpremises.every equitable may up. compensation theone, for the use ofdefence be settable

Murray Gouverneur, ; Kille, And StarkEge2 St. 838. seev. Johns. Gas. 438 v. 84 Penn.Gray, Compensation Starr, 16; Gaines,Sawyeris 1 New Orleans v.6 Watts v.Ewalt v. 427.

damages; therefore,of and a bond 16the measure Wall. 624.may permanentoccupant be allowed forfide

8 Wheat. — 1 1

SUPREME COURT [Feb’y

Green v. Biddle.

By law, exemption occupant profits strictlythe civil ofthe the from an account for rents and ispossessor,to only supposesconfined the case of a bond who not himself to be the truefide

land, ignorant by personowner of the but who is his claimingthat title is contested some otherpossessorright. only profitsa produ-better And such a is to the fruits orentitled which were

by industry, these, theyced his own and not even to unless were consumed.law,of chancery,Distinction between these rules the civil and common and of the court of and

Kentucky,provisions concerning occupyingthe of the acts of claimants of land.invalidity law, impairing obligation contracts, dependThe of a state as of uponthe does not the

changeofextent the which the law ineffects the contract.Any terms, by accelerating period performance, impos-deviation orpostponingfrom its the of its

expressed contract, performanceing conditions not dispensingin the or with the of those whichexpressed,are or apparently upon contract,however minute inimmaterial their effect the im-

pairs obligation.1its1789,compact of Virginia Kentucky, valid, provisionThe between and was under that of the

“declares, shall,constitution congress,which that no state without the consent of enter intoany agreement compact state, particularpower mode,or another or a foreignwith with ”—no

given, having prescribed constitution;In which that by congressconsent must be been the andhaving Kentucky Union,consented to the admission of sovereign state, uponinto the as a the

compact.conditions inmentioned thecompact invalid, upon groundThe is surrenderingnot the of its rights sovereigntyof which are

inalienable.authority unconstitutional,has upon groundThis court to declare a state law impairingthe of its

compactobligationthe of a different states of the Union.betweenprohbition contracts, executory, privateThe of the constitution embraces all orexecuted between

individuals, individuals, corporations,or a andstate or or thebetween states themselves.2

a of inThis was writ the Circuit *Court of Ken-right, brought■1-I the demandants, others,Green whoby and the heirs oftuclcy, wereGreen, deceased, tenant, Biddle,John the Richard to recover certainagainst

lands in the of instate his The causeKentucky, possession. was broughtabefore this court division ofupon of the of the courtopinion judges

onbelow, the :following questionsthe acts of the the1. Whether of state of theoflegislature Kentucky,

1797, 1812,and of 31st of27th of theFebruary January concerning occupy-land, not;claimants of are constitutional or the demandants and theing

tenant both title to the land in under theclaiming fromcontroversy patentsstate of to the erection of the district of into aVirginia, prior Kentuckystate ?

the of■2.Whether to be thequestion settled underimprovements ought1797,act of the suit beenabove before the thebrought ofhaving passage

1812, theact of for demandant untilalthough rendered,was notjudgmentofafter the the last-mentioned act ?passage

The the of thewhichground, upon unconstitutionality above acts wasasserted, was, that the of the thethey impaired betweenobligation compact

and anstates of contained in act of the theofVirginia Kentucky, legislature“state, 1789, declares,former the 18th of December which that allpassed

lands,and interests of within therights said districtprivate Kentucky)(offrom the laws of to such shall remainpriorderived Virginia, separation,

secure, state,under the of thevalid and laws and shall be deter-proposedthe laws inmined now this state.” This wasby existing compact

, the‘''ratified convention which framed theby constitution of Ken-■ J and that asinto constitution one of its funda-tucky, incorporatedmental articles.

1 Kinzie, 1v. 316.Bronson How.2 Proprietors Co., 117;v.Bridge Spooner McConnell,Hoboken 1 Wall. v. 1 MoLean 388.

4THE STATES.OF UNITED1823]Green v. Biddle.

1797,The in the act of tomost material which wereprovisions supposedvoid,1789, therefore,the the of and are theofimpair compactobligation

the he island,It that of from which1.following: provides, occupanttitle, shall, cases,evicted better in all be excused from oftheby payment

rents title,and accrued to actual notice of the adverseprofits prior providedhis in and he a and con-its was showspossession peaceable, plaininception

title,nected in suc-or deduced from some record. 2. That thelaw equity,cessful claimant is liable to a him for all valuable and last-judgment against

land,the to actual of themade on notice adverseing improvements priortitle, after from the amount the which the land has sus-deducting damagestained ofwaste or deterioration the soil cultivation. 3. As toby by

made, accrued,and rents and after notice of theimprovements profitsthetitle,adverse amount of the one shall be deducted from that of the

other, to, from,and the balance or the ofadded subtracted estimated valuenotice,the made before such as the nature of the caseimprovements may

clause,But it is that in case shall thea norequire. provided, subsequentbynotice,successful claimant be to for made afterobliged pay improvements

more than is and Ifwhat to the rents 4. theequal profits. improve-state,ments exceed the of the *land in its thevalue unimproved r¡¡.

Lclaimant shall thebe allowed of the land to theprivilege conveyingit,and in return the assessed of thevalue withoutoccupant, receiving

and thus to himself a and executionimprovements, protect against judgmentthis,for the value of the If he declines he shallimprovements. doing

land,recover of but shall thenhis the estimated of thepossession valuepayand also lose the rents and accruedimprovements, before notice ofprofits

the claim. But entitle him to claim the land,to value of the as above men-tioned, he must bond and to the title.give warrantsecurity

actThe of 1812 contains the : 1. That thefollowing provisions peace-land,able of itwho to to him in ofoccupant supposes somebelong virtu?

record,or atitle, founded on shall be thelegal equitable successfulpaid byfor his Thatclaimant 2. the claimant theavoidimprovements. may payment

election,of the value of such at his the landimprovements, by relinquishingthe and be its estimated into value its state.oceupant, paid unimproved

Thus, if the claimant elect to for the value of the he ispay improvements,interest,bond and to the same,to with at different instal-give paysecurity

this,ments. If he fail to do or if the of thevalue exceedsimprovementsland,three-fourths of the an election is to theunimproved given occupant,

ato have entered claimant for the ofagainst assessed valuejudgment theland,the or to take the bond and toimprovements, giving security

land,the value of the if instalments,*pay unimproved, withby*•if isinterest. But the claimant not to for thewilling pay improve-

andments, should exceed three-fourths of the value of thethey unimprovedland, the is to bond andoccupant to the assessedobliged give security pay

land,the interest; do,value of with which if he fail to is to bejudgmentvalue,entered him for such the claimantagainst his to thereleasing right

land, and bond and togiving warrant the title. If the of thesecurity valuenotdo exceed three-fourths of the value of theimprovements unimproved

land, then, the is not bound he is in theoccupant former to(as givecase)bond and to ;the value of the land but he claim asecurity pay may judg-ment for the ;value of his or the land,take bond and.improvements giving

3

COURTSUPREME [Feb’y6

Green v. Biddle.

mentioned, to the estimated of theas before value land. 3.paysecurity,the of the rents andof the fromoccupant paymentThe exemption profits,histo all such as accrued before ren-occupancy,extends during judgment

the first but such as accrue after suchhim,dered in instance : judg-againstment, for a as also andterm not five waste com-years, damage,exceeding

the are to be deducted from themitted after suitby brought,occupant,of render forvalue the or the court themmayimprovements, judgment

the of such rents and4. The amount profits,against occupant. damagesof thewaste, and also the value of the and land withoutimprovements,and

the commissioners,*are to be ascertained betoimprovements, by■)_-* court, act underthe and who oath.appointed by

16th, 1821,1821. The cause was at termFebruary argued, February byHardin,and JB. forTalbot the demandants —no counsel for theappearing

tenant.contended, the state inThey that acts of the question, werelegislature

inconsistent of 1789,with the true and the ofspirit compact theirmeaningtheavowed and to of thescope conditionobject being change existing par-

the land,ties oflitigant, private and interests ofsecurity rightsrespectingthewithin from the ofof derived laws toterritory YirginiaKentucky, prior

the These acts do not to alter the ofseparation. merely modeattempttheremedies for of and interests thusprosecuting derivedrecovery rights

but affect the and interest(which possibly they might essentially rightdo),in the land seek this,recovered. to orThey byaccomplish diminishing

the value of the interest indestroying the suc-controversy, by compellingland,cessful claimant and owner of the to one-half, and,the inrightful pay

instances,some the of ;entire value the land recovered not the actual valueof the the land,amelioration of while held the claimant, butby occupyingthe and labor of the theexpense But acts are framedmaking improvements.in samethe with the sameand both are tospirit object; adapted changethe relative thecondition of to the of theparties, great prejudice rightful

The in view, 1797,owner. in the act of towas theprincipal object exemptof his him,for waste committedoccupant liability or rents andby profits

, him,received *to the commencement of the suit for theby prior land,■ J he when he first took have had fullalthough may, noticepossession,of the plaintiff’s title, and be a maid The actconsequently, possessor.fide

1812,of act,to be an of the formeramendment with thepurporting avowedof still furtherpurpose the interests of the occupant,protecting completelyhim committed,from all forexempts waste or for rents andliability profits

received, before the or in no case,decree the suit. Injudgment possiblecan the more than fiveright rent,owner recover theyears’ although litiga-tion and does, amay, last much whilst he isfrequently sub-longer period;

to the ofjected suit,all made at of thepayment improvements periodanytodown the time of final be set theto off amount of hisjudgment, against

claim for rents and limited as it thisprofits, and isabridged by act.The object of the to allwas secure tocompact personsplainly deriving

undertitles the then laws of the entire andexisting Yirginia, perpetualof their ofenjoyment future acts ofrights against anyproperty, legislative

the ofstate which, foreseen,it was be under theKentucky, passedmightinfluence of Theand notlocal interests. didfeelings compact merely intend

4

8THE STATES.UNITEDOF1823]

Biddle.Green v.

thelaws, alsoto secure the the titles to land those butdetermination of byIt did notactual and thusof the interests established.enjoyment rights

thatrecover,intend thento a to and to couplethe true ownergive righthim-with it : to compelsuch onerous conditions as to make worthlessright

to *aland, therepurchase his own occupantby indemnifying (often _■*-themaid infor his and labor improvingnot expensespossessor),fide

value, ofland,but of the to the injuryin the deterioration greatfrequently,“the the wereinterests,”owner. The and of which compact speaks,rights

not and formssecure,to be the modesrendered valid andonly by preservingof exist-the assertion of those but theproceeding preservingfor rights, by

of under which theing provisions objectof law and rules practicalequity,theand end a and ofof suit are to be attained —the possession enjoyment

land, and vio-conditions,with extorted fraudbyunburdened any unjustlence. lawsIts letter and both forbid the whichbyspirit interpretation,are for the mesnefrom his to accountmade to the occupant liabilityexempt

and whichof law andprofits, equity; bytheupon pre-existing principlesthat time,of from his firstis extended toexemption takingevery period

to theto withoutpossession, any regarddown his actually ejected,beingcircumstances' character of his bemaywhich the possessionby original

title, he have beennotice of a better of whichentirely mightchanged, byfrom dimi-is the loss or theAnd notoriginally ignorant. injury resulting

nution the trueof the or amount and received byvalue recovered actuallyowner, land,the to for the estimatedone-half the value ofby paytaking

extent, if,ameliorations,value or the as uponcost of the of samepretendedland,a of to declared satis-an entire tract of the bewasrecovery judgment

then,fied Do,a ? the andby of moiety only rightsdelivering possessionof remaininterests of from theland, as were derived laws Yirginia,they

valid *and acts of the of ?secure, under these Kentuckylegislature*̂-If, and destrue-and meant forfeitureby bevalidity security, injury,

iftion, then, satisfied. But anindeed, the terms of the arecompact amplyinterests, value,to theirentire and and asof theseprotection rightscomplete

then,use the inowner, ; ques-and intended lawsthe true wasenjoyment bytion as as the ofintention, operationavowed and well practical(the object

at of the trueis to the of the the expensewhich better condition occupant,a formallatter,and the after he has recoveredowner,lawful by compelling

execution oftitle,of his to thethejudgment, purchaseestablishing validityinof which the laws existingthat the conditionsjudgment, by performance

did not a of the and1789 are violationgross compact, consequently,require),doneIf, short,and in that cannot be directly,unconstitutional void. which

and the legisla-not to be to done circuitously,beought permitted indirectlyof enact rules or regulations, byture were no more authorized toKentucky

is incumberedthe of the land the real ownerrecoveredoperation which byvalue,a of its for thelien, half,to of or otherwith the amount any proportion

inhim for his fault or misfortunebenefit of the and tooccupant, indemnifythebeen, totitle, produceunder a than would havedefectiveclaiming they

the spe-ofeffect, dividingsame and to the condition the parties, byequalizecific land between them.

Justice, of the court.5th,March delivered the opinion1821. Stoky, [*11inof—*The first from the circuit court Kentucky,certifiedquestion5

11 SUPREME COURT [Feb’yv. Biddle.Green

cause, is, of ofthis whether the acts of the 27thKentucky, February2,and of the 1831797, 31st of claimants ofconcerningJanuary occupying

land, are unconstitutional This the? con­depends uponquestion principallyof the article the made Ken­struction 7th of between andcompact Virginia

the of the latter from the-former state —thattucky, upon separation compactdeclares,a the Theof constitution of 7th articlebeing part Kentucky.

“ lands, district,that all and theinterests of within saidprivate rightsfrom the of and secure,derived laws shall remain valid under theVirginia,

state,oflaws the and shall be determined the laws now exist­proposed byin this state.” been in the of thisWe should have considerationing glad,

to tenant;have had the benefit of an on behalf ofsubject, the butargumentho counsel has him,as for and the cause has been for some timeappeared

court, which,before the it decision,is to thepronouncenecessary upondeliberation, we have formed.

So as thefar we can understand construction of the 7th article offor thethe contended those who of theby assertcompact, constitutionality

in it tois,laws that it was intended secure to claimants landsquestion, oftherein,and atheir interests determination theirby ofrights preserving

titles, the laws under which were If this be theby acquired. true andtheyarticle, ; for,of is a merethe it theonly nullityimport by general principles

, law, case,of and from the of the titles tonecessity *real estate can be■ -* laws,determined the of the understate areonly by which theyTitles land inacquired. to cannot be or transferredacquired otherany

thanmode that the laws of theprescribed where it is situate.by territoryhas, from the nature have,and of theEvery government mustsovereignty,

descent,ofexclusive the distribution ofright and theregulating grants;domain its own boundaries and this must remain,within until itright yields

it or a toup When once title lands isby compact conquest. asserted underthe of a the of canlaws that title be ofterritory, validity nojudged by

rule than furnish,other those laws in it had ;which its for no titleorigin;can be acquired, to those laws and a titlecontrary those can-good by laws

not be but a from the firstdisregarded, by of.departure principles justice.therefore,If the article meant, has been itwhat meantsupposed, toonly

for the affirmation of that the universal ruleprovide which is in the courtsnations,of civilized to be the dictates ofprofessing governed by law.

Besides, can, sense,the titles to in no inlands of thisjust compacts sort,be to be from the and insupposed interests thoseseparated lands. Itrights

be awould almost thatto could feelmockery, suppose, Virginia solici-anytude, as to the the titles,of abstract ofrecognition whenvalidity wouldtheydraw after them'no beneficial of the Of whatenjoyment valueproperty. is

title,that which communicates no or ininterest the land itself orright ? howcan all,that be to be atsaid, title which cannot beany asserted in a court

, of owner,the orjustice to obtain of*by defend hispossession prop-■ -* article,Theerty? cannot,of the in7th ourlanguage bejudgment,so construed. The word title does not in declares,occur it. It in the most

terms, that all and interests ofexplicit private lands, derivedrights fromofthe laws shall remain valid andVirginia, secure under the laws of

shalland be determined the then inKentucky, lawsby existing Virginia.It therefore, interests,that these andimports, asplainly rights to their

extent,andnature shall be determined the ofexclusively by laws Virginia,6

1$STATES.THE UNITEDOF1823]v. Biddle.Green

be in any way impairedand shall not byand that their security validitydoeslaw, therefore, of narrowKentucky,the Whateverlaws of Kentucky.

of the andis ainterests, compact,,these violationand diminishthese rightsis unconstitutional.consequently

and 1812 haveacts oftherefore, the 1797is,The whetherquestion,only■a characterno of similar wereundeniable,It is that actsthis effect.

there-made,was andtime the compactin at the whenexistence Virginia,of toactual Virginia, sup-no can be from thefore, legislationaid derived

evicted fe-om lands tothatthem. The act of persons1797port provides,in ortitle law withoutcan a and connected equity,which show plaintheyfrom all suits for rents ortitle,of be exemptactual notice an shalladverse

It alsoof adverse title. thatprovides,to actual notice suchprofits, priorthebe the court ofpronouncing judgmentcommissioners shall appointed by

andeviction, of all valuable improvementsthe value lastingto assessnotice, are to return the assess-land, r.¡.,.on to such and they*made the prior

Lthe land waste, &c.,all tothereof,ment after subtracting damages byassessment,for the in favorcourt;to is to be entered ofthe and judgment

him,the if for the successfulevicted, balance be against party,thepersonsuchissue,shall unlessimmediatelywhich executionupon partyjudgment,

cent,same, interest,the five inshall for the of with perbond paymentgiveAnd if the balance be in favor of thefrom the date thereof.twelve months

to ina and are be had hissuccessful like favor.proceedingsparty, judgmentshall also estimateact further that the commissioners theThe provides,

; and if thelands, of the value of thevalue of the exclusive improvementslands,the of the the claimantshall exceed value successfulimprovements,have a inhis title to the other and his favortransfer party, judgmentmay

lands,thevalue of <fcc. Therefor such estimatedsuchagainst partyare not material to be stated.other provisions

that if1812, hathany personThe act of the 31st of provides,Januaryor landsor shall thereafter seat improve, anyseated orimproved, supposing

in or the foundationown,his of a claim law ofequity,them to reasonbe bybut lands shall be torecord, provedsuch claim of which belongbeing publicsuch and shall beanother, the and of seating improving, paidto valuecharge

or his orseater orowner, assignee, occupantsuch improver,the toby rightmuch,to so an esti-If is not disburseso the owner willingclaiming. right

lands, of theis be made of the of the exclusivemate to value seatingof andand also of the value such seating*and improvements;

Landthe of exceedsseatingIf value the improvingimprovements.thenlands, if the valuation ofof the of the unimproved,three-fourths value

or if not three-land is to be the seater improver; exceedingthe paid byto theand is befourths, paid bythe valuation of the seating improvingthen

no action shall beof the The act further thatprovides,owner land.righttimethe for elapsedfor rents or against occupier, any•maintained profits,

theThe act then forthe or decree in the suit. providesbefore judgment; and for the ofmake the valuations givingof commissioners toappointment

valuations, is toof the whobonds, &c., payfor the amount the by partythat bethereof, givenin shallsame;the and default provides judgment

bond,fails toamount; or if the owner givethe for the rightagainst partyand take the land.election, bond, &c.,histhe other at&c., giveparty may,

the not be evicteddeclare,then that shallAnd the áct to occupantproceeds7

SUPREME COURT15 [Feb’yGreen v. Biddle.

a ofor writ until tbe of thedispossessed, by possession, commis-reportmade, rendered,is and orsioners bonds executed injudgment ofpursuance

tie act.of theFrom this of thesummary principal acts of andprovisions 1797

3812, it thatis the andapparent, they interests ofmaterially impair rightsthe inowner the land itself. are of a therighful They parts system, objectof is to thecompel lands,which owner to his orrightful relinquish forpayall them,made hisimprovements default;without consent orlasting upon

cases,and in *thosemany improvements exceed themay greatly origi-- nal cost and value of the inlands hands. No can behis judgment

executed, lands,and no obtained for the unless the terms ofpossession uponthe effect,of the therefore,with acts. incomplying requisitions They,

lands,.create a and liendirect the for the allpermanent upon value of lasting; which,made them thewithout of theimprovements upon payment posses-

sion and of the lands cannot be It no reason-enjoyment acquired. requiresshow,to that suching laws diminish the beneficial interests ofnecessarily

the in the lands.rightful owner Under the of burdenlaws no suchVirginia,was on the owner. He had a to sueimposed for, recover andright enjoythem, without such orany deductions payments.

