Summary
THIS case came before the court on a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of,Pennsylvania.
In 1784 or 1785, Elisha Satterlee, the father of the plaintiff in error, and Elisha Matthewson, the husband of the defendant in error, the defendant in error being thfe sister of Elisha Satterlee, went to a large body of land in Luzerne eouhty, Pennsylvania, part of which was the land in controversy, and bqth took possession of the same, under, as is believed, a supposed title from the Susquehanna Company. They worked on the lands in partnership, the same lying on both sides of the Susquehanna river, until .1790, when it was agreed that Matthewson, who had a house on the west side of the river, should, occupy the land before held in common, on that side, and become the tenant of Satterlee for his portion of the land on the said west side of the river j and Elishav Satterlee moved-on the lands on the east side, on precisely the same terms : that is, that he should become thé tenant of Matthewson for his portion of the land.on the said east side of the river. By this arrangement each became possessed, in severalty, of the particular portion of the lands thus allotted to him, and-the tenant to the other of portions of the land before held in common; and it was expressly agreed thaf either of the parties might put an end to the , tenancy at the end of any one year; and in that case, each was to be put into possession of his own lands.
In 1805 Elisha Matthewson jdied, having bequeathed by his will to his widow during life, and to his children after her death, the interest he had in the said land. Elisha Sat-terlee repeatedly, after Matthewson’s death, acknowledged the Original bargain, and that he was a tenant of Matthew-son*s partbut he wished to buy it; he wished to give other lands for it, &,c. &c.; but his sister could only sell for.life, ánd her children were minors. In 1810, she built a house on part of the tract, and put a tenant in it; but her brother would not give her possession of the part he had in cultivation. In 1811 she made application to the land office of Pennsylvania,, and on the 7th of January Í8Í2.took out a warrant in her name in trust for her children, and had the land surveyed, and obtained á patent for it from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She stated in her.application, an improvement made by her husband in 178,5; and paid interest to the state on the parchase moneys from the daté of the improvement. After his sister’s warrant, survey, .find return, Elisha Satterlee purchased a Pennsylvania title commencing in 1769.¿ and consummated by a patent from the commonwealth in 1781, which he alleged covered the land in question; hut he directed the deed to be.made to his .son,.J, F. Satteyleé, the plaintiff in error; and 1813 an ejectment was instituted in the name of the son against the father, in pursuance of a plan of the father’s to release him from thé situation of tenant to his sister. By a láw of Pennsylvania then in existence, but since repealed, a rule,of reference might be entered the samé day the writ was taken out, and by diligence a. plaintiff might obtain a report of arbitrators, which had the effect of a judgment', before the return day'of the , writ.
This proceeding was, by. means of the father’s waiving all.' objections as.to time and notice,'so carried on, as that the son not only had judgment, but a writ of possession before the return of the writ.
J, F. Satterlee. then gave to. his father a lease, for life of the land for the consideration of one dollar. Elizabeth Mat-thewsori instituted an ejectment; J. F, Satterlee, in 1817, procured himself to be entered co-defendant in the suit, and his father being dead, is now sole defendant.
Ón the trial of the cause the defendant mádé title under an application of John Stoner of 3d of April 1769.. Stoner conveyed to Mr. Slough, who in 1780 conveyed to Joseph Wharton,'- A patent issued-to.'Wharton in 1,781 and he in. April 1812 conveyed to the defendant. The judge of the court of common pleas of Bradford county instructed the juryi that if they found the ejectment brought by the son of J. F. Satterlee, in, whose name, the conveyance' was -taken, was actually instituted by the father, though in his son’s name as agent for himself, and that the suit was all a trick; and so conducted.on purpose to prevent his sister from interfering or-, being heard; that he was still her tenant, as much as if iio such proceeding had taken place. But if the son was the real purchaser, and the suit was institetéd and conducted .bona fide, and the lease to the father during life for. a' dollar a year was bona fide, that then E. Satterlee having been’evicted, by due course of law, might take a lease from him who recovered; and in that case, the relation of landlord and tenant between him and his sister was at amend, and-the cause must be decided upon the respective titles of the parties. But- if they found him still a tenant, he could not set up. against his landlord an adverse title, purchased during his life. But, he must restore his possession to. his landlord, and might .then institute a suit ón the title hé had pürchas-ed ; and if it was the best, recover from his former landlord. The verdict and judgment were for Mrs Matthewson.
The case, was removed by writ of error to the supreme court of Pennsylvania. On the argument of this cause before the supreme court, it. was decided, — “ That the relation between landlord and tenant could not exist between persons holding under a Connecticut title.” And that court, in 1825,' reversed the judgment of the common pleas and awarded a venire facias de novo.
