Stewart v. Griffith
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to Marion Circuit Court. I. It can hardly be contended that the act is unconstitutional as being either an ex post facto law, or as a law impairing the obligation of contracts, or that it is retrospective in its operation. It is not an ex post facto law, if for no other reason, because this clause has been decided, over and over again, to apply only to criminal matters.
Read the full summary
Error to Marion Circuit Court. I. It can hardly be contended that the act is unconstitutional as being either an ex post facto law, or as a law impairing the obligation of contracts, or that it is retrospective in its operation. It is not an ex post facto law, if for no other reason, because this clause has been decided, over and over again, to apply only to criminal matters. It is not a law impairing the obligation of contracts, because there is no contract about the subject matter. It is not retrospective. Judge Story, in the case of the Society, &c., v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 139, gives the…
1Opinion of the CourtBates, Judge
By an act of the General Assembly, passed on the 17th day of November, 1855, it was enacted as follows :
“ Section 1. Daniel A. Stewart, guardian of the persons and curator of the estate of James M. Johnson, Mary E. Johnson and Emily E. Johnson, minor heirs of William Johnson, deceased, is hereby authorized and empowered to sell all the real estate belonging to said minors in Marion county, in the *17State of Missouri, subject to the approval of the County Court of said county of Marion.
“ Seo. 2. The County Court of Marion county is hereby authorized and required to make an order for the sale of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Wilkinson v. LelandSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Watkins v. Lessee of HolmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Cochran v. Van SurlayNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- People v. ColemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1854
- Rice v. ParkmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1820
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. HoneycuttSupreme Court of Missouri · 2013
- Todd v. Flournoy's Heirs & Adm'rSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- Texas Co. v. HenrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Gannett v. LeonardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Hindman v. PiperSupreme Court of Missouri · 1872
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.