The 7th article of the meant to secure allcompact andprivate rightsinterests ofderived from the laws as valid and secure under theVirginia,laws of as underwere the then ofKentucky, lawsthey existing Virginia.To make those secure,and interests so andrights essential,valid it is to

the owner,beneficial of thepreserve interest in the sameproprietary rightfulstate in were,which the oflaws at the time thethey by Virginia, of separa-tion. If the of law,had declared nolegislature thatKentucky by personshould recover lands in this unless thepredicament, payment, bynponowner, of a or of value, obvious,the of their itmoiety, whole be thatwouldthe former and interests of the extin-rights owner would be completely

pro tanto. If it had further heguished that should be toprovided, compelledsell the same, value,at *one-half or one-third of their or compelled

J sell,to without his aconsent, others,own at to be fixed itprice bywould doubted,be that such were a violation of thehardly laws compact.These ;cases seemmay nature,but differ not in the in thebutstrong they

of the inflicted ondegree the innocent He is no moreonly, wrong owner.bound, the laws of to has notby for which heVirginia, improvements,payauthorized, want, useless,which he not or which he deem than hemay mayis to a sum to apay for the of and hisstranger ^liberty possessing usingown to the him thoseproperty, and interests secured toaccording rights bylaws. It is no answer, that the acts of in arenow question,Kentucky,

of the andregulations not of the to If acts solands. thoseremedy, rightthe nature and extent of tochange remedies, asexisting materially impair

the owner,and interests of the ofrights are as much a violationthey justthe as if overturned his andcompact, they interests.directly rights

It court,is the unanimous of the the acts of and 1812opinion that 1797are a ofviolation the 7th article of the and there­withcompact Virginia,fore, are unconstitutional. This torenders itopinion give anyunnecessary

court,on theopinion second certified to us the circuitfromquestion (a)

(a) Present Marshall, Justice, Johnson, Livingston, Todd,Chief and Duvall andStory, Justices.

8

OF THE STATES. 17UNITED1823]Green v. Biddle.

12th, curias,March in the1821. as amicus moved for aClay, rehearingcause, the that it *the and claims ofinvolvedupon rightsground, _■

Linnumerous of land who had been allowedoccupants Kentucky, bystate, titles,the of that in of the confusion of the landlaws consequence

out theof the vicious of location under land oflawarising system Virginia,an for their and lands oflabor bestowed whichindemnity expenses upon

had been the and and whichthey bond werepossessors improvers,fidestated,reclaimed the true He that the and interests ofowners.by rights

those claimants would be determined this decision of theirrevocably bythe tenant in thecourt, cause it to be topresent having permitted brought

counsel,a and onanywithout withouthearing, appearing by argumentmoved,side of the He, therefore,that that the certificate to thequestion.

court, stated,circuit of the of this court the shouldopinion upon questionswithheld, and term,be the cause continued to the next for argument.

Motion granted.8th-11th, demandant,March 1822. for the made threeMontgomery,

: 1st. That this court is invested with the of thepoints power questioningof the acts of under claims,which the tenantvalidity legislative Kentucky,

both the national constitution and the state constitution ofby Kentucky.2d. That the acts of so far as the contro-they respectKentucky, present

nullare and void. 3d. That the act of 1812 cannot be to theversy, appliedcase, with the of the constitution of andconsistently provisions Kentucky

theof United States.denied,*1. He that this court bound thewas by exposition, given

[*19courts,the state to that of the state constitutionpart now drawnbyin a of nationalin even case which the hadquestion, judiciary cognisance

thefrom the character of as citizens of dif-parties litigant,merely beingless,and still the inferent states : where subject-matter wascontroversy

that of the United States constitution,connected with provision whichthe of contracts statesecured acts. ainviolability against Suchlegislative

an effectual forrecipewould furnishdoctrine thesanctioning injustice byto local alaw,of decisions much more extensiveforms effect thanby giving

been béfore attributed to them.had ever theUnquestionably, adjudica-courts, become aof the state where have settled rule oftheytions property,

to be as conclusiveare, ;in evidence of the local butregarded lawgeneral,of the involved,the fundamental law of the state iswhere interpretation

that the ofand where constitutionespecially, interpretation depends uponis the the stateUnion, .courts must besupreme law),the (which necessarily

ofthe this court. Thiscontrolled by superintending authority dependsconstitutions,to our anda which thempeculiarprinciple distinguishesupon

hasfree and limited which been hithertofrom known inevery governmentIn the of is notEngland, legislative power parliamentthe world. only

absolute, and farbut it is as written des-depends(so uponsupreme, rules)and uncontrollable other whatever. 1 Bl. Com. 160-by any authoritypotic

^limitations theBut various are con-upon legislative power62.*-in the constitution of and that of thetained UnitedKentucky;

other restraints thecontains of the severalupon legislativeStates powerthem,to the national the ofstates, and judiciary authoritygives enforcing

states,in citizens ofcontroversies between different as thearisingespecially,case does.present

9

COURT [Feb’ySUPREME20Green v. Biddle.

be maintainedstated, the second wouldpoint by establishingthatHe2.acts in areThat the question repugnant1st. legislative:two propositions

1789, the states of andthe of between Virginiaterms of compactto thearticle of the of Ken-a fundamental constitutionis madewhichKentucky,

inconstitution,to thatacts are depriving2d. That the repugnant:tuckytrialof the by jury.the demandant

“ land,”and ofin the interests importused compact, rightsThe termsA ofa mere formal title. right property necessarilymore thansomething

enter,to to the rents andto the possession, enjoyincludes the recoverrightDict,undisturbed others. Jac.continue to Lawpossess, byand toprofits,

Case,445, ; ;Altham’s 8 Co. 299 Plowd.; Litt. 447536 Co.tit. Right, §in has a to beland,to and is possession,He has a rightwho right478.

fruits;in the use of the land and itsandmaintained in that possession,land, but is out of has a toa to possession, rightand he haswho right

aThese are the and incidents ofor seisin. qualitiesthe possessionrecoverhad been taken; none of which theland, awayat common law bytoright

“was made. *As to the inter­the time the wordcompactstatute>*on•' cautela,inserted ex abundanti toest,” it have been protectmightthe not carried intowhich, at the time of werecompact, yet grant.rights

land, authorities,to beinterest, to according many mayThe term as applied;land in it cannotfrom a to befee-simple yetdifferent rightsomething

inhas an interest the A termdoubted, he has a land.fee-simplethat whothe both of and mort­interest,an and so is right mortgagorfor isyears

“clear, that the term and interests ofis, then,It rights land”quitegagee.and ofthe mere use the evidencepossessionmeans a deal thanmoregreat

of title.rules of and refer­What, then, the law withwere pre-existing equity,

construed?of is to be the commonence to the 1789 Bywhich compact1785,the statute ofin force in and thelaw, then Virginia, by remedy by

fee; and ifhim had the theof to who demandantwrit wasright givento beseisin,his he also recover assessed thedamages,recovered might by

assize,of tenant’s of thewithholding possessionfor the tene­recognitorsan33. In casesment demanded. 1 Rev. Code where ejectment wasVirg.

action for the mesnethe have his separatebrought, party might profits,the statutein its ofwhich could be restrained limitationsonly operation by

of which had beenof five As to the estab­positive equity,years. systemand it was notto,at the referred which wassupposedlished period infringed

found,it be that thethe acts in will casesnow whereby question,legislativeinterfered, be reduced to the■6 court of *has maychancery following

J came into in order toequityclasses 1. Where the disembar-­: partyfrom the defecttitle of law,rass his of difficulties evidence atresultinglegal

and the mesne 2. Where theprofits.also a decree for titleprayed wasas todecreed both the title andhas for themerely equitable, chancery

dower, thein title as well as thealso,mesne 3. So cases of mesneprofits.In infants are interested,has been decreed. 4. cases where the titleprofits

In all these cases,mesne have been determined. theand bothprofits plain­title, as for anrelief, as the account of thetiff well mesnesought touching

; has, therefore, allowed,the been forand claimant valuable andprofitsIn the first and classes,made. second theimprovements, bondlasting fidefrom the time offor mesne has been taken theaccount suitprofits bringing

10

22OF THE UNITED STATES.1823]Green v. Biddle.

because the Buthad lain with his title. where-­only, plaintiff improperly byfact not thethat does the account carried back to timeisappear, always'

3; 83, ;the title 2 1 2 283 Ibid.;accrued. Vern. 724 Atk. 524-26 Ibid.; 2 1 is; ;130-34 645-46 1 Wash. 329. ThereP. Wms. Madd. Ch. 73-75

no case where a bill has been filed the value oftheby occupant, claiminghis it has beenthe The whereowner. casesimprovements against rightallowed, are the title an rents constitutedwhere and account of and profits

the resisted thebill,the matter of and where the defendantcomplainant’shimself,relief in a *claimsomecolor of withsought, by setting up .title r¡j.

*•for maxim thethe This the favorite ofimprovements. went uponButcourt of that he must thoughwho will have dochancery, equity.equity

1789,beforecase, found,no where the the is to bewasoccupant plaintiff,which,admitted, are ofit is there certain maxims and equity,yet principles

the of in would authorizecombined with state land titles Kentucky,peculiarevident,to aa of relieve. Yet it that comingcourt is quite partyequity

must haverelief, law,after had him atwith his bill for a recovery againstin the cases abovethan thestood a differentvery complainantsupon ground

ofto. must have been to the extraordinaiy powersreferred His applicationhavecourt; must in rule that he will equitythe he have come under the who

he the loss ofmust do not have been topermitted gainwouldequity; byaction,reala a in arecoverythe other bill afterUponparty, (a) brought

been the time of his firstthe account have carried back to takingwoulda fulldone,have been by makingwouldpossession: equitycompletei

side,of value of the rents and waste on one and of theestimate the improve­notwant of of the defendant’s title couidother;ments on the the notice

he hisas since would standimportant, upon judgmentbeen consideredhaveaccount thusdecree be for the balance of the taken.at law : but the would

in *follow­a of mesne the action ofprofits, trespass,After recovery r¡¡¡*-stat­in if the had nota ejectment, occupant pleaded.theing recovery

limitations, bill, and the matter wouldhe have hismight broughtute ofstatute,he the;in the same mode but if hadbeen pleadedhave adjusted

of he could notthe true a of his indemnity,and thus owner partdeprivedandas a to dowilling consequently,before the court party equity,stand

a retainedBut even that bill would benot supposingcould have equity.limitations,the same rule whichcase, depriveda most ofin certainly,such

be thea of would also toof his damages, applied improve­the partproprietortoo, that withtime of limitation. Admitting, respectmade before thements

title, relief,of the as claimingthe owner complainant,betweento questionsand the otheras for the rents and party,the title profits,as touchingwell

reconciled, athere is decidedverycannot be yet preponderancecasesall thenaked; to a claimnow maintained and withof the doctrine respectin favor

there is no contradiction whatever.for improvements,“ thewhich are used in withsecure,” compactandthe terms validAs to

laws ofderived from the Vir-and interests of landthe rightstoreferenceand of whatever isthe validity securitymust permanentthey importginia,

in-those andto, of rightsincident thein, complete enjoymentorincludedthe statethe of legis-and is actssecurity impaired byThis validityterests.

jv/rain/¡uriaet naturescum alterim detrimentoLocuplebiorem neminem(a) fieriAntiq.Keg.de Jur.urge, 206, Div.L. Jure fiataquum est..

11

SUPREME COURT [Feb’y24

Green v. Biddle.

law,lature in the common the statutenow connected withByquestion.cited, aof the demandant in of was entitled tobefore writVirginia, right

recover, seisin,with his such as the'-'’together damages jury might-1 to, land,think him entitled for the detention of the and thefor waste

it, back to the time when the enteredcommitted upon extending occupant1797, 1,the But the act of he is to noland. recoverupon by damagesfor§

notice, notice,land,the use of the before actual nor even to thatsubsequentunless the is asuit within the third section the act ofyear. ofbrought By1812, his for the detention are not todamages commence until the final judg-ment or decree in act,the courts of thejurisdiction. Under first hisoriginal

;to is second,diminished under the it is anni-right damages greatly almosthilated. But the of the are tested thesuppose respective rights parties by

; tenant,settled doctrines of case,the in thepositive equity present seekingfrom aa who had clearequity would have beenparty right,legal compelled

to do He ancomplete equity. would have received allowanceequitable forhis if ;made but theimprovements, bond of the demandantjudgmentfide

;would not have been disturbed the thevalue of wouldimprovements havebeen ofwith the amount his and acompared decree rendereddamages,

to the result of that In the case of aaccording comparison. recovery byfollowed the action for mesneejectment, by of thewhich wastrespass profits,

land, 1789,undoubted of the owner of thethe as law stood in theright rightof the is diminished inplaintiff law,the acts the oldby question.now Underhe not be sustained,could restricted from theintoinquiring damages from

, the time the defendant *the land,entered- to thedown time ofupon■-* suit unless the defendant the statute ofbrought, limitations.pleaded

ifBut the on defence,insisted thatoccupant he could no inhave remedyThe act of 1812 also makes the bond for the ofequity. a thegiving value

a condition to the of thusimprovements, recovery thepossession, deprivingtrue owner of his absolute to the writ of exe-pre-existent right appropriate

clear,cution. It is then that the of the theof land are im-rights proprietorthe in ;statutes are neitherpaired determinedby question the samethey by

laws, nor the same ofby intoequity incorporated new laws.principlesNor can these statutes be on the of abstractsupported principles justice.