Immediately after this decision, omthe 8th of April Í826-, the legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act, by. which it was enacted, “ That the relation of landlord arid tenant .should exist, and be held as fully and effectually between Connecticut settlers and,Pennsylvania claimants, as between other citizens of the commanwealtÉ.” .
The ejectment depending in the court of common pleas, of .Bradford county, between, the, plaintiff in error and the defendant, -again came on for trial after the law of April 8, 1826, on the 'lOthéfMay 1826 ; and the judge gave ill charge to the jury as>: folíbws, after stating the above recited act of assembly, to Wit: “It is a.general principle of law,, founded on vyise policy, that the tenant shall not controvert the title of his landlord, and prevent the recovery of his possession, by showing that' the title of the landlord is defective. Among the exceptions to this general rule, the supreme court of Pennsylvania have decided.^ that when the landlord claimed (as the plaintiff claimed on • the former trial of this cause) under a Connecticut title, the case should form one of the excepted cases. The legislature have thought proper to enact the abov¿ recited law, and by it we are bound. And if the'plaintiff in all other respects should be found entitled to a recovery, the mere claiming through, a Connecticut title would not now deprive her of her right to a recovery.”
A verdict and judgment were obtained in favour of the defendant in error, Elizabeth Matthewson.
To the charge of the judge, which is insertéd. at large and sent up with the record, the defendant excepted, and the judge signed and sealed a bill of exceptions.
A writ of error was taken by the defendant to the supreme court of Pennsylvania, and the following were among the errors assigned, to wit:
The court erred in charging,
. 1. That by the laws of Pennsylvania, the plaintiff’s testator'could lease the land, and that the rights of landlord' do .extend to him ¡ he having claimed under a Connecticut title.
2. That the act of the 8th. of April 1826 gives a right of recovery, and does away the force of the law, as declared by the supreme court in this case.
On the first of July 1827, the supreme court, after argument, affirmed the judgment of the court of common pleas. And on the 6th of July 1827, a petition and prayer, for reversal was' filed by John F. Satterlee, the plaintiff in error, who survived Elish’a Satterlee; on the ground that the said court had decided the said act of assembly to be constitutional, and valid, though he had insisted that he ought not to be affected and barred of recovery by the said act, for that the said act was not valid, and’was repugnant .to the constitution of the United States.
The' cause was argued by Mr Eli K. Price, and Mr Sergeant for the plaintiff; and by Mr Sutherland, and Mr Peters for the defendant.
There, was enough apparent on the record to sustain ’the . appellate jurisdiction of his Court;
If in fact the act drawn in question is unconstitutional, there is sufficient on the record to give jurisdiction,, because it appears that the judge who tried the cause instructed'’ the jury; that the act.was binding, on them as the law ;• in accordance with the judge’s instruction was the verdict of the jury, on which judgment was rendered, and that judgment was affirmed in the supreme court of Pennsylváñia, to which this writ of error was taken.
This is therefore a case to which the clause of the constitution of. the'United States is applicable, and which was disregarded; which is all that need appear to sustain the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Martin vs. Hunter,. 1 Wheaton, 304; Inglee vs. Coolidge, 2 Wheaton, .363; .La nusse vs. Barker, 3 Wheaton, 147; Miller vs. Nicholls, 4 Wheaton, 311; Williams vs. Norris, 1'2 Wheaton, 124; Hickie us. Starkie,.i Peters, 94.
-Is the act unconstitutional so far as it affects rights existing at the time of its enactment % ,
Of the prospective operation of the act we have nothing to say, our complaint being of the divestiture of vested rights. These were the rights of Satterleé to the possession ■of his estate, derived from the commonwealth, and to take the rents apd profits, without liability to pay the latter or surrender the' former to any landlord who as such held a Connecticut title. This was the settled law of the land by the decision in this very case, when first before the supreme court' of, Pennsylvania. • 13 Serg. & É, 133. This deci-' sion was evidence of what the law of Pennsylvania had always been. At no 'time, therefore, did the relation of landlord and tenant exist between these parties. The claimant under thé Connecticut title had no rights, and therefore was not entitled to the aid of the liberal principle, that a tenant shall not dispute the possession with his landlord, though he may hold the better title. The decree of Trenton in 1782 had settled the right to the disputed soil in the northern border of Pennsylvania, in favour of that state. The policy thereafter pursued by that state was utterly to exterminate the Connecticut claims within her borders, at the same time that she made great sacrifices to furnish the Connecticut settlers with Pennsylvania titles, by expending her treasures to purchase releases from ihe holders of them. Among the penal acts to destroy the Connecticut claims were the acts.of 1795 and 1802 : making it highly penal and criminal to intrude undér or convey a Connecticut title. 3 Smith, 209.-525. A more extended history of this unhappy and often bloody controversy may be found in 2 Dali. 304; 6 Binn.. 467; 6 Binn. 57; 4 Serg'. & R. 281, and l Binn. 110.