It notis a maxim of the ofcourt but ofonly wisechancery, every legislatorthat is also,Soequality one not to the lossequity. ought of ano-gain byther, in maxims,who was no fault. theFrom these two becorollary maydrawn, that where the of two individuals arerespective andcapitals equal,their same,skill andoccupations, are the their condition in theindustrysocial farstate as it to(so depends upon belegislative regulations) ought

the same. Not one ofprecisely fortune,that not benefit turnsmay by goodwithout his ;with the other but the shouldsharing gains that law not takefrom the one to other, richer,to the the one to make thegive rendering other

Here,some fault ofpoorer, without the latter. the counsel illustrated theof thisapplication a of cases whichprinciples, by putting variety mightunder ^statutes,°°cur the to the extreme andshow injustice inequal-■9■-|

-1 of theirity operation.Nor does the fourth of 1789,article the of warrant thecompact passage

of the acts under consideration. It to themerely gives Kentucky power oflands to be and cultivated after sixrequiring Thatimproved years. this

article does the benot to case shown severalby consider-present mayapply12

27THE STATESOF UNITED1823]Green v. Biddle.

in exe-betonot,1. The acts their terms,ations : in do purportquestion byim-land toofcution of such 2. A to the ownersa power. power require

toand a; powerwelfare,and onecultivate for the isprove thinggeneralanother, differ-is a verytotake the of one citizen and itaway property give

cultivation, declaringent A8. law and andthing. improvementrequiring;landsa unoccupiedforfeiture for be towouldnon-compliance, only applied

whereas, improvedthe to the are actuallylands alone acts arewhich appliedhasand of him whoThe is the actscultivated. true owner prevented, by

the fromusurped possession, personal compliance.ofcontended,It certain ancient Virginiabe that there are statutesmayKentucky.acts ofthe same theobnoxious with recentrecognising principles

ofBut thatthe (called)statute at all of this character wasonly partakingthe 13th the restoration.II.,of Charles but in fact afterpassed immediately

tointendedThis statute wasin its andentirely retrospective operation,wasand theato of the civil warspeculiar stateapply existing duringthings

thecommonwealth, enactingas andboth thedistinctly by preambleappears,the truecontained, however,*clauses. It no for deprivingprovision ..■*-rents,owner of the in&e., and 1748.repealedwas actuallyhead, con-As to thethe second under thisproposition, generalparticular“ the ancient10,stitution of thatdeclaresKentucky expressly (art. 6),§

thereof remainsacred,mode of trial theshall be held and rightby juryofas to writsinviolate.” The this of triallaw of modeprescribedVirginia

theofothers,all its thedetails, damageswith and thatright, amongstthedemandant for the land be assessed by jury.detention of the should

modeAn this ancienttribunal commissioners is forarbitrary of substitutedThustrial, acts,of of is in question.the the now drawnby whichvalidity

entitled,is not the amount of the demandant wasonly to whichdamageslaw,the a is to be liquidatedunder old diminished to but even thatpittance,

a tribunal far more unfavorable to him than aby jury.The of3. third a from the proofwould follow asgeneral point corollary

the the act of 1812two or either of them : That1.following propositions,Kentucky,is both to the United constitution and that ofStatesrepugnant

as in and as impairingits vestedbeing retrospective operation upon rights,ofthe of is thecontracts. 2. That it to constitutionobligation repugnantisin the a matter whichKentucky, determining, by legislative department,

theexclusively cognisable by judicial.10, “nofirst, 18, postAnd the art. that exstate constitution provides, §

thelaw, contracts, be andnor law shall madeimpairing _■facto “ *-13, no shalldeclares, 1, passnational constitution art. that state§attainder,of the oflaw, obligationbill ex orpost impairinglawany facto

similar, and the sub-contracts.” The of the areterms prohibition verythebar,at the to demand-is the In the case injurystance same.absolutely

1812, which hasthe the act ofant committed before ofwas long passagelite.pendenteand him of his evenviolently deprived remedy,interposed

andlaws,ex post againstthe twoConsidering againstprohibitions factotocontracts, will be foundthe theylaws of together,impairing obligation

to pre-a and applyto vested of property,afford complete protection rightseitherare founded uponto the case. All of actionrightspresentcisely

The; ex delicto.contracts or torts are either ex contract'd orupon theythe obli-framers of theconstitutions, impairingour prohibitions againstby

13

29 COURTSUPREME [Feb’y

Green v. Biddle.

ofgation contracts, intended to all contractprotect rights dependent uponfrom diminished or and could not havebeing destroyed; they certainlyintended to unredressed,leave to ex delictoinjuries property arising whollyor to leave the Doubtless,to the of the stateremedy caprice legislatures.the more is, that this of ex postreceivedgenerally opinion prohibition facto

is be ;laws to restricted to matterscriminal but there are authoritiesgreatto the The on of incommentator the lawscontrary. England, downlayingthe maxim of that postex laws not to bepolitical philosophy, oughtfacto

does, indeed, apassed, ;illustrate his criminal case andposition by probably,some misled,have been the for the 1rule. Bl.*by taking exampleCom. however,46. Dr. down the rule withoutPaley, lays quali-any

fication whatever. Moral & Political Philos. 444.Paley’sBut this first tosupposing be thereproposition questionable, certainly

can be no doubt as to the the constitution ofsecond. it isBy Kentucky,“declared, that the of shall be divided intopowers government three distinct

departments, and each of them be confided to a ofseparate body magistracy,wit,to those which are' ;to one those executive,which arelegislative, to

another; and those arewhich to another.” And the secondjudicial, by“section of the article,same that no orperson, collection of shallpersons,

exercise any power ;to either of the others inproperly belonging exceptingthe instances hereinafter Row,directed or it cannotexpressly permitted.”

denied,be that a facts,particular which,out ofcontroversy, arising anbylaw, theexisting give a to certainparties remedies in theright courts, is a

matter ofexclusively here,But thejudicial cognisance, legislative depart-ment has adjudicated it,upon remedies,with these afterby interfering a lis

so as to takependens, the of one and toaway it anotherproperty give party.It is an adjudication the tenant from adischarging claim, thejust whichdemandant had him under the law,formeragainst without any equivalentor to theindemnity latter. That this has beenadjudication clothed withthe forms of public and and includesgeneral legislation, case of theevery

same class, can make no ^difference. This is an of thatexample very■311J sort of which Dr.legislation Paley double;and calls itreprobates,the exercise bothbeing of andjudicial Suchlegislative power. legislative

acts do not discriminate different cases,between to theiraccording peculiarcircumstances, as the Thus,would do. thejudicial authority act of 1812confounds the case of the intogether person title,wait with his to takelyingan unfair of the andadvantage that of thecompact, owner,rightful whohas and claimconstantly ;his casesopenly pursued of and of fullinfancy

; of fair andage fraudulent short,settlement: in all circumstances andarequalities inblended one act ofindistinguishably sweeping retrospective

injustice.

Bibb, contra, contended, that the substantial effect of the acts of 17971812,aud went to allow themerely from thegrantee commonwealth, who,

under faith in his has madegrant, valuable and thelasting improvements,•amount of those ;improvements and to fromhimexempt foraccounting

rents and to the timeprofits, down hewhen to be a maidbegins posses-fidesor, the better titleby of theresisting true owner. That the acts did not

even to cases ofapply disputed boundaries, but to cases of.only conflictingtitles nor; to cases of fraud, or of lands cultivated andpreviously improved.

14

31STATES.THE UNITEDOF1823]v. Biddle.Green

laws,of of the underpracticetheinto a ofHe entered detail the provisions;the courts and con-received fromhadthem, of the theyand exposition

is of1812,of aof the acttended, ^principleThat1st. the principle |-■82*•a bondbyto improvementsnatural and as permanentequity justice,accounts of rentstheofThat the postponing2d. principlepossessor.fide

inrule, and such as is familiarly appliedand is the true chanceryprofits,are not to theThat' the lawsof 3d. repugnantthe of courts equity.practice

of 1789.compactthis momentousthe whereunder which country,1. The circumstances

in itThe manner whichto be considered.arises, settled, arewasquestionand theto were firstcolonized, acquired,in the titles landand whichwas

areclaims and unfortunately,of conflicting litigation,confusionconsequentcircumstances, allthese difficultbut too known to the court. Underwell

ofdone, assert naturalis, justicethe to the principlethat local haslegislaturealands,of undertakes vacantand that he who possessionartificial equity,

shallandtitle, improvements,and makes valuable‘primdfaeie lastinglegalis the rule ofa Such well-establishedbe considered as bond possessor.fide

the free-mustthe court as to which withpassof chancery, improvements,aIt is wheretitle. ven-hold, to the hisasserting paramount applied,party

also, asale, : so mort-dee, under an for a takes wherepossessionagreementa withoutis the never payingin court permits redemptiongagee possession,

in similarIf, then, the has a right,for partypermanent improvements.athe has definedcases, to an is it that statuteindemnity, any objection,

? betterrule, be *Whatindispensablewhat shallrequisitesdeclaring*-a under ?be, the sealevidence of bona can there than grant greatfides

claims, of different orThere is a of consisting gradesgreat varietyin and notclasses, the to landstitles Kentucky, dependingcomplicating

ofdoubts,on but on of evidencequestions great difficulty.merely legalofclaim,1 is is suchBibb’s Preface. What the whichRep., opposing

to the into a maidas convert occupant possession?validity primdfaeie fideis,rule, thatThe local tribunals have the safelaid down whichonly practical

a shall alone be sufficient. All grantsthe decision of court of recordpositiverecord, matterare and the can be of record.by patent only repealed by

escheat,There be a to the and in the case ofmust scire repeal patent;faciasa is the theUntil of commonwealthregluar inquisition indispensable. grant

it,and be asannulled,is a under cannot consideredholdingperson claimingin beena maid The of the has con-question,lawspossessor. validityfide

con-;firmed innumerable decisions and have beenby they always strictlyin of titles and havefined their to undereasesoperation conflicting grants,

443;a 1never been extended to Marsh.protect possession.maid (Ky.)fide; ; 246,3 4214;2 Ibid. Bibb 298 461 1 Marsh.Ibid. 247.

decisions,a of2. The of is settled series bothgeneral principle equity byand in A ease on is that ofsubject,in this thisEngland country. leading

Beane, There,Duke Bolton v. Prec. Ch. the *doctrinethe 516. _■ofLover,established, ifthat the lessor suffers the lessee to holdwas

will not the tenant to account for mesne unless theequity compel profits,fraud, some accident.lessor was hindered from orentering, by extraordinary

down, inis as to mesne otherThe same laid severalprofits,principle1Abr., ;tit. Mesne Profits Atk. Andcases. Cas. 526. wher-Eq.adjudged

inhas or laches on the of the true ownerthere been default partever any15

SUPREME COURT [Feb’y34Green v. Biddle.

title,bis account is restrained to tbe oftbe the bill. Dormerasserting filingSo, aFortescue, 3 P. 136. where manv. Wins. suffers another to build ona afterwards,his tillupwithout a court ofsetting right willground, equity

to thethe builder to itpermit,owner Fastcompel enjoy quietly. India Go.2Vincent, Atk. 83. The samev. has been ourprinciple recognised by own

courts, beand is also to found ofthe maxims the Roman law.amongMcKean, 1 2;Southall v. Wash. 336 432,Domat’s Civ. Law Strahan’s

189,;Translation Karnes’ Eq. 2*70.(1st ed.)1789,As to the of3. between andcompact it aisVirginia Kentucky,

;for faith a meregood of the oftreaty naturalrecognition principles lawA ofand morality. does not makechange sovereignty usually any change

in soil;in interests the and theproprietary iscompact merely declaratoryof that of law. The Louisianaprinciple public treaty contains stipulations

inhabitants,the of the offor theprotection property but it has never beentoconstrued limit the ofsovereign the States therights United over domain

*of that Neither did the ofprovince. intendcompact 1789 to limit■° •> the of It issovereignty Kentucky. a formerely the con-stipulationin their ;servation of titles for fair andintegrity impartial legislation upon

ofthe which wererights property derived from theoriginally laws of Vir-It could not have meant to theginia. prevent modification of inremedies the

courts, and what is called thegenerally lex to the doctrineAccordingfori.on side,contended for the other the of couldlegislature not evenKentucky

extend the time for thanentering surveys; which could benothing moreabsurd and extravagant.

But the true which theprinciples is to beby compact interpreted havebeen settled this In 5court. v.already by Bodley Taylor, 223,Cranch it is

down,laid if thethat same measure of be meted to the citizens ofjustice eachif; laws be neitherstate made nor for the ofexpounded, purpose depriving

are tothose who meant be the ;of theirprotected noby compact, rights viola-tion of the can be said to exist. This case alsocompact determines the prin-

that the decisions of the local courts are to beciple, followed: and the incon-veniences which would flow from the of land titlesshaking system estab-lished the uniform seriesby of their is insisted on as aadjudications, reasonfor to the ofrulesadhering also,thus established.property Ibid. 234. Sothis court has sanctioned the actsolemnly of further timeKentucky, giving

for ; as ofsurveys well as *the statute oflimitations that.j. state; and1J concerning champerty 324;the act and 2maintenance. Wheat.1 Ibid. 292.

The of insystem legislation now does but thequestion, follow maximslaid down by that the lawsMontesquieu, ;should encourage thatindustry

climate,the more and circumstances,other tend to the cultiva-discourageearth,tion of the the more the ;should excite and thatlegislator agriculture

those laws which tend to lands,the and take frommonopolize individualsthe spirit, the effect of thoseproprietary unfavorableaugment circumstances.

Lois, 14, 6, 8, 9,desEsprit Here,lib. c. 11. it is thatthough acknowledgedthe titles are to be decided to the laws of ataccording theVirginia, existing

of the a newepoch compact, interest hasproprietary since, notgrown upforeseen nor for. The inprovided faithpossessor has covered the facegood

the hisof with theown fruits of his toil andcountry property, industry,16

36OF THE UNITED STATES.1823]

Green v. Biddle.

fromit is land should takewhich not that the of theownerjust unimprovedhim, anwithout indemnity.

thethe decisions ofinterfere,how can this court after settledAgain,laws, thus disturblocal has confirmed the of these andcourts validity

in athat,; too,andthe rules of which been establishedfirmlyhavepropertyarein thecase the on interestedsides, controversy,where bothparties really

the ofThe iscitizens of the same state ? not within jurisdictionsubjectorinterested,court,the either as to the character the reallyof parties

The*as to the of the jurisdiction origin-subject-matter controversy. ..¡, ■Lthethe been defined and limitedconstitution hasally bygiven bybeenact, grantedand is not eo-extensive with what havejudieiary might

United, 3JBevans,v. Wheat.under the constitution. Statesby congress5 The336, 387, ; may,390 v. Ibid. 93. statesWiltberger,United States

;eachmake or otherthe consent of withcompacts agreementswith congress,Themake a the consent of congress.but cannot even withthey treaty,

them asthen does not extend to such compacts, consideringjudicial powerthe statestreaties, constitution,the prohibitsnor does that clause of which

contracts, theof tofrom law the applymaking any impairing obligationtoextendThat can be construed tocase. prohibition fairlypresent only

indi-individuals, most,at a state andor,contracts betweenbetween privatestates, in theiror differentviduals. An between twocompactagreement

never,can byand their sovereign rights,sovereign capacities, respectingofconstruction,of the a pro-the utmost latitude be within graspbrought

for the ofhibition, privatewhich intended protectionevidently merelywasfrom the statecontracts, or out of aout of grantrights, growing private

a interest in the grantee.vesting proprietarydeclare athis court canis,The then whetherquestiononly remaining

state,thevoid, contrarythe constitution ofstate law as torepugnantbeingcourts, the exclusiveof state are rightfulto the uniform decisions the who

It that this^conceived,of their local law ? is pointownexpounders r#<-Bull,of this v.is settled the decisions court. Galderirrevocably byitinference,a mistaken is quite3 this to beDali. 386. But even supposing

court, it notand of the that willclear, from the uniform conductlanguagevoid,to beact,an of or national asdeclare the state legislature,whether

law, a clear ease.unless in veryto the fundamentalbeing repugnantin thefor interference of the courtBesides, there the less theis necessity

ofa for theas itself tribunalcase, adjustmentthe compact providespresentit notand that if doesit;arise under stipulation,whichany maydisputes

allother tribunal in cases arisingexclude the ofjurisdiction anyentirelyon the ofwill, a for cautionit, least, partat furnish motive greatunder

■ alone arewhere,,in a if citizens ofthe national case Kentuckyjudiciary; anddecisionsof their own courtsinterested, to be bound thethey ought by

involved, it theof are depends upon pleas-if the of citizens Yirginiarightsare to be determined.create the tribunal which theyure of that state to by

was,in the causeside,the thestated, questionon same thatClay, greatandare to berule, compared,is that these lawswhat with whichparamount

If the jurisdictiondeclared void this court.byif found to berepugnant,constitution,the nationalunder that clause ofnow to be exercised arises

the obliga-from makingthe individual states lawany impairingprohibiting178 Wheat. —2

*39 SUPREME COURT [Feb’y

Green v. Biddle.

contracts, then court to itstion of the draw *the sub-may cognisancein canotherwise,But if then itject-matter controversy. only acquire

of asthe character the citizensjurisdiction parties litigant, ofby beingso ofstates,different and entitled to the the federal Theprotection forum.

be,first then would whether there be-wasinquiry any subsisting compactoftween the states and which the ofjurisdictionVirginia Kentucky upon

the fastencourt could ?If must be it;there be a it between ofcompact, parties capable making

;a on which made insubject they andupon might constitutionally stipulatea form the thewarranted constitution. as to theby Waiving question

he contend, 1st. That the hadwould not beenparties, supposed compactif;made and 2d. That the is to beconstitutionally compact interpreted

as the state of from the inlawsrestraining passingKentucky question,the restraint itself would be unconstitutional and void.

of1. Both the articles confederation and the nationalby original existingconstitution, the states are from ortreating with eachprohibited contractingother, consent The terms ofwithout the of the in thecongress. prohibition

“ shall,constitution are no state the ofwithout consent con-very strong:state,enter into or with another orgress, aany agreement compact foreign

It orextends to all no matter ispower.” agreements what thecompacts,of It immaterial, therefore,them. is whether thatsubject besubject

, harmless or to the There is here no *roomUnion. for in-dangerous■ “‘ words,or are theterpretation. Any agreement and allcompact,”the states,contracts between without consent of arethe interdic-congress,

make,ted. To therefore, the it must beensupposed compact binding, haveinto thatentered with consent. It notis now insisted that (though perhaps

it that this consent must the All thatmay be), precede compact. will beasked is cannot be itthat must either or(what precede follow thedenied),

case,In the there no for acompact. ispresent pretence alleging subsequentthere, then,assent. Was a one The actexpress ? of didprior notVirginia

even to theask consent of to the Allprofess that it de-congress compact.was,manded that should to the ofcongress consent admission the proposed

Union,state the &c.,into and has not evencongress to all thatrespondedwas asked. What it has canto,assented be ascertainedonly by resortingto the it has 4th,fit to use. The act oflanguage thought 1791February

alone thewhich will of this is(by on de-congress subject signified), merelyclares the ofconsent that to theof district ofbody the erecting Kentuckyinto a and itsseparate state, and into theindependent reception Union upona certain day. Beyond it,what was asked of has not ascongress ; togonethe rest theof matters these,connected it Therewith was altogether passive.was, then, no ;It a forwas mere the of Ken-compact. negotiation people

did not intucky convention,meet it1792,until iswhen that theirsupposedassent to the wascompact given.

said,*But it bemayi that did not con-though congress expressly*4-,J sent, it inyet the isacquiesced compact, which Thisequivalent. iswhat is denied. The ofconsent it must evi-required, becongress beingdenced someby or,act. is apositive collective itCongress rather, con-body,sists of three bodies, each of which in the ofexercise theparticipates legis-lative of the nation. The andpower forms ceremonies of mustpassing lawsbe observed. The doctrine of thecannot to exercise ofacquiescence apply

IS

STATES, 41THE UNITEDOF1823]

Green v. Biddle.

?of did the senatesuch a the house ?Didpower. representativessovereignit silence cannotascertain ? Theirdid the How do you?president, acquiesce

tothem inter-into It was not fornecessaryhe acquiescence.interpretedbe a mereconsent,theirthat, which,in order to without wouldpose, prevent

in theanIf hadnullity. interposed, by express prohibition,they actuallythan itthe make the more void wasform,most solemn it could not compactformation,in itsa from an inherent defect originalbefore. Being nullity,

existed,Neverit could not be made more extraneous act.so, havingby anyits conceivable whatever.existence could not be destroyed by any power

into the that canIndeed, doctrine, agree-set congress tacitly acquiesceupstates, of most dan-ments, the would bemade betweenunconstitutionally

theand fatal It sanction agreementswould whatevergerous consequences.other,each introduce chaosseveral states choose make andto withmight

members,into the between its differentbyconfederacy, engagementsthe duties allother, they ,■inconsistent *each and withwith conflicting

Lareown to the All the of the constitution againstUnion. analogiesa of the exercise of differentsuch Various powers bydoctrine. prohibitions

are contained in the constitution.states,the the consent ofwithout congress,consent, orThus, that fromare laying impostswithoutthey prohibited,

are theduties on or such as fornecessary executingimports exports, exceptfrom or; troopsor andlaws; duty shipsinspection any tonnage keeping

invaded,in war,in time from unless or;of andpeace actuallyengagingThesein such as not admit of prohibitionsimminent will delay.danger

are all the theiragainstconnected in the same clause with prohibitionit thatVet,contracts each cannot be pretended,with other.making surely,

in all the can be inferred from its silence.these cases consent of congressto has beentrue, acts,It is the such not alwaysthat consent of congress

theit;asked their to asked and actsthe states. But it havewasby dutynullities,are mere unless consent be obtained.the

the state of2. If the is to restrainto becompact interpretedsupposedbe uncon-from the in such restraint wouldlawsKentucky passing question,

ofincontestable, are some attributes sovereignty,stitutional. It is that thereofthe concurrence congressof which a state cannot be even withdeprived,

thatis, of perfectand the state itself. The true of our governmenttheorythe of the Whatever sovereign powersmembers Union.equality among

.„anotherall *refuse to allowhas,one each and have. A state may p,.Lforma-if it consents to the;state be out of its butto carved territoryall thestate,tion a invested with sovereignof new such state becomesnew

state;aof refuse to admit newattributes old one. Congressevery mayliberated fromUnion,if in the freed andit,but it admits the state stands

its Whatever oneit compeers.condition which belowevery degradewouldison all thedo,state can The of the whole parts,can all do. pressure

to This prohibitionand all the are each other. impliedequal, parts equala toform, state attemptsextends to in whichbyevery compact, every

a cannotThe of stateitself of its faculties. sovereigntydeprive sovereigncan beexist, act;it to and therea territorial domain which isuponwithout

tobut isno other action its own whatrestrictions its withinupon territory,all theconstitution, Ofbe found in or in the national constitution.its own

of its actionthan thatof is moreattributes nonesovereignty, indisputableato be in waste andthatown If happensitsupon territory. territory

19

SUPREME COURT [Feb’y43

Green v. Biddle.

;to itsstate, it;it laws to reclaim encourage populationwilderness may passthe old states;to to increase That ofanycultivation production.promote

it, thendolaws, ;can such is incontestable and if rightfullypass they mayIf, then,the be no constitutionallydo same. thereKentucky compactmay

the statemade, none,and could have been the of restrictingwith powerrule,the in is no fundamentalfrom laws therelegislature passing question,

the ofwith violation which standthey chargeable.into the statesaid,*But it be this rule isthatmay incorporated

-* of theanswered,constitution. To this it is that the incorporationit a ifconstitution, compact,into the makesupposed state did notcompact

it constitution.otherwise wanted the the federalsanctions underrequisiteit inserted,If a con-were the of its bindingmistakenupon beingsupposition

tract, does asthe be consideredinsertion effect Is it not to?produce anythe which, null,insertion of that notwithstand-void,before remainsbeing

insertion,the insertion it is clear :? That is a theing not made compact bythe states,for the consentprohibition the withoutupon to contract or agree,

form,of is a in constitutionalcongress, to contract orprohibition anyagreeor otherwise.

But it has not bealthough the of a it may possiblyproperties compact,contended, that isit nevertheless a of Kentucky,of the constitutionpartand therefore, ofthe The conventionof the state.binding upon legislature

inIf, that,theKentucky proceeded thatupon notion it a compact.wasmistaken,were neverthey it to be wastreated in aought character which

intended ? itCan be intreated that There are reciprocal pro-character ?invisions it. it to on thebe no thoseSupposing partcompact, stipulations

of which formed the the ofVirginia, partonconsiderations of stipulationstherefore,would not be be mostKentucky, on would,Itbinding Virginia.

to hold sheunjust, for for whichboundKentucky thegrants, equivalentscannot enforce. If deemedone to bebound,is notparty the other ought

free : and *the of. of the the constitutionintoincorporation compact■-* to the erroneousbe considered as

it of thewas the asupposition; made partthatcompact, wasemphatically,constitution. If it wasthere orwere no :insertedcompact, wasnothingthe will of one wasin to thereparty, form,the whichexpressed most solemn

thewanting of the aother,will or itsanction, compact.the to makefederalIf, the Kentuckynotwithstanding freedom of from obligations,Virginia anyis to be then,as bound theregarded act, ques-her constitutionalby separate

is,tion what did she it ? Are weintend that act is to? Whoby expoundto look for itself,the of the statestate,the ameaning constitution of withinor are we to denied,look abroad for beneed not? Itforeign interpreters

inthat states,case of an to the of othertribunals,federal citizensappeal bythe theagainst acts toof local oflegislation, the repugnanceupon ground

state mustconstitutions, But itthey on thatmay pronounce repugnancy.be a clear case of law.the stateto them inrepugnancy, annullingjustifyAnd after all the inof adepartments givingstate had unitedgovernmentan exposition to for aconstitution,its onactedwhich had uniformlybeenseries of years, and become solemnlya rule of court wouldthisproperty,pause, before it v.court, liodleyinoverturned such a Thisconstruction.

5Taylor, Crunch the decisions223, determined, it followthat would*401 of one lawsland*thedepartment in toonly (the respectjudiciary)

20

46STATES.OF THE UNITED1823Jv. Biddle.Green

Thedoubts of their correctness.strongit intimatedof although,Virginia,thea to peaceis regardjustly proceeds,this determinationon whichground

thoseofand theof preventionfor the rights property,aof respectsociety,and rules.conflictingfrom oppositeflowdisorders wouldwhich

theconstitution, thatdeclaration in thetheconvention, insertingThe byintended toit,of could not haveas aconsidered partto hewascompact

claimants,thefor the benefit oflaws occupyingof thetheprevent passagethe formation of the last constitu-those laws precededthe first ofbecause

of the lawhas affirmed theof last resort consistencyThe courttion. statethe constitution.its withand, conseqently, consistencythe compact;with

theof thathave the deliberateThus, adoption system bywe4 52.Bibbthe com-the date ofalmost withcontemporaneouslyauthority,legislative

ofconstitution,the without; disapprovingformation of presentthepactfor ato it the longan adherence; by legislative authority,andthat system

itsit,it has reviewed adhered towhich expresslyof duringseries years,effect.it a more expansiveand givenprinciple,

treated as one made all solem-is to be with necessarythe3. If compactattach,this court cannot until theofnities, party chargedthe jurisdiction

to constitute the tribunal of theit has refused compact.ofa violationwithfor *a Thattribunal.specialof the compact providesThe 8th article

*-as admit-a of the other. It ismuch compact anyis as partprovisionto and of the can-existed prior independent compact,whichted, that rights,

of that Butdecisions tribunal. whatever springthe rightsaffected bynot beit, are it.with and liable to be affected byof the compact, originateout

all the conditions which the thatenactmentrest, gavewithcoupledTheyIf the of,them. for vio-has upon party complainedthem birth imposed

inrefused to the the tri-co-operatehad constitution ofthe compact,latingthe of this attach,then court underjurisdictionof the mightbunal compact,

of itjudicialof the distribution whichpowers, cogni-that branch givesthe statesbetween had madecontroversies (if congress provisionsance of

thethat of ; or,to the courtparteffect constitution) perhaps,for givingascase, exercisein such between the individuals inter-jurisdictionmight,

of, it isbe cause complaint,If there by Virginiaested. against Kentucky.has never hascomplained :(until recently) acquiescedBut Virginia —she

to createso far from the tribunalrefusing of theand Kentucky, compact,it this matter.to refer to veryhas offered

contended, that thisbe is likeprovision theIt will probably ordinaryinsurance, and otherof contractsin for to arbi-policies referringstipulationbeen held to exclude thehas never of thetration, which jurisdiction ordinary

the onland. But which the courtsgroundsof the of Westminstercourtsin such cases is *that of theirassumed transcendentjurisdictionhave r*-Ins. If it res2 Marsh. 679. were thereintegra, wouldauthority.

contend, that, in cases,reason to thesebe the domesti-greatcertainly forumthe tofor haveby parties ought But,exclusive jurisdiction.cum stipulated

is this distinction,there thatplainas it the ofmay,be this courts West-a over thejurisdiction realm,Hall have general whilst this courtminster is

speciallimited of ajurisdiction, having cognisanceof few classes ofonethatfar as results fromjurisdictionSo the of the states,willonly.cases

it must beto the taken-compact, with theare restrictionsparties whichwho“The in effect, make aparties, say, we suchimposes. contract;that will

21

SUPREME COURT46 [Feb’yGreen v. Biddle.

execution,about its or aif we differ we will constituteinterpretation, spe-that indeed,tribunal to decide difference.” Congresscial might, you.give

a inover the modeby providing which constitu-compact, yourjurisdictionover controversies between the states shall betional jurisdiction exercised.

overall states isBut limitedsovereign derived),jurisdiction (however byanature of this were andthings.the very Suppose, foreign treaty, provided

thea reference to arbitration offor a wouldforeign takesovereign, youin that case ?jurisdiction

however, that the court should feel itself to takeSupposing, compelledcause,of the as abeing private betweencognisance present controversy

states, it itscitizens of different will exercise with the mostpower deliberateisThis court invested with the most importantcaution. trust that was

tribunal, the*ever for benefit of mankind. Thepossessed by any politi-cs] in America,to becal is solved whether written constitutionsproblemexist,canof exist. cannot aThey certainly withoutgovernment depositary

somewhere of the to theupon of thepower pronounce acts ofconformitythe to the fundamental Thisauthority law. court is thatdelegated deposi-

of But theand I not better. success oftary, anyknow this soexperiment,theto all that is dear to interests of human nature,interesting depends upon

isthe this trust executed.highwith whichprudenceit4. The to be andvalid doescompact, notsupposing binding, prohibit

Thethe of these laws. mode whichby privatepassage individuals coulda of the indomain asacquire public Virginia, prescribed the actpart ofby

1748, a certainwas withby survey, specifiedaccompanied improvements.Laws, IfRev. 338. not settled within threeLeigh’s Virg. theyears, grant

forfeited, formal towithout theany proceeding repeal 1779,was Inpatent.commenced the calamitous under which now suffers. Insystem Kentucky

revenue,a and for the defence oforder to raise theprovide frontier, the pre­with; and hence thevious wassurvey claimsdispensed conflicting which

the surface of the At thenow cover whole ofcountry. period the separa­states,of the the titles under thetion two law ofacquired 1779 were incom­

ofand in from the *toplete, every stage progression, theentry patent.*50] about to with the ; is,was thatVirginia part sovereignty with the

of the titles and herconsummating fulfilling Ifpower engagements. she;made no if she obtained no for theprovision guarantee complete execution

if;her she those who had©f theengagements exposed acquired to, orrighther,from the uncontrolledin, land to action of the newinterests sovereignty,

be with to herreproachedshe might justly infidelity Faith­engagements.these, the inful to was inserted.question The andstipulation object, the

theit,of to state that itnotifywas new must notonly object abuse itsthe detriment of underto andpersons claiming Virginia, topower, proclaim

her theirthose attention to interests. Itto was topersons parental announcestate,them, and to the new that their titles toto were remain valid and

athe Itsecure, under new was devolution the sove­sovereign. upon newthemthe duties of the oldof all towards andsovereign,reign more.nothing

the new state far as bound,to bind so was butVirginiaIt was to itleave asbeen, thereas she would have been nofree had separation. couldVirginia

to thehad no motive stateprevent fromimaginablehave allexercising.newOnof theaccustomed sherights sovereignty..the contrary, displayed

for the admission state Union,solicitude of the into thea new it amaking22

50OF THE STATES.UNITED1823]

Green v. Biddle.

view,condition of In this is the languageits withindependence. conformity“ ofof the all intereststhird article : it that andprovides, private rights

tolands, from ofdistrict,within the said derived the laws priorVirginia,such thesecure,*shall remain and under the laws ofseparation, valid

[*51state, and shall be indetermined the nowproposed by existinglaws“ interests,”this state.” beIf the reason for the terms andusing rights

title,seen,attended be a the theto, it will that it is for ofguarantee securityand asbut the title. It is no the newrestrictionnothing sovereigntyupon [’

theto it think fit All the ofwhich toany public policy might adopt. partsare to be taken and to expoundone article servecompact together, may

-another', third,is the bewhere there What meant mayisambiguity. by■the fourth That is of theascertained condition. a clear recognition rightby

the or .of to ornew state enforce cultivation forfeiturebyimprovement,thatother It the to exercise powerpenalty. expressly recognises right

forthwith, ; non-residents, a reasonableas to citizens and as to leavesmerelytime to enable them settle and It admits the right;to(six improve.years)

thethe the If par­of state to effect forfeiture or other penalty.object, bytitle,of theintended,ties to the a for thehad by provision securitycompact

from all the subject,to exclude the at uponlegislative authority actingofactionleft that to the most formidablewould havethey subject exposed

otherthe forfeiture or ?bysovereign power, penaltyof Ken-The courts of the of the legislatureKentucky, people Kentucky,

theofvalidityhave all the of the perfecttucky, proceeded upon principlein thetitles derived from the is interested pre-laws of Virginia. Everybody

*doesthose titles. The ofservation of legislative system Kentucky[*52act, until the its effect.not to of has hadbegin system completeVirginia

;the validtitle,After the and after it has beendecision upon pronouncedfulfilled,the the of Kentuckyafter terms of the are lawscompact completely

title,it not thedo iscommence their When they uponoperation. operate,title,in thatIt defect thebut the is not on account ofupon subject. any

of whichat from those considerationsall.they operate They spring policyisThe titlea effecta state has to and to.sovereign weighright give

com-the of it is not; title,from other causes dehors theadmitted but ownerina totitle, land,the he had onlyto for the nor for which rightpelled pay

fortohe is of payits native state : but ground public policy)compelled (ontitle,in the does not belongis not inherent naturallywhich whichsomething

com-the of thethis be not to true interpretationto the land. If accordinga solemninto an statethen the erection of wasKentucky independentpact,

a to exercisea of the withoutsovereignty, capacityIt wasmockery. grantstate,a the of to the withit; and transfer of newpowersovereign Virginia

If the compactto the exercise of any power.a sovereignprohibitionextent, athis itfrom on the tosubject goes greatrestrains her legislating

herfromfurther, legislative jurisdic-deal and theexempts subject entirelyland to; nor thenot tax the lands of non-residents subjectShe couldtion.

a des-make law of;in novel manner nor newthe of debtspayment anyIn;out nor a; a nor a road build town.laycents nor establish ferry;

theshort, no *whatever over subject.she can exert powersovereign r¡l!^herled to adoptFor if considerations of whichpolicy,those public

cannot neitherthe to the boná occupant, prevail,ofsystem compensation fidehercase, to authorize legis-in otherconsiderations,could similar any prevail23

SUPREME COURT53 [Feb’y

Green v. Biddle.

The R789,interference. code of theVirginialative must immutably governterritory.

said,But it be that the words of the third article must mean some-maytitle,more than a mere of the to the laws underaccordingthing security

it ; otherwise,which is derived the insertion of the article was use-utterlyless, since it would create no other that what existthan wouldobligation

is,The to of awithout it. answer this that the suchnecessity stipulationEven,out of the state of land titles ingrew Kentucky.very extraordinary

however, existed, cited,if reason had not bethis instances withoutmightnumber, are,of similar in international and treaties. Suchprecautions pacts

others, the tocession of heramong by westernVirginia territory congress,Kaskaskias, Vincennes, &e.,which contains a confirmation to the settlers of

of their ;and the the Floridatitles Louisiana andpossession^ treaty;; ofall contain similarwhich confirmations.treaty

however,It land,be that the and interests in asmay, urged, rightsderived from the of secure,laws cannot be valid and if these actsVirginia,have their effect: that there be a nominal the com-would withcompliance

but a real ;violation of it. If the on the title ifpact, laws operated theyobstructed or it,defeated the indeed *havewouldargument weight.■ i' •* It would, however, time,at athe same be to caseequally applicable

of forfeiture ; too,for non-settlement or in itcase,non-cultivation for thatsaid,be title, So,that inmight admit the but forfeit the land. all otheryou

domain, said,cases where the state exercises its eminent it beof mightrightthat the title was the The onbut land takenacknowledged, away. ground

thewhich laws is not that of inherent taint or defect in therepose, anytitle. It of ;is one founded on the condition of thepolicy, peculiar countrythe multitude of ;dormant to the same land ofthe non-assertion theirclaimstitles ;adverseby claimants and the ofnecessity encouraging improvement.The decisions of this court to these of Inconform principles interpretation.

Mason,Wilson 1 45, 91,v. Cranch “it mustthe court be consideredsays,as for the ofproviding titles, not for the tribunals shouldpreservation whichdecide on those titles.” The oflaws are universal and application.impartial

state,asThey well between citizens the as them and non-apply of betweenresidents. Such an court,of them considered the inapplication was byTaylor v. 5 of223,Cranch as a test theirJBodley, validity.conclusive

If5. the limited to the situa-compact the action of the new sovereigntytion of the whatever,in alllaws real casesVirginia respecting property,at the of theperiod ; still, insisted,it is that the on whichseparation principlethe founded,laws areoecupying-claimant had been thatbyrecognised

, *state, and then in aforce,was and that had to con-rightKentucky■ J stitute the it,tribunals which and to itsshould execute applica-dir.ecttion. That the whole state,of on the new is toodevolvedsubject remedyclear a betoproposition contested. It refuse to establish courts ofmight

all;atjustice ;it law,the civil or the code itmight adopt Napoleon mightabolish the 45,court of 1Mason, 91,Cranch thisIn Wilson v.chancery.doctrine was of inheld. The the acts wassubstantially question,principlefirst a of in 1adopted, law the of enacted Hen.by 1643.colony Virginia,

ofLawsDig. seems, ;Preface 15. It wasVirg. that this law never repealedand it, even the theby title,color of fromoccupant, exemptedwithout was

rents,of on andpayment eviction. But ofon lawgeneral equity,principles24

55THE STATES.OF UNITED1823]v.Green Biddle.

of whichin everysuch as have recognised system jurisprudencebeentheynations, .the meliorations a bond pos-has bycivilizedprevailed among fide

and such; possessorthe true ownerfor,sessor are to be on eviction bypaidPrin. Eq.Karnes’is for rents and' profits.also fromexempt responsibility

same26-8, analogy.The the189. law of proceeds bywhole prescription336, is an on thatMcKean, principle,Southall 1 adjudicationv. Wash.

to Lowther v. Com-the in it.to a caseposterior occuring priorseparation,theandon the samemonwealth, 201,1 ground;Hen. & Munf. proceeded

if heis than claimedstate,case of a under the much strongerclaimingparty*in existencethen,under a The beingindividual.private principle,

*-it,in the to the state tostate, modifyit was newparent competentanumerous,and principledirect its The cases are whereapplication.

andis theby legislature,courts of adoptedoriginally applied by equity,athe of law as legalinto a enforced courtsbeing statute, isincorporated by

ofbonds,are and theset-off, remedyrule. Such cases of ofthe penalcreditors devisees.against

into6. At all are not theevents, repugnant compact,the laws whollydis-suit;their action or and the court willoftoapplication every species

Thecriminate the valid two laws pro-between the void and provisions.vide, be no of rents andin That there shall allowancesubstance, profits,1.

shall asof be considered notice. Byto notice. A definition whatprior 2.suit, orthe of a the of a certi-1797, deliveryact of is the commencementit

claims, and the a suitfied of the on which therecord party bringingcopy1812, is a orrenderingwithin a of it the decree.judgmentthe actyear. By

all and3. That the be for valuable improvements,shalloccupant lastingpaidrestriction, that the value of such1797,the act of to thesubject, improve-by

the and afterments, notice,after the amount of rents profits,shall not exceedall orThat shall be with waste damagenotice. 4. the chargeableoccupant

thehe hold until balancecommitted on the land. 5. That shall possessiondue to him is That a sworn board of commissionerssecured or 6.paid.

ofshall the account the 7. The electionrightbetweenliquidate parties.the act of 1812.bygiven

toall, all,*Are and if of these thecontrarynot which principles _■■*-the in the or the modeIscompact? principles adopted,repugnancythatto is notice which shall convert a bondof them As whatexecuting ?

itself,is so uncertain in that it beinto a it cannotmaid possession,fidefideathe to ruledenied, that has a establish of institu-right positivelegislature

that it the formmaytion on As to thesubject. remedy, certainly changeor an;in action convert intoequitableof and theaction, anyproceedings

Or it forfeit thea its wholelegal remedy. maywithlegal appropriateright,non-cultivation or non-improvement.forproperty,

of It is ais a mere court laws.justice, applying ordinaryThis court notandto considerationstribunal, and look political consequences.political may

state,of a and its ofthe rulesdoubt, pro­If there be settled policyoughtThe of should extend as welldisturbedto be ? protection propertyperty,

which results from madeto as to another: to that improvements,one subjectto afrom the asunder the faith of titles emanating government, proprietary

tothe same source. Itsoil,in the derived from literaryinterest extendsHere a confusion of themental labor. isthe fruit of proprietaryproperty,

value,to from ofthe accession its the manland, industryin theinterest with25

57 SUPREME COURT [Feb’yBiddle.Green v.

of theit. Thebestowed wisdom is tasked tofairly upon legislature separatetwo,the and do exact to the claimants of ineach. The lawsjustice now

are that of nature,founded law secures thequestion whichupon great rightfrom and %oflabor. The lawsbodilyresulting occupation society

*58] are but modifications of that If be doubt res­superior law. theretheir considerations of convenience and topecting validity, utility oughtin a of acase the settled order be dis­prevail, greatwhere wouldpeople

the laws,turbed. themselves the theConquerors respect religion, propertyof the and this court rules of: will thosevanquished respectsurely, property

times,which had intheir colonial which theorigin adoptedwereearly byinparent state, and have so and confirmedbeen inveteratelong acquiesced by

habit and the theywhereusage among people prevail.

Hardin,JB. the in thedemandant, stated,for that cause di-reply,vided itself :into the 1. What are the oflawsfollowing questions Virginia

a for ameliorations a bondrespecting compensation by possessor (forfideno other could be and his for rents andaccountability profits,entitled),at the time the made 2. Whether the ofwas ? consentcompact congresswas to the ingiven the manner the constitution of thecompact, required byUnited States? What is of the3. the true 4. Theexposition compact?

of theexposition 1812,acts of of and anlegislative 1797 andKentucky,examination of the far from the laws ofquestion, theyhow depart Virginiaon the same 3in 789? this court5. Whether hassubject-matter, existingjurisdiction cause,over the and to declare the acts of nullKentuckypower

nnd void, as the *andto the constitution ofbeing compact,repugnantJ the ;United and it exerciseStates whether will that andjurisdiction

in the casepower ?present1. The matter,laws of this in at theforce time ofVirginia, respecting

the could consist of such of the law ofcompact, only commonparts Englandas had been in ;that state of and theof theadopted system equity, principlesof the law, or,civil to the of the then localquestion;applicable existingstatutes The thelaw,it. rule of the common as to action forrespectingmesne be,is that isprofits, ascertained to the entitledplaintiffwell tothe themesne from time of demise laid in the declaration inprofits the eject­ment, and that the tenant his madecannot set off theimprovements uponland. then,Runn. the notlaw,437-8. At entitledEject. was tooccupant

is,for in rulecompensation his meliorations and the: universal thatequity,the rents and are some;to be accounted for under circum­profits though,stances, the the valueto deduct ofbond will be allowed hisoccupantfide

e.,i. of the of the 3 Madd. Ch.improvements, increased value land. 73-4.But, both rule, law,the of the the bonaand that civil ofby chaucery fideshis the betterpossession ceases moment he has notice of the adverse title.In the case the side, McKean, 336,cited on other v. 1 Wash. theof Southallcourt of ruleof mean to theappeals did notVirginia impugn uniformly

It thecourt of went onEnglish chancery. *ordinaryaPPlied hY*60lJ he must and that ifground, that who will do : ahave equity equityland, title, but thatparty purchases with notice of another’s otherequitable

lies andby, time, which,to assert his for a valu­duringneglects longrightable made, not,are the in to loseimprovements theseought equity,purchaserimprovements. Commonwealth,less does the 1Still case of Hen.Lowther.v.

26

60OF THE UNITED STATES.1823]Green Biddle.v.

than that201,& Munf. the It more whererule. decides nothingimpugntheofevicted,land is recoveris sold and the vendee he shallwith warranty,

butvendor, eviction,not land at time the purchase-­the value of the the ofwith interest.moneys,

Virginia2. The to theconsent of was betweencongress given compactthe Unitedand the constitution ofin the manner required byKentucky,

assent.thisStates. form of is tonecessary signifyNo wordsparticulartothem, and the agreementthe before have agreedhadCongress compact

Thestate, thefor the and its admission into Union.formation of the newofand the validitystate have constantlycourts recognisedrepeatedly

v, of the; MS. decisionthe 199 BrownKy. MeMurray,Marsh.compact (1it tocourt tocourt of of' and if this were now determineappeals Kentucky);

south ofbe be to recede thevoid, countrywholecompelledwouldKentuckytheGreen the she received forriver, stipula-one of equivalentswhich was

is and bytions her The also as bindingon validrecognisedpart. compactof incorpo-the of the Kentucky, *beingauthority peoplesovereign

constitution,into and thus made a of their funda-rated the state partmental law.

it if thatAs of the3. to the compact valid),interpretation (supposingthecorrect,be is ofdeclaratoryon the other the merely publicside compact

thatas the It is alaw, changesto case. well-establishedapplicable principle,andsoil;in the of inof work no therights propertysovereignty change

establishedto acquired governments defacto,this even such rights byappliestreaties,The inserted in theviolence,by legal stipulationsagainst right.

into are affirma-side,other referred on the otherpacts, merelyand publicin the thirdtion this of universal Such is theof law. stipulationprinciple

Louisiana that “the inhabitants of the ceded territoryarticle of the treaty,in of theirmaintained and the free enjoyment liberty,shall be protected

bea mustand the Such general provisionreligion they profess.”propertythe under-of contractingconsidered as whatdeclaratory high partiesmerely

nations,be the of to the effect of a ofand admitted to law as changestoodmuchinterests But howon of individuals.proprietary privatesovereignty

in “alland is the the thatcompact, rightsprovisionbroader stronger(i. e.,from the of stateland,interests of derived laws this Virginia)and

be determined the laws nowsecure,remain valid and and shall byshallnotin It must have been meant tothis state.” surely protect,existing

the interest in thetitle,the naked but the beneficial ofenjoymentmerelytheworld,The of the and the constitution of Unitedland. lawpublic

States, *suffieient mere naked title.have been to theprotectwould _■“ LJOHNSON,Peck, 143,6 perv. Cranch J. All private rightsFletcher

Theinterests,” and to “remain and secure.”equitable, were validlegalandsecure, interests,to andto and the termterm valid is applicable rights,

“ andnot Theseto each. But the does here.provision rightsboth stopthis state.”to be determined the laws now inexistingare byinterests”

fromthis not intended to Kentucky makingMost wascertainly, preventthe of real and the remedieson subject applic-general regulations property,

it, far as make a of the But she stipulates,able to so lexthey part fori.“ interests,” landand ofnot affect injuriously rightsthat she will privateintereste., theunder the of i. beneficial proprietaryderived laws Virginia,

of that this expositionin The MS. case Brown v. showsMeMurray,land.27

SUPREME COURT62 [Feb’y.Green v. Biddle.

has been ofto the the court ofgiven Soby appeals Kentucky.compactalso, the circuit incourt that has determined that the act of assem-district

ofof of 1814 altersbly Ky.Litt. Laws which the statuteKentucky, 9),(5of of 1808,limitations as to real actions Ibid. theaway(4 56), by taking

non-residents, void,in as to theproviso favor of is being repugnant compact,not anmerely as alteration of the as invalid andbutremedy, renderinginsecure the and interests of derived the ofrights land under laws Virginia.

As to the made on to ourthe other side ofobjections interpretation, the that it to the ofcompact, *the pursuitimpugns right happiness,■ J which is inherent men,in of and isevery withsociety incompatible

these inalienable of and ofrights whichsovereignty self-government, everystate must the is that noindependent answer obvious : haspossess, people

a to others,its to the of forright pursue own happiness injury pro-whosetection, solemn like the been It ishave made. a tritecompacts, present,maxim, that man a he entersof his natural when intogives up part liberty,civil said,as the of the state : and itsociety, of that beprice mayblessings

truth,with this is well for the whichliberty flowexchanged advantagesfrom and justice.law The of bewill notKentuckysovereignty impaired

a faithfulby observance of this in its Ittrue does notcompact spirit. pre-vent her from revenue,of and whichmaking any general policeregulations

other state but it herany make; does frommay prevent confiscatingthe of aindividuals, under the ofproperty mere modificationpretext

law,of the as to made Thereimprovements claimants. can beby occupyingno doubt, that each other,states make with limit-sovereign may pacts

anding their of as to interestsrestraining rights sovereignty proprietaryin the soil. Such notconventions are inconsistent the eminentwith domain

ofwhich the Here,law nations attributes to thethem. sole of theobjectis to secure ofcompact the vestedperpetually individualsrights private

from violation inacts. It is furtherance of theby legislative most sacredwhichduty to its And even if itsociety owes members.' astipulated spe-

, cial restraint inthe tolegislative theupon *power, respect public■ -* revenue, it would not be the states,less All the new onobligatory.their admission Union,into the bind themselves not to taxuniformly the

oflands the United States. Various other restraints theirupon sovereignhave been topowers such,consented the : forvoluntarily statesby example,

as that contained in the act for the admission of Louisiana into the Union,which that all theprovides shall be conducted inlegislative proceedingsthe English language.

But this farso fromcompact, with the revenue ofinterfering Kentucky,her not,to tax the ifplainly recognises right lands: and it did it is clear, that

she exercise the sincemight she could not exist or herright, civilsupportawithout ;revenue. The means the endgovernment involve and therefore,

tax,she not but sell the landsmay only to enforce Nor ispayment. therein the theanything compact, with ofinterfering legislative authority the

state, to the of descents,course orregulate the of real estates forliabilitythe of debts. An of thepayment alteration law of descents notdoes affectthe or land,title interest in as derived from the inright, laws force at the

unless,of the indeed, thecompact: new of descents beepoch law retrospec-tive in its Nor isoperation. denied,it that the inremedies the courts of

the lexand modified,law be as the of theequity, fori, wisdommay legisla-28

STATES. 64THE UNITEDOF1823]Green Biddle.t.

action,of real and bemayforms possessory,Theture shall deem expedient.be the pur-toor equitable, may adaptedthe; remedy, whetherlegalchanged

limitations, and the mode of execu-ofof *theposes periodjustices;*■to thealtered,and fluctu-modified; accordingtion all these bemay

not have ando unjust retrospectivewants of theyating providedsociety,inAll these the civilchanges legislationvested rights.operation upon

land,the titles to as under themade,be and acquiredof the state mayunimpaired.of still remainedlaws willVirginia,

1812,offair of the acts 1797 and will show4. A legislativeexpositionland,the and interests of derivedthat to invalidate rightsoperatethey

as the of It inten-first,And to law 1812. wasunder the laws of Virginia.“ orfor the peaceably seating improving anyded ofprotection any person

or landland, it to his in law The notequity.”vacant be ownsupposingowner, it is not this thatthe true necessary law)being (underoccupied by

it toit should and believe behonestlythe bondparty occupying fidetheso,he it to be cir-his : but that should believe fromown onlyproperty

The himof a connected' title.” law withcumstance supplies“havinginbelief, rather it substitutes a fact the of hishis of or placeground

courts, it theThe is to interpretbelief. state whose peculiar province“determined, the themlaw, that words supposinglocal have expressly

satisfied, had for&c., if the that foundationown,”to be his are partybe,there if thehis No matter much mala pos-how maysupposition. fides

Thisvacant, he can deduce a connected title. inter-session was and paperrule, therefore,and the stat-far the ancientbeyondgoes chancerypretation

Besides,the of that the rule ofute rule.beyond ‘^principlegoesLthe the increased of the land :for valueoccupantequity only pays

”“ local has to thatnot for the sense which usage givenimprovements (into forWord, fixtures annexed the act-as butindicating freehold), onlyany

in land. The thestatute,ual ameliorations the value of the on contrary,deteri-him for accessions to the arewhichcompensates property, really

ameliorations, its the real Theorations, instead of of value to owner.terms the the and value of andcharge seating improv-used by legislature —“

it whichthat meant to transcend the rule of equity,showsing,” evidentlyameliorationsKarnes,to to make for only.Lord goes compensationaccording

in the turned on these wordsemphaticThe whole legislaturediscussion“ ;” to strike themand value and various amendments werecharge proposed

a fairbill, to the true ofchancery takingout of the and on principleproceedandside,the rents and on the one theaccount between of profitsparties,

of on the other.actual amelioration the propertya the the5. The law in is both violation of and nationalquestion compact

and it It is its;and state constitutions the court will declare void. void byin for and labor anteced-workretrospective operation, giving compensation

to first1789,to of the of and even back the settlementent the epoch compactthat,; too,and and labor bestowedof the whether this workcountry upon

admitted,beland, deteriorated or ameliorated its value. It maythe actuallyit an ex law in the sense of the constitutionalpostthat is not prohibi-facto

tion, to matters. But*as that is only applied penal generalupon[*67criminal,laws,all or arewhether civilretrospective unjust,principles,

maxims Theand to the fundamental of universalcontrary jurisprudence.of somestate, itself,nature the social and civil prescribesof government

29

SUPREME COURT [Feb’y67

Green v. Biddle.

theofthe of alegislative independent express provisionslimits to power,Peck, is aFleteher v. 6 Cranch 135. What retro-written constitution.

oneof the learned of thislaw, court,hasbeen well definedby judgesspectiveof an accurate andit a definition which admits practical applicationis :and

“ statute, takes orwhich vestedaway impairsUpon every rights,principle,or alaws, creates new aunderacquired existing obligation, imposes new

a in tonew transactions mustrespector attaches disablity, already past,duty,Justice, in v.Society, Wheeler,be deemed <&c. 2retrospectiveStoey,

inThere is the nature of allG-allis.139. something very just legislation,Itits deals future,which withbeing retrospective. necessarily andprevents

not 4transactions. Wheat. 578 n.with pastin is inThe statute now ofquestion retrospective, actionreleasing rights

law,local thevested. the successful claimantalready By pre-existing wasthe in a realentitled to recover mesne even Butprofits, action. this act

rentshim this as to andofdeprives right, profits acquired, andpreviously;even to the itself and theantecedent clause incompact repeals thesaving

is,Itact, infants, effect,former to &c. in aas law A. from thereleasingof action which has him.B.right against

as a enactment,*But even considered theprospective law operatesand because the lawful owner isoppressively, tounjustly compelled

land,for the actual ameliorations in the itsnot notpay, merely increasedvalue the incurred the inby occupantonly expense making pretended—but

fanciful,whether are useful or and matterimprovements, they merely oftaste andand ornament dictated his whim He isonly, by not evencaprice.

waste, afterliable for unless committed suit andbrought; themay destroytimber, land,sole value of thetheconstituting, perhaps, without calledbeingto account.any

If the constitutional, not,law be and the mustpartly partly fall;wholeand doubt,there can be no the character of thethat asparties, citi-being

states,zens of different court of cause,the the andgives cognisance juris-diction to the Ifa havepronounce law nullity. you jurisdiction, you must

decide,decide to law. But cannot soaccording you without to seelookingthe of thewhether acts state are to thelegislature staterepugnant constitu-

tion. This has been made the ofrepugnancy frequently ground decisionin courts,the federal characterwhere the of the parties themgave jurisdic-

Wheeler,tion of the 2cause. &c. v. Gallis. 105.Society,void,But the are asacts thetoclearly being repugnant constitution of

the theUnited States. are lawsThey ofimpairing obligation contracts,court,within the of all the decisions of thisspirit which,to itaccording is

immaterial, whether ofthe states the are*sovereign Union partiesJ contract,to the it isor made betweenwhether private individuals.

Peck,Fletcher v. 6 Wilson,Cranch New; Jersey ;87 v. 1647 Ibid. TerrettTaylor,v. 9 Ibid. 43 ; Woodward,Partmouth v. 4College Wheat. 518.

The tribunal the cannotspecial provided oust theby compact, transcendentof this court. thejurisdiction Even so maxims ofaccording private juris-

an toprudence, to submit arbitration cannot beagreement in bar,pleadedan ;without andaward made this must in a case whereactually apply the

madeagreement, thethough by high contracting parties, was intendedindividuals,for the benefit of and forexclusively theprivate ofprotection

private rights.30

THE 69OF UNITED STATES.1823]Green Biddle.v.

27th, WASHINGTON,Justice, delivered the of1823. opinionFebruarystated the courtthe examination of the first question bythe court.—In

are led to the : 1. Are thebelow, we naturally following inquiries rightsin from the ofinterests of lands derived lawsand lying Kentucky, Virginia,

state,of from that as valid and secureto the Kentuckyprior separationacts, as under the of on the 18thunder the above were laws Virginia,they

court,the innot, then,If 2d. Is circuitof December werethey1789?acts,to declare those so far asthis cause is authorizedwhich depending, they

at theto the of above uncon-are lawsrepugnant Virginia, existing period,stitutional ?

as1797,The material of the act of are follows : *lst.provisions[*70land, title,he is betterThat the of from evicted bywhichoccupant

andcases,in all excused from the of rents accruedis, profits, priorpaymenttitle,the his in itsto actual notice of adverse possession,provided inception,

title,he a and connected in orand shows law equity,was peaceable, plainsome record. 2d. That the claimant is liable to adeduced from judgment

made the land,him for all valuable and onlasting improvementsagainsttitle,the after from the amountto actual notice of adverse deductingprior

the the land has sustained or deterioration of thewhich wastebydamagesmade, andsoil As to rents andcultivation. 3d.by improvements profits

accrued, title,after of the adverse the amount of the one tonotice was beother,the balance be to,deducted from that of and the was to added or

from,subtracted the estimated of the made before suchvalue improvementsnotice, the nature the But itas of case should was arequire. byprovided

clause, that in no case should the successful claimant besubsequent obligednotice,for made after more than should beto what equalpay improvements

exceed the ofto the rents and 4th. If the value theprofits. improvementsland, state,in the of con-its the claimant was allowed privilegeunimproved

in thethe land to the and return assessed valueveying occupant, receivingait, the and thus to himselfof without improvements, protect against judg-

heand execution for the the If should declinement value of improvements.this, land, but then he musthe recover of *hisdoing might possession

[*7lthe estimated of the and lose also the rentsvaluepay improvements,himand accrued before notice of the claim. But to entitle to claimprofits

mentioned, must bond andland,the of the as hevalue above give securityto the title.warrant

The act of 1812 contains the : 1. That thefollowing provisions peace­land, him,it to to in virtue of someable of who supposes belongoccupant

record, is to the successfultitle, founded on a be paidor equitable bylegalBut the claimant avoid thefor his : 2.improvements may pay­claimant

if he hisment of the value of such improvements, please, by relinquishinginbe its estimated value itsland to the and paid unimprovedoccupant,

he tofor the value of the is; thus,state if he elect to improvements,payinterest, at different instal-­same,to the withbond andgive security pay

the exceedthis,fail or if the value of improvementsments. If he to doan is to theland, electionthree-fourths the value of the unimproved given

the claimant for the assesseda enteredto have againstoccupant, judgmenttoland,take the bond andor to giving securityvalue of the improvements,

interest, andland,the if with byvalue of unimproved,the assessedpayto for theif the claimant is not pay improve­But willinginstalments.

31

71 SUPREME COURT [Feb’yGreen Biddle.v.

ments, and should exceed three-fourths thethey ofvalue the unimprovedland, the is to bond andoccupant obliged to thegive assessedsecurity pay

land,value of the interest, which,with if he do,fail to is to be enteredjudgment■ ;for such value the claimant thehis toreleasing rightaSainst*72lJ land, and bond and to thewarrant If thegiving security title. value

of the does not exceed three-fourths thatimprovements land,of thenthethe is not he inbound is the formeroccupant to(as bond andcase) give

land,to the ofvalue but hesecurity the claim a thepay may forjudgmentof ;value his or take the land bondimprovements, and asgiving security,mentioned, to thebefore estimated ofvalue the land.pay The exemption

fromof the the ofoccupant the rents and allpayments extends toprofits,as accrued his him,such during beforeoccupancy, judgment rendered against

first Butin the instance. such as accrue after such for a term notjudgment,five as also waste andyears, committedexceeding damages theby occupant,

beafter suit are to deductedbrought, from the value of the ;improvementsor the court render for themmay the Thejudgment against occupant.

of rents and ;amount such andprofits, waste also the value thedamages ofand land,of the clear of the are to beimprovements, ascer­improvements,

commissioners, to court,tained be theby and actappointed by who on oath.differThese from each ;laws other in in areonly degi’ee principle, they

same. in the land,the ofThey agree depriving owner the of therightfuland therents received to aprofits by certain the firstoccupant, up period,

it the ofact to time actual notice thefixing claim,of adverse and the latter*act the time of theto rendered thejudgment against occupant*73] also in the successful to aThey agree compelling claimant topay,

the ofextent,certain assessed value the made theon landimprovements bythe occupant.

indiffer the act,: 1. the former theThey particularsfollowing Byto be for latter,must be valuable and thebyimprovements paid lasting;

former,need be either.not 2. the the successful claimantthey By wasa fromentitled to deduction the value of the for allimprovements, damages

land, cultivation,sustained the waste or deterioration of soilby theby bylatter,the defendant;the of the he is entitled to suchduring occupancy by

deduction, for the and committed after suitonlya wastedamages brought.former,the the claimant was bound to for suchBy3. pay improvements only

made before of ;as notice the adverse title if those madewere afterwardstheexceed rents and thenaccrued,should which afterwards heprofits was

liable, the rents ;not and for the value ofbeyond profits, improvementssuchlatter,the he is liable for the of allvalue made to theby improvements up

of the accrued,time the rents and andjudgment, deducting only profitsand waste after former,the committed suit 4. the thedamage brought. By

ifclaimant he himself apleased, formight, protect against judgmentof the thethe value land to hisimprovements, surrendering andby adversary,

;. bond and to warrant the title but he was not *boundgiving security■ J so,to do nor his bond towas and the value of thegiving security paya his land,to of hispre-requisite obtaining possession norimprovements, was

the him made a lien on the land. theagainst act,latter thejudgment Bybond,isclaimant bound to such at the of ;his land for ifgive peril losing

it,to the is at to the land,he fail give occupant uponliberty keep givingto the of it, ;and estimated value andsecuritybond evenpay unimproved

32

STATES. 74THE UNITEDOF1823]Biddle.Green v.

three-exceedsof the improvementsthe valueavoid,he wherethis maythewill toclaimantland, convey occupantunless theof thefourths that

alone, be ren-is tocondition judgmentfor this;the landhis to uponrightof the land.valueassessedthe for thedered occupant,against

acts, is at all important,these whichofThe provisionremainingonlythem, out foris the mode pointedofin the above viewand is not comprised

state, of the improve-its unimprovedthe land inthe value ofestimatingsame, so,or inthis the; nearlyand isments, rents andand of the profits

the act ofaffirmed, of 1797that every partboth : so that it be safelymayformerand, the act;act 1812 consequently,is the of the ofwithin purview

in the latter. In pursuingclause containedwas therepealed, by repealingrise, thethis case courttherefore,first head of to which givesthe inquiry,

1812, itsact and provisionswill confine its to the of compareobservationsthe of it on the 18th of December 1789.with as existedlaw Virginia,

is,as theit stillwas,The common of at thatlaw England period,**-that a; authority,that state and are the highestlaw of we informed by

it, thelaw, onland, possessionto that includes the to enter whenby rightrighttosuit;owner; byis from the to recover the possessionwithheld right

from it.the and arisingretain the and to receive issues profitspossession,down,it laid46),Ibid. isCase, 8 InCo. Case (11299.){Altham?s Liford’s

in orhim,in the fruitsthat the of the disseisee revests the propertyregressthe ofasland, industryof the well those that produced bywereprofits

land, notthethe as those the natural of onlywhich wereoccupant, production;orfeoffee,his disseiseehimself,the disseisor but lesseeagainst against

action, but can­“foi-,” book,the alter“the act of disseisor may mysays mythe theaction, that,not take or so after regress,away my property right;

land, thethe andfruits, onlydisseisee seize these removed frommay thoughthedisseisor, case,of in their value againstthe such is toremedy recoup

case,in that the disseiseeclaim of The doctrine laid thisdamages.” downis,can maintain the the rents and profits,disseisor fortrespass only against

in Cro. Eliz.reason, Rawlyns,with overruled the case of Holcomb v.greatalso N.540. Bull. P.(See 87.)

andshort,in can of lawclear,be more theNothing, upon principlestoreason, than that a of land alaw denies to the owner remedywhich

inno-it,of howeverrecover the when withheldpossession by person,anyfrom ithe it;have obtained or to recover the receivedcently may profits

*andof suchthe or which hisoccupant; clogs recovery possessionby*■theconditions and to diminish valuerestrictionsprofits, by tending

in,and interestrecovered, to,and amount of the his rightthing impairstheIf there no the lawthe be to recoverproperty. remedy possession,bea affordedwant of to it. If thepresumes qual-necessarily right remedy

kind,ified and restrained the of the owner may,conditions ofby any rightsubsist, renderedindeed, and be it andbut is impaired,acknowledged,

A toinsecure, to nature restrictions. rightthe and extent of suchaccordingit, since,a withoutland to the fromessentially profitsimplies right accruing

a of thelatter, Thus, profitsthe the former can be no deviseof value.land, them,of a to the land itself. Shep.or even of apass rightwillgrant

“Co. 4 in this; what,”Touch. 93 Litt. b. For Lord page,says Coke,“ the land,is but the thereof.”profits

;mentionedThus stood the in at the beforecommon law Virginia, period338 Wheat. —3

76 SUPREME COURT [Feb’yGreen v. Biddle.

notand it is that there statute ofpretended, was that stateany less favor-able to the her,of those titlerights who derived under than the common

thelaw. On the actcontrary, writs of declares, inrespecting right express“terms, that if seisin,the his hedemandant recover recovermay damages,

to be assessed assize,the forby of therecognitors tenant’s witholding pos-session theof tenement demanded could bedamageswhich elsenothingbut the rents Revisal,and of the vol.,land. lastprofits This(2 p. 463.)

ofprovision the act was rendered on account of the intendednecessaryallof the Britishrepeal statutes, the denialand of theby commondamages

*law, actions,in all real in assize, which was consideredexcept as aJ mixed action. Litt. But in trespass(Co. quare257.) clatosumfregit,

were at Co.damages always common law. And thatgiven the(10 116.)successful ofclaimant land in who recovers inVirginia, was atejectment,all times entitled rentsto recover and in an action ofprofits, wastrespass,not, and could benot, forthe counsel the tenant inquestioned by this ease.

If, then, such the and statute of 1789,was common law in itVirginia,remains toonly whether ofinquire, wasany principle equity recognised by

the of state,courts that the of landwhich from theexempted occupant pay-ment of rents and owner,to the real haswhoprofits establishedsuccessfullyhis to land,the aeither in courtright of law or of ? Noequity decision ofthe courts of that cited, recollected,state or inwas is which the remotest

sanctions such a casedegree McKean,The of Southall v.principle. whichwas much relied tenant,the counsel thefor relates toupon by thealtogether

of andsubject improvements, decides no more than this : that if the equita-ble of land, it,owner who is conusant of his to will stand and seeright by,another and the hisoccupy improve it,without toproperty, asserting right

not,he shall in another,enrich himself the ofequity, loss which it wasbyin his to have but must bepower prevented, satisfied to recover the value of

land,the of the The ofindependent improvements. owner,theacquiescencein the adverse aof who he found inpossession person engaged making

valuable on the fraud,little short of aimprovements was*property,J conclusion,and thejustified in thatthe the claimoccupant equitable

asserted,which the owner had been abandoned. How different is the prin-of this caseciple from that thewhich same the act undergoverns subject, by

this,consideration. the all cases,is to whetherBy applicable atprinciplelaw or in equity the claimant knew or did not know of his rights,—whetherand of the improvements land,which were on the and after heevenmakinghad asserted his suit.right by

The rule of the laid in 1court of asEnglish down Madd. Ch.chancery,72, is is,to hefully the authorities which refers. It thatsupported by

an cases,allows account of rents and in all fromequity the time ofprofits,accrued,the title that do not exceed six unlessyears, underprovided special

circumstances ; as the defendant had no notice of the title,where plaintiff’snor had the deeds and in inhis which thecustody, titlewritings plaintiff’s

; or inappeared where there has been laches the in notplaintiff assertingtitle;his or where the intitle deeds aplaintiff’s appeared by stranger’s

in; all tocases,which and others similar them in thecustody pi'inciple,account tois confined the time of the bill. The of Lordfiling languageHardwicke, in Dormer Atk. which was the case ofv. Fortescue (3 128),

“ “an observes,infant is : he beplaintiff, canremarkably strong Nothing,”34

STATES.OF THE 78UNITED1823]Green Biddle.v.

than theclearer, in and from natural thatJustice,both law and equity,hisfrom the time when titleto the rents and profits,is entitledplaintiff

*“ ofadds, that where the titleaccrued/’ His afterwards ....LordshipLcourt the account of rentsis that allowsthe plaintiff purely equitable,

accrued, circum-the title unless under specialand from the timeprofits,stances, to.”as been referredsuch have

the of the act undercourt,the thatNor is it understood principlesbylaw,of the civil admit-vindicated the doctrinesconsideration can be by

thenot, doctrines lawswhich do that those were recognised byweting,The of thethe of her courts.of or decisionsVirginia, exemptionby

confined theis tolaw, strictlythat from an account for profits,occupant, bybond, to be the truenotease of a who only supposes himselfpossessor,fide

land, that his title is contested somebyof the but iswho ignorantproprietorthis charac-a to Mostbetter it. unquestionably,other person claiming right

has notice ana after the ofmaintained, moment,cannot be for occupantterthea suit to recoverclaim, if that up pos-be followed byadverse especially,

at hishe and holdsthis, a maid possessor, peril,session. After becomes fidethe land.with (Just,is liable to restore all the mesne profits, togetherand

the civil2, 1, There material difference betweentit. is anotherlib. 35.)§the ofto theact,and the this favorable rightofprovisions altogetherlaw

tothe is entitled thoseformer,claimant. the onlysuccessful By occupanthisthe land own industry,or of which were produced byfruits profits

those, ; realized,if andnot to unless consumed weretheyand even weretheythem to theto enrich *he accountable forthe isoccupant,contributed

[*80Just.,fruits of theowner, as he is for all the natural land.real (See2, 1, 411, et Puffen-; Karnes,Lord b. c. p.section above quoted seq.)the

terms,in that4, 7,c. it broad anddorf, indeed down general(lib. 3), lays§ofnature, to him who is masterof as well as those of belongfruits industry,

in is notthe act the occupantfrom flow. By question,the which theythingdrawn,have been orfor from mayaccountable whatever source theyprofits,

himhave receivedbeen which werethey employed, by priorhowever mayof eviction.to the judgment

law, so much toof the civil more favorable theBut even these doctrinesconsideration,the act aretrue of the land than underof the ownerrights

andof Whoever takes holdsthe common law England.not recognised byhas a title,land another better whether dis-byto whichthe ofpossession

disseisor,the is liable to the true for theseisin, or under a from ownergrantbe, andreceived,he of nature whetherhas whatever they maywhichprofitsthem,not; and the owner even seize althoughhim or mayconsumed by

land, been Oase. Wethe as has shownalready byfromremoved JOiford’scase, thewhich distinctionrecognisesnot of common-lawanyare aware

inone holds relation tofide,a and who maidbond possessor,between fideas;and and understand Case fullyof rents weprofitsthe subject Liford^s

to isthe mesnethe of the true owner profits, equallythat rightproving,in a court offar distinction *isthis noticedboth. Howagainstvalid

[*81has been shown.alreadyequitythat,to towhole, clear,take it bethen,the we perfectly accordingUpon

ofof the andlaw, equity,the statute law Virginia, principlescommontheisclaimant of land entitled to anlaw,civil the successfulthose of theeven

the from some periodmesne received by occupant,account of the profits35

81 SUPREME COURT. [Fcb’yGreen v. Biddle.

of eviction action,to the or decree. In a real is,as this nojudgmentprioris the ofrestriction whatever law theimposed by Virginia upon recognitors,

the for demandant,in the thatdamages should beassessing except theywith the ofcommensurate the possession.withholding

If this act of Kentucky renders the of claimants torights lands, underless valid and secure than thewere under ofVirginia, they laws Virginia,

land,them of the fruits of their itsdeprivingby during occupation byanother, inprovisions,its to the value of theregard improvements put upon

can,thethe land still less reason,with be vindicated. isby occupant, It notthat such a claimalleged by any person, was ever sanctioned oflawby any

her ofor courts Theby justice. case ofVirginia, Southall v. McKean hasbeen noticed and down, admit,commented It laidalready is we inupon.

disseisor,thatCoulter's Co. the a him,Case (5 30), upon recovery againstthe to the allvalue of that he hasmay recoup damages in amend-expended

also,the houses. 82,Bro. tit. cites 24ing Damages, who Edw.(See pi. III.If decisioncommon-law has ever the50.) any gone beyond hereprinciple

, down,laid we not been*have fortunate to meet Avithit. Theenough■‘ ofdoctrine Coulter's Case is dissimilar innot from thatprinciple

“which Lord Karnes considers to be the law of nature. His are,words it isnature,a maxim thatsuggested andby meliorations bestowedreparations

house, land,a or onupon to out theought defrayed of rents. thisBymaxim, sustain no claimwe ifagainst proprietor meliorations,the for the

exceed not the rents levied theexpense bond He citesby possessor.”fide48,1. de reiPapinian, vindications.

it for rule,that the as laid ingranted, Case,down Coulter'sTaking wouldbe as law the courts of let usrecognised good by see in AvhatVirginia,

is,it differs from the act of That rule thatrespects Kentucky. meliorationsof the mean valuable andproperty (which, necessarily, lasting improve-

land,made at the of the of the shallments), occupant be set offexpensethe claim the forofagainst legal which have accrued toproprietor, profits

the But, act,his the theduring isoccupant possession. by occupant entitledto the of thevalue to whatever extentimprovements, exceed thatthey mayof ;the not on ofthe the aprofits ground set-off but as sub-against profits,stantive demand. For the account for is carried toimprovements down the

of the theday was for ajudgment, although of the timeoccupant great parta can set,maid whom no more be off butpossessor, the rents andagainstfide

afteraccrued suit it thatThus, theprofits brought. may happen, occupant,amount,who have enriched himself to natural,themay as asany by well

industrial,the toland,of which he had no*products titlelegal■83-.J timber,the sale of or thecoal, ore is accountable for no(as by like),of aspart those but such accrued after suit and on the otherprofits brought;

hand, demand full all theremuneration for mademay improvements uponland,the means those inwere there ofalthough they placed by very profits,

maxim law,violation of that of and of natural nemo debetequity, locupletariIf the has ajactura. asserts,aliena which this law toprinciple precedentcanit, we that have not met it. But feel thesay,warrant we wetruly

in that it thefullest confidence is not to be found in laws ofsaying, Virginia,in of heror the decisions courts.But the act further than to the a substan-goes merely giving occupant

land,claim of the for the of thetive the valueowneragainst improvements,36

83STATES.THEOF UNITED1823]Green v. Biddle.

It creates a bind-since the suit brought.that of the receivedprofitsbeyondtransfers theandof theland, for the value improvements,lien on theing

land, to the who appears,in the occupant,claimantof the successfulrighttothe former willit, security paytitle to unless giveto nohavejudicially,iswords, the claimant per-In otheravalue, period.such stipulatedwithin

sumto the whateverland, occupanthis by payingto ownmitted purchaseandat, valuablethe whetherestimate improvementsthe commissioners may

owner, wereunserviceable, to the although theyandor worthlesslasting,andowner;to the uponand belongingthe legallymade money justlywith

If the of Vir-of his land. lawhe recoverthese terms can possessiononly,.asked,be thestated, *need it whether righthas been correctlyginia

Lact,under thisas and securea claimant is validand interest of suchalone,which, and whichby theyunder the laws of Virginia, byas it was

If thethink, this can be asserted.We hardlyto be determined?werecase, meant the claimantto this anything,thearticle of compact, applicable

court, as heto in ahad a Kentuckyof land under right appearVirginiahad not takencourt,a if the place,done in separationhave Virginiamight

the same of law whicha of his right, by principlesand to demand trialare,case in the latter state. What those principleshiswould have governed

been shown.has alreadythe of the true owner lessdoes not render rightIf the act in question

act,an declar-then,ofit under the Virginia,secure than was lawsvalid andterms of hisbut the being paidshould be uponthat no evicteding, occupant

claimant,land, the successful wouldthe of thevalue, byor double valuethedenied, thatcannot be butsince itthat consequence,not be withchargeable

a law,The to onbe the same. objectionof both lawsthe wouldprinciplecontract,aof can never dependthethe of its impairing obligationground

ineffects it. deviationthe law Anythe extent of the whichchangeuponthe ofterms, performanceor accelerating periodfrom its postponingby

contract,in orthenot expressedit conditionswhich prescribes, imposingminute, orare, howeverof those whichthewith performancedispensing

of theeffect the contractimmaterial, parties,in their uponapparentlyis,it that if a creditorthis*Upon principleits obligation.impairs pgg*■or in otherthe of anyto day payment,his debtor postponewithagreethe consent of thecontract, surety,terms of the withouttheto changewayfor histhe was advantage.although changelatter is discharged,the

act of 1812 isis, this repugnantwhetherThe remaining question2. onlythiscan be declared voidStates, and byof the Unitedthe constitutionto

?this case comes adjournmentcourt from whichcourt, byor the circuitbyto relievethis it be properof willBut, question,to the investigationprevious

the and constructiontoobjections validityfromcase some preliminarythetenant,counsel for theIt contended the1st. was bythe itself.of compact

intoto, because it not made conformityin wasthe was invalidthat compactand if notof the :of the constitution United Statesthe provisionswith

init to thestill, 2d. clause ofextent, pointthat The applicabletoinvalidconstruc-it to thesurrenders,inasmuch asso, accordingwascontroversy,

arecounsel, of whichsovereigntyit the rightstion to by oppositegiveninalienable.

that thefounded the compactis upon allegation,The first objection1st.ofto the tenth sectionof congress, contrarythe consentwithoutwas made

37

SUPREME COURT85 [Feb’yGreen v. Biddle.

declares, thatarticle, shall,the first “no state without the ofwhich consententer into or another state,with or aany withcongress, agreement compact

observed, inLet it be the first that the constitutionplace,foreign power.”inmakes no the mode or form thewhich consentprovision respecting

*0^ is i0 be that matter tocongress signified, very properly leavingJ of bethe that to decided to ordi­wisdom thebody, upon according

law,rules of and of reason. The in casesnary right whichonly questionis, act,that some ininvolve has relation to suchpoint congress, by positive

the of Now,consent that to its ?agreement, body howsignified validityThestands the case ? was entered intopresent compact between Virginia

and the of the condition, that thepeople Kentucky, upon express generalshould, ato certain assent thegovernment prior to erection of theday,

state,district of into an and theKentucky independent thatagree, proposedstate after ashould certain or atimmediately, some convenient timeday,future thereto, be admitted into the federal Union. On the 28th of July1790, assembled,the ofconvention that district under the theofprovisions

of and itslaw declared assent to the andVirginia, terms conditions pres­cribed the and that the sameby proposed compact; was as aacceptedsolemn and that the said district should become acompact, state onseparatethe resolutions,1st June Theseof 1792. a memorial fromaccompanied bythe convention, communicated the ofbeing the Unitedby president Statesto a committee,made awas to thecongress, report by whom wassubjectreferred, forth the ofsetting agreement thatVirginia, should beKentucky

state,erected into a conditions,certain terms and andupon the acceptancethe termsby and conditions soKentucky upon and,prescribed; on the

4th 1791,of act, which,anFebruary congress afterpassed toreferring*the theand itofcompact, acceptance theby declaresKentucky,■8*1consent of that to the theof said abody district intoerecting separate

state,and a certainindependent and her intoupon day, thereceiving Union.Now, that,it is clear,perfectly although congress might have refused theirconsent to the had noproposed separation, yet they to declareauthority

a andKentucky state, without theseparate independent assent of Virginia,or terms variant from thoseupon which hadVirginia prescribed. But con­

after thegress, conditions which alonerecognising upon toVirginia agreedthe a act,solemn theseparation, expressed, by consent of that thetobody

conditions,The terms and onseparation. then, which alone the separationcould take or the ofact aplace, one,become validcongress were necessarily

;to aassented not mere tacit anby butacquiescence, by express declarationof the mind, from the manifestlegislative resulting construction of the act

this,itself. To is to the of the act ofdeny deny validity withoutcongress,which, could not have become anKentucky ;stateindependent and then it

follow, is,would that she at this moment, of the state ofpart Virginia,a. andall her laws are acts of Theusurpation. counsel who thisurged argument,

not, arewould we consent topersuaded, ;this conclusion and ityet wouldinevitable,seem ifto be the premises insisted be true.uponnext2d. The which is to theobjection, of thevalidity clauseparticular

of involved in thisthe restscompact acontroversy, upon the cor-principle,*of whichrectness remains to be isItproved. practically opposed■88-.■* of allthe limitedtheory andgovernments,by of thoseespecially

thiswhich constitute Union. The ofpowers tolegislation thegranted38

88THEOF UNITED STATES.1823]

Biddle.Green v.

theof the as as to stategovernment States,United well several governments,constitu-constitutions,their all limited. The article of theby arerespective

one,tion States, case, manyof the in is amongstUnited involved this verythese limita-others, answered,of the If thatrestrictions alluded to. it be

becharacter,tions itin their maywere theby sovereignimposed peopleofact of theasked, was not the of the the peopleacceptance compact,

then, contendedIf,in their ? thecharacterKentucky principlesovereignnature,one,for be a one a most alarmingsound can that it is ofwe only say,

but Americanwhich, it cannot entertainedbelieved, by anyis be seriouslyorstatesman jurist.

theVarious the of compact,were made to literal constructionobjectionsone of That waswhich it to notice.we deemonly necessary particularly

thethat if it be so to Kentucky rightconstrued as to the oflegislaturedenytoto the cannotfollow,act in it will that that state lawspass passquestion,

thelands,affect underthe title to Virginia, althoughwhich was derivedneces-asame should be for use. If such consequence growswanted public

no reasonout canof this of the still wesarily compact, perceiveprovisiononthe it the of should not be bindingassent towhy Kentuckyby peopleofthe the admissionof state. Nor can whythat welegislature perceive,

the in the an expressconclusion *involved should invalidateargument*-Thearticle of the in relation to a differentquite subject.compact,

remain asclaimants under shouldthat the ofagreement, Virginiarightsstate,of contains avalid and secure as were under the that plain,lawstheyit is therewhich,about the of impossibleintelligible proposition, meaning

can from this agree-be two Can the ofopinions. flygovernment Kentuckyitbecausement, acceded to the in their capacity,by people sovereign

to theinconvenient,a or even perniciousinvolves bewhichprinciple mightthisin some The howstate, proposi-other ? court cannot perceiverespect

tion could be maintained.a literal con-fromis,But the the counselbyfact that drawnconsequence

thebe deduced fromof the cannot fairlystruction this article of compact,if not the universalofbecause, bythe common lawpremises, Virginia,by

use,taken for publicall belaw of free private maygovernments, propertythisadmission ofto the aindividualupon making just compensation. Thev

his torightnever as renderinghas been imagined by any person,principle; and, conbe, excludedand were itless secure than it wouldvalidproperty

of this articleit be and forced constructionwould an unnaturalsequently,ait such case.of the to that includedcompact, say,

ofthe constructioncounselWe the other observations of uponoverpasslaw,aof treatythat the wordsarticle,this with the remark : wherefollowing

inconstruction, hostilityallcontract,or a and obvious meaning,have plaindie-law, and aa maxim of*is This iswith such excluded.meaning,

*-admitted, norule betate a different toof common sense for were;ofthe extentestimateman, and could safelyhowever cautious intelligent,

auntillaw,of a judicialhishis or on own understandingrestengagements,been obtained.construction hadof those instruments

this courtwhetherof the question,We now come to the considerationvoid,and uponunconstitutionalhas actto declare the in questionauthority

isThis denied?of the compactthe thethat it obligationground, impairshasthis courtthatinsisted,for r is in the firstthe It place,reasonsfollowing

39

90 SUPREME COURT [FeVyBiddle v. Green.

no the of the law isvaliditysuch to the foundedauthority, where objectionwas,its as it into the of in thispart,constitutionupon opposition Kentucky,

observation,It a that our iscase. will be sufficient to this opinionansweroffounded the constitution the States. 2d. It wasUnitedexclusively upon

that and fixed a tribunal to deter-objected, uponVirginia Kentucky, havingmine the the this isof the of court excluded.meaning compact, jurisdictionIf this be aso, it must be that all which involve con-admitted, controversiesstruction of the are from the theexcluded ofcompact, equally jurisdiction

How, then, controversies,state courts of areand thoseVirginia Kentucky.which, sides,we were informed the on both the federalcounsel crowdedby

answer,and state courts of be ? The weto settledKentucky, presumebe, commissioners,would Butto those none suchby be states.appointed by

-, have ; states,*been either of thosewhat then?appointed Suppose,■ J for Areshould refuse to commissionersVirginia, ?example, appointthe of no to theiroccupants lands, title,to which have retainthey posses-sions, until this is enrich in mean-tribunal and to themselves theappointed,time, theby them, non-residents,of of ofprofits not to the butonly injurythe citizens of ? of a state is tooThe such ofKentucky supposition thingsmonstrous to be for a moment The of our natureentertained. best feelingsrevolt aagainst it,construction it. But thatwhich leads to how happensthe decided,questions entertained,submitted to andcourt have been bythisthe courts of for as were informed theKentucky, twenty-five byweyears,counsel ? courts,Have these learned must becautious and as acknowl-they

to be, committed the of a which notedged crime didjurisdictionusurpingto them? We should come such afeel to to conclu-belong very unwilling

answer,sion. The words,in a the to befew to the whole of isargument,infound the of theexplicit of that whichcompact,language provision

the tribunal of It is be in caserespects the commissioners. to noappointedbut a arise, individuals,where shall not butcomplaint or betweendispute

thebetween the ofcommonwealth of and state in theirVirginia Kentucky,high characters.sovereign

thus ofHaving endeavored to clear the thesequestion preliminaryconclusion,we haveobjections, add,to that the notofonly by way duty,

^ess*than the court,of of otherthis as well as court inpower every*qoi■* the Union, to unconstitutional,declare a thelaw obliga­which impairs

tion of contracts, them,be the is toowhoever tomay parties clearlytheenjoyed by itself, and establishedconstitution too the deci­byfirmly

sions of this courts,and other that;to be shaken and those decisionsnowcover theentirely A effort to that apresent case. slight prove compact

between two states is not a of constitution,case within the themeaningwhich speaks contracts,of tenant,was made the counsel for the wasbutbynot much contract,If thepressed. we attend to definition of a which is the

ofagreement do, do,or acts,two more to or not to certain it mustparties,be obvious, that offered,the andpropositions byagreed Virginia,tobeing fact,and ratified aaccepted is contract. In theby termsKentucky,

andcompact Peek,contract are and in: Fletcher v. the chiefsynonymousjustice defines a tocontract be a two or morebetweencompact parties.The laidprinciples are,in that case the of thedown that constitution UnitedStates all contracts,embraces executed indi­or whether betweenexecutory,viduals, or abetween state and and a;individuals that state has no more

40

92UNITEDTHE STATES.OF1823]y.Biddle Green.

sheentered,she herself has thanto an into whichpower impair obligationthea totherefore,thecan contracts of individuals. Kentucky, being party

state, underinclaimants of land thatAvhich tocompact lyingguarantiedofas existed under the lawstitles derived from their theyVirginia, rights,

contract,violate that passing *anywas toVirginia, incompetent by[*93law which rendered less valid and secure.those rights

tenant, of the aboveIt was said the for the that the validitycounselbyseries of deci-maintained anlaws of been by unvaryinghaveKentucky,

and of thestate,sions of the courts of and the declarationsthat by opinionsofother branches had anof Not having opportunityher government.

feel our-courts,the we do notcases of theexamining reported KentuckyWe mayat to or first of this assertion.selves admit theliberty deny partthebe courthowever, observe,to that the decidedprinciples bypermitted,

a manuscriptof in of v.state, McMurray,of that the case Brownappealscourt,of to the this cause wasreport argued,which was handed when

theare in to the other branches ofstrict this Aswithconformity opinion.state, observe,of that the legislaturethat need whilstgovernment onlywe

believe,has that the acts of 1797maintained the most wehonestly,opinion,of1812 the the the governorand were consistent objectionswith compact,

act,to him in theirthe of the latter and the reasons assigned byvaliditysus-case, incline as totaken in connection the above stronglywithsupport,

thestate,that a in that upon ques-ofpect, great diversity opinion prevailsbe,tion hold ourselveswe have been However this weexamining. may

God, consciences, questionanswerable to our and our to decide thiscountry,theof be ofto the dictates our best the consequencesaccording judgment,

a as to thedecision If have ventured to entertain wishwhat wethey may.theresult of the have towhich *weinvestigation laboriously given

*-;case, was,it that it be favorable to the of the lawsmight validityour on the unless the objectionsthat side of question,feelings being alwaysto them are madeand out.clearlyfairly

The the of a of court. Theabove is the opinion givenopinion majorityit unnecessarythe the court,first circuit rendersupon question proposed by

to notice the second question.

intrinsic difficultiesJOHNSON, theJustice. Whoever candidly weighwillcertified tothethis case must that questionswhich acknowledge,presents,

in-differ,minds withoutcourt, maythis are those on which twoamong anyfortunate, inWe arethe of or error.wilfulimputation precipitatecurring

whichinstance, in that unavoidable jealousythis aloof fromplacedbeingoffrom the exercise state jurisdiction.awaits founded ondecisions appeals

;of the Statessuit in the circuit court UnitedThis institutedwas originallydecide, to the bestis, judg-the toand us accordingnowduty imposed upon

in thesit, andform, adjudicate,ment we can on the of WeKentucky.lawI bound tothat state. amin of ofinstance, the judgespresent capacity

courts oftheto governdecide to those oughtwhichaccording principlesown citizens.that state itswhen betweenadjudicating

laws,theis,to this court whetherThe first certifiedof the two questionsoflawsof thetheby ^description occupying-claimantwell-known

*-that denomina-are The known byconstitutional ? lawsKentucky,of1797, Januarythe 31standFebruaryare the acts the oftion 27thpassed

41

95 SUPREME COURT [Feb’yy.Green Biddle.

1812. The inof to to a defendantgeneral is, eject-the formerpurport givement, for the landactual madecompensation improvements, innocently uponof The latter,another. himis,effect of the topractical compensationgivefor all the labor ofit,and bestowed whetherexpense productiveupon

or not.improvementThe two acts differ as the and rents are toto time from damageswhichestimated,be concur,but of1st. In on the courts the substitutionenjoining

acommissioners,for in the2d. Injury, damages. convertingassessingland,to aplaintiff’s established his toright rightafterjudgment, having

absolute,from an into a circum-and,conditional 3d. Under someright;instances, defendant,that andshould for therequiring, bejudgment given

that the inplaintiff, land,lieu of assessed sum ofshould recover an money,or, rather, bonds sum, e., action,to ifthat i. another ofpay anything.right

The second courtquestion acts theis,certified on of thesewhich twoshall give and seems of an insistedjudgment, to have arisen out argumenton at the trial, that as the lastthe suit to the ofwas instituted prior passageact, it to be thatought act,under the firstadjudicated notwithstandingthe act of 1812 inwas force when wasjudgment given.

*As the toof the first is insufficientlylanguage question general1 embrace all state, orarise, under the Unitedthat eitherStates constitution, themuch of the court turned uponbefore thisargument

whether the theinquiry, that article ofof therights affectedparties bywereUnited States ofconstitution the violationwhich makes provision againstcontracts ? The I angeneral upon.shallquestion opiniondecline passingI consider such an ofa the benefitas of untilinquiry work supererogation,that provision in the thefromclaimed,constitution anshall be in appealdecision of a court of the of thisis, however,state. There one point,viewpresented one of theby state,the ofwho on behalfgentlemen appearedwhich cannot ofpass contended,unnoticed. the constitutionIt thatwas

inKentucky, as athe it onlyrecognising withcompact Virginia, recognisesandcompact; therefore, that that constitu-it no more force underacquires

tion, than it had before; and Kentucky,that ofbut for the constitutionquestions under it and werearising ;were mereof cognisancediplomaticnot, theby constitution, Itransmuted into of cognisance.subjects judicialam constrained to and,entertain a withoutdifferent of thisview subject;

anpassing opinion on the exist-in itseffect of the separatelegal compact,ence, upon individual I that the peoplemust the whenrights, adopt opinion,

“of declared,Kentucky that subjectthe the of Virginia,with statecompactto such alterations as modetherein,be the pre-made tomay agreeably

scribed the this con-by *said ofas partshall be consideredcompact,*9yistitution,” in all thosethey themselves,enacted it as partsa forlaw

in which it was made it acontract; andpreviously on asthem aobligatoryfundamental law, one which modethe prescribedcould inbeonly repealedfor that ofaltering formthe ordinaryconstitution. Had it inbeen enactedlegislation, lawsenactingthe on ofinsistednotwithstanding absurdity

onobligatory nonit inutileVirginia, is certain, maxim, perthat the utilevitiatur, would have been asbeen enforcedit,to and haveit wouldapplieda law of in Ken-Kentucky, coui-t in uponofevery justice sitting judgmenttucky rights. How much toso, givemore the properthoughtwhen peopleit the force and of a fundamentalsolemnity law.

42

91STATES.THE UNITEDOF1823]v. Biddle.Green

tohas relationwhichthe article of thetherefore, compactI, considertheof the withand interests parties,on theas rightsthis question, operating

then, needcan,itand,;the state certainly,a law offorce fundamentalofbe, that the constitutioncontract,a unless itit asfrom viewingno support

theWhilethe contract cannot.of the butone parties,bemay repealed byto the carriage,it is a fifth wheelputtingunrepealed,constitution continues

in crowdingcancause. It eventuateonlyinto thisto the contractinvoketheconsider, therefore,courts. Ifrom the stateour dockets with appeals

“ Thatof :as an enacted law Kentuckyfrom the compact,extractfollowingfromderivedof lands within (Kentucky)all and interestsrightsprivate

*andto shall remain validof separation,the Virginia priorlaws (their)*-state, be determinedthe and shallunder the laws of proposedsecureTheat the time of thein separation).”theby Virginialaws (existing

result fromnecessarilyin the are such ashere madealterations phraseology,laws,Theof it a form-.the to occupying-claimantadaptation legislative

a;be fortherefore, to or voidmust this constitutional provision,conformconstitution, exercise nothat can powersconstituted underlegislature,

of theit. The peoplethe instrument created willinconsistent with whichbe affectedinterests of the individual cannototherwise,has decreed and the

forbidden theirof which the have legislaturethe exerciseby powers peopleto exercise.

was,the and state KentuckyTo constitute ofsovereign independentto the the 18th ofthe act of ofleading object Virginiaunquestionably,

To unlimited over thelegislative territoryDecember 1'789. exercise power;limits,her is one of the essential attributes of thatwithin own sovereignty

of this I as a restrictionrestraint in the exercise considerpower,and everyaand to Onon intended construction.subject rigorous generalthe grant,

have remained unaffected the transferbywouldpropertyprinciples, privateto; would have continued both asof but thenceforth subject,sovereignty

to of created. Theand the the statepower newlyremedy, legislativerighttheis,for the that under considerationnowplaintiff provisionargument

beyond or enforcement of this and restrainsthegoes recognition principle,from act that inof canKentucky any legislative any way impair,the state

or ofincumber, the *interests which thevary beneficiaryor grantees _■*-Or, words,the inunder laws of other thatacquired Virginia.land

tenure in the landsit creates a whichpeculiar granted by Virginia, exemptsthat extent of action to the the statethem from which residue oflegislative

this, For,It must mean ifis it means anything.unquestionably subjected.lands, inall the of under the of actuallawsgrantees Virginia,supposing

the intoof their unless lands thus reducedpremises,respectivepossessionthebe still under of this neithersupposed protection compact,possession

timehave been at The words the ifprevious.could ofthey any compact,contended forthe the areimmunity ofbeyondthey carry period separation,

itto continue ever after.equally operativeus law,this land If the had,where would ? state ofBut Kentucky by

of aenacted, the dower widow athat should extend to life-estate in one-lands, the aof her husband’s would widow of husbandhalf whoseVirginian,

after, lost the benefit of law,the have this ofdied because the lawsdaythe wife an inchoatehad ingiven but one-third ? Thisright wouldVirginia

indeed, into the of andpowersbe cutting deep, sovereign Kentucky, would4.3

99 SUPREME COURT [Feb’y

Biddle.Green v.

the which no couldbe governmentof a overestablishing anomaly territory;the not Ken-; not for she hadlegislate Virginia, sovereigntywithparted

fastened two-thirdsfor the laws of irrevocably uponweretucky, Virginiaof her territory.

consideration,contended,But it underis that the clause of the compact, ter-in cession ofmust have meant more *than is implied everywhat■ J confess, I cannotor it inserted it. Iwas to haveritory, nugatory

ofcase,of it admits twodiscover the force this In theargument. presentland titlesone to in of the;answers the is be found the naturevery peculiar

Landcreated and then the state ofVirginia, Kentucky.overby floatingnot, extended toand all the real estatewere attributes of werethey yet

them, under thethem, and intended the to be toby compact preservedthe ordin-was, then,dominion of the new There more thanstate. something

in the to andof individuals ceded beary territoryrights perpetuated,theto of such a as a measure.insertionenough justify necessaryprovision

nations,But there be offound,is another to in theanswer ordinary practicein in which, caution, or,their treaties abundantfrom diplomaticperhaps,

are inserted for the of whichparade, stipulationsmany preservation rightsno civilian be awould could affected ofsuppose by change sovereignty.Witness forthe the restoration offrequent wrecked orstipulations goods,

also,;taken the third article ofgoods piratically witness the treaty cedingLouisiana, the of Florida,and sixth article that both areof whichcedingintended to secure to the inhabitants of the ceded which,territory, rightsunder our institutions,civil could not be fromwithheld them.

But let us now reverse the and whetherpicture, thisinquire, stipulationof the or of the constitution, nocompact, limits to theprescribed legislative

ofpower over theKentucky ceded Had the stateterritory. of Kentucky,after law,it aimmediately was thatorganized,* passsed declaring,

J awherever in aplaintiff or in of shallejectment, writ haveright,recover,established his in to shallright law the value the premisesjury

claimed, and instead of land,for the and the ofwritjudgment possession,the assessed,shall haveplaintiff his for the value so and thejudgment

of law to a onordinary process recover sum of money who isjudgment;there notwho would felt that merehave this a of thewas com-mockery

a ofviolation thepact, first of inand of faith con-principles private right,tracts ? Tet such a is, inlaw not in variant from thedegree, principle,

laws underoccupying-claimant consideration, and the same latitude of legis-lative one,which will thepower thejustify would other.justify

But on the other hand I that I amagain, (and acknowledge groping mya toway labyrinth, hold ofthrough lay sensible totrying objects guide me),

doubt,who can that where had been forwanted nationalprivate propertythe ofpurposes, legislature have the individualKentucky might compelledit,to a tendered,for valueconvey it held under awasnotwithstanding grant

from and such aVirginia, violation of hadnotwithstanding private rightbeen even forbidden the state of Or canconstitutionally ? whoby Virginiadoubt the of to the of thepower descents,course formsKentucky regulateof the liens,of andconveying, power the nature extent ofdevising, withinher territorial limits ? law,For the civil the whoexample, by workman

e<üfioe,erects an a lien on both the and theacquires building*1021-* land standsit *for of bill. should not theupon, payment his Why44

STATES.THE 102OF UNITED1823]v. Biddle.Green

into herthis wise and just juris­principlestate of haveKentucky adoptedit to the case of the laborer whonot have extended? Or whyprudence

least,laws, at thatYet, in the oeeupying-claimanta field ? principle,clearsthis into theto1797, very provision Kentuckyintended engraftof was really

another man’s It wasinnocent ofcode, property. thought,as to the improverof had a ofthe state courseVirginia pursuedand that asjustly thought,

ahad introduced such state of con­in the whichcountry,settlinglegislationas rendered it for her toimpossiblein the titles to landedfusion property,

individual, but fairthe it was and thatright,tract toany specificguarantyhim for the labor andheld out to bestowedexpenseshould besome security

theand that where successful claimant recovered;thein countryimprovinganother,of it but thatin the labors wasland, rightenhanced value byhis

To securedthe enhanced value. this ben­make forhe should compensationclaimant, a lien the land for histo indem­give uponefit the occupyingto

were, fact,a in in theof suit soleequity, objectsand avoid the necessitynity,been,of this tosystemThe misfortune haveappearsof the acts of 1797.

the means of this account-­closingto curtail by providingthat litigation,law, suit,inin a court of and a so as toand liabilities singlecurrent of rights

; anor of action for mesneof intonecessity equity profitsobviate the goingother,on theside, and an action for tocompensation appearson the one

the The ofthe attention of legislature. consequencehave absorbedsim­is, a inconsistent thethat course of withquite*which proceeding, rH.Land a curious ofthe debit and creditof common-law processplicity

hand, meruit,the one and of onland, and mesne on quantumdamages profits,an calculated alarmhas been toother, anomalythe welladopted, exhibiting

notions of the common law.the precisemode ofthat this atcomingBut instead of imposing complexsuppose,

had a simplythe of lawKentucky passedthe end proposed, legislaturelands, notice,the innocent of without should havethat improverdeclaring,

thehis and a lien onto recover forindemnity improvements,his action;all I can no prin-in to other creditors seeso preferencepremises improved,

unconstitutional; nora be declared anythingon such law couldwhichciplein having compe-from it courtanythat is to the party enforcingprevent

one in consider-But the strikes everytent whichinconsistencyjurisdiction.verdict,ais, that one shouldthe as now stand havethey partylawsingshouldThat, theanother, flatú,the eodem plaintiffand finally, judgment.

land, entitled toentitled to and not recoveryetdeclared recoverbeland.

case, I led to the opinion,the difficulties of this amAfter thus mootingcon-of underfrom the restricted construction the articlethat if departwe

of thea sea of as to the extentsideration, are left to float on uncertainty,weheld underthe Virginiaof overKentucky territorylegislative power

exercise, and thethe assumed; if,that to elect betweenobligedgrantsItof the wouldsubject.extinction of the overKentuckyutter power

extremes, isthose;former that betweenevery questionthe*adopt _■Lofor rather than judicial cognisance,of displomacy,one expediency

on theto decidetribunal. Ifto be decided before this compelledand notinI thatlaws, theystrictly say,of these speaking, wouldconstitutionalityofthe titlesof underthe force of the laws whichVirginia,nowise impugn

to enforce subse-acquiredare but aderived, rightland-holders operate45

SUPREME COURT104 [Feb’yGreen v. Biddle.

and ofquently, with those under thecapable existing consistently acquiredof admit,laws I that itVirginia. cannot was ever the theintention of

constitution,of this or offramers the to this or of theparties compact,States,United in thatsanctioning that should be forcompact, Kentucky

imbecilityever achained to state ofdown ahopeless with—embarrassedminute law,thousand discriminations from thedrawn common refinements

set-offs, &c.,on mesne aprofits, to state of and a stateappropriate society,of no to the actual inproperty, having analogy whatever state of things

no on earthKentucky alter,to or to or toyet, power existing repeal—andeffect those accommodations to the of humanstateever-varying things,which the ornecessities of Ifimprovements society may any-require.

more was intended than thething of that andpreservation very peculiarof landcomplex system laws then over under thethatoperating country,

of itlaws would not have the ofVirginia, extended maintenancebeyondthose great state, which,of the fundamental laws of thatleading principles

far asso limited the thethey of state of overlegislative power Virginathe ofrights individuals, became, also, the of theblended with law

*105] land, then about to under a ifnew And it bepass sovereignty.admitted, that the instance,state of in one haveKentucky might, legis-anylated as far as the state of have on the same sub-Virginia might legislated

I that I to beject, acknowledge, drawn,cannot where the line isperceiveso as exclude under, least,to the powers asserted at the first of the laws nowunder consideration. But it me,to that this cause to beappears oughtdecided anotherupon view of the subject.

The States,of the thepractice is,courts of the United ofthat remedytherein, is toparties no other than that ofsubject power congress. By

T789,the ofact the the theof state courts was intopractice adoptedrespectiveof States, courts,courts the and toUnited to thewith power respective

court,the to make all alterations. thesupreme Whatever changesnecessaryof the time,states since that that ofpractice respective havemay undergone

the ;United courts so as theStates has continued uniform farexcept respec-tive courts have theit advisable to the introducedthought adopt changes bystate The district of established it waslegislatures. was whileKentucky

a Act, 24th,of Theyet part Virginia. prac-(Judiciary September 1789.)tice of the state of the of thetherefore, was made UnitedVirginia, practice

inStates courts theNow, to the ofKentucky. practice Virginia,accordinghere, a andtitle,out his to have had verdictplaintiff, upon making oughtin the ofusual can the of the statejudgment form. Nor I recognise right

*to of thehim, or the courts UnitedKentucky compeltocompel■1 J States, to before a board of com-thispass subsequentthrough processmissioners, afterwards,and the modeto his inpurchase prescribedjudgment

the state I theby lien,do not the of state to givelaws. therightdenyand to the ;action for I the togive laybut doimprovements deny rightthe courts of the to from aUnited States under an withholdobligation

the court,to of thatplaintiff which, under the establishedjudgment practicehe had entitled himself.

It be that the the States in havemay courts ofargued, Kentucky,Uniteda laws,in andlong acquiesced with these havecompliance thereby adopted

this This, admit,course of I is correctinto their ownproceeding practice.for ;the court the of rules ofreasoning; power making practicepossessed

46

THEOF UNITED STATES. 1061823]v.Green Biddle.

a literal rule.habit,and be as assuch rules wellmay by framingadopted bythefacts, here,But to the could sustainthe circuit court onlywith regard

of 18121797,of the of since thatto lawargument occupying-claimantanHere, however, I am led toto been resisted.appears inquiryhave early

laws, rules ofwhich the of as prac-will affect both viewedequally validityoftice to remedies in our courts; as a fundamental incidentaffecting right,

law.a trial alaws,ais, byIt of these to substituteobviously, leading object

for the as mesnecommissioners, profits,board of trial toby damagesjury,a how far the powerand mei-uit. Withoutquantum examining legislative

courts, Iof *to this amis in its ownKentucky adequate per-change*-it intothat cannot introduced statesatisfied, authoritybe byfectly

of thesethe of thecourts the United States. And I farther : judgesgohas toohave to for the constitutioncourts not make thepower change;

andthe article oftrial Amendments);sedulously guarded by jury (sevenththe act of the both the betweenseparationUnited Statesjudiciary recognises

courtforbids that shouldcommon law and and anyequity proceedings,and confound them.blend

is notconclusion,lead me to the that the defendantThese considerationsconsideration,under evento under either of the actsentitled judgment,

either,constitutional; if,but under undercertainlythem to beadmittingof thehas into the United Statesthat alone which been practiceadopted

incourts Kentucky.

thethe ofheard, transcriptcause came on to be onCbbtiuicatb. —Thisthe for the district of Kentucky,of Statesrecord of the circuit court United

the cir-of of saidthe theopinionswhichupon judgeson certain questionsfor theircertified to this courtand which werecourt were opposed,cuit

court, counsel:the circuit and was argued bythe of saiddecision by judgescourt, that the act of thewhereof, it is of thisthe opinionOn consideration

1797,the concerning occupyingof 27th ofKentucky, Februaryofsaid stateto constitutionforce, theland, it was in was repugnantof whilstclaimants

ofthe act*States, that the same repealed bybut wastheof United ..■Lactthat theact;the said and1812, to amendof Januarythe 31stStates.the Unitedto the constitution ofis alsomentioned repugnantlast

theto this courtthe submitted byon first questionThe opinion givenAllthe secondit tocourt, unnecessary question.renders noticesaid circuit

circuit court.to the saidto be certifiedis orderedwhich47