In the last-case it was'decided, that a vendor of^a Connecticut title could not recover, from the vendee the purchase money, because the contract being in violation of the law, the plaintiff had no rights in a court of justice. On the same salutary principle was this case first decided. But with the justice and sound legal principle of this decision, which jare most apparent, we have nothing to do. It is enough, that by it the law was settled, and a rule of. property established.. That it did establish a rule of property is most evident; but it has also been expressly decided by the supreme’ court of Pennsylvania. 1 Serg. & R. 521. Under this rule of .property was Satterlee protected in the possession and enjoyment of his estate. By this act, if this judgment is affirmed, will he be dispossessed of his property, -made liable to pay the rents and profits to another, and by. the conversion of his. possession into the possession of the landlord, for ever precluded .from regaining his estate.
Does not this, act then impair the obligation of a contract ‘l The contract is the grant of'a title from the state to Sat-terlee. Such a grant is a contract within the meaning of the constitution of the United States. Fletcher vs. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87 ; Dartmouth College case, 4 Wheaton, 518.656. 682; Greeb vs. Biddle, 8 Wheaton, l. The obligation of a contract is “ the law which binds the parties to perform their undertaking.” 4 Wheaton, 197. The undertaking of the state of Pennsylvania by her grant, to which the law bound her, was that Satterlee should have and hold the premises granted, to take and enjoy the rents and profits thereof, without liability to surrender the possession or pay the profits to any Connecticut claimant, through the relation of. landlord and tenant.
By the loss of the possession, Satterlee has been unconstitutionally divested of rights, though the right of possession might remain in him. The possession gives the enjoyment of the rents and profits, which are equivalent to the land itself, and by those terms a title to the land will pass. Possession is itself a title against every body who does not exhibit a bettdr title. It gives a home, which may be invaluable to the owner from the attachments created by long residonce, or from its being, the plaice of nativity, or'the patrimony derived from a line of revered ancestors. He who is in possession, may forcibly defend that possession, ’ nay, slay the invader of his habitation, without a breach, of the peace or the commission of a crime l, while he who is out of possession cannot forcibly take possession, and if he does, though he may have the right,; will be dispossessed by the statutes against forcible entry -and detainer.
With the title of the commonwealth in his pocket, Satter-lee has by this act . been denied the right of defending his possession by it. He has béen obliged to confess his possession to be the possession of an alien claimant) -whose it never was, arid' never could have been by any judicial decision thatwas not suicidal to the state sovereignty. He has been bound in fealty tó a landlord to whom, if according to the aricient custom he had taken the oath of homage, it would have been, an abjuration of his allegiance to the state; for that landlord claims; in .breach of his allegiance, the title of a foreign state. Yet' by this act the strong arm of the state is to be exerted to dispossess her grantee, and to deliver it over to the favoured alien, claimant who had asserted a title, in Criminal violation'of he.r laws-. And tp consummate the injustice as'far as the most absolute power could do it, her courts of justice are forever to be closed against a claim On her violated and useless patent. If ah individual had thus attempted to re-aasume the rights he hack-granted, he would be' met by the doctrine of estoppel. For states who have the power to execute their arbitrary will, there is no estop-pel .but that which is to be found in the paramount law of the constitution, firmly enforced by an indepeqdent judiciary. If this act had given Satterlee’s estate to a claimant on a title perfectly void, it could not have committed a more flagrant violation of justice and of the constitution; for this title was not only void, but could not have been otherwise than criminally asserted.
It was an attempt by the legislature to encroach upon the judicial power; was passed at the next session, in terms precisely the reverse of the decision of the court, and applied to pending suits, when probably no suit but this was pending to which it was applicable.
If the legislature can thus, by a retrospective act, divest a citizen of his estate, there is no safety for our boasted rights and liberties. It is as impossible to make laws to operate upon the past, without the usurpation of despotic power, as it is to fecal the past. Law is a rule of action^; but a law which did not exist when an action was performed, could not have been a rule for that action. To make a rule for it after the action is performed,' is'to substitute the will of the legislature for a rule, which is despotism itself; for what, that will may be no man can foresee, and it is the same whether it proceeds from an American-legislator or an eastern despot. The Court cannot be unmindful that legislative bodies sometimes act under the impulse of. strong- and sudden excitement; sometimes inadvertently; that sometimes the good intentions of the many, may be misled by the management and intriguing talent of the few; and a case has been referred to which shows that they are not always inaccessible to corrupt influences.
. This Court would' not suffer counsel to argue a- question, so plain as that a legislature could not declare what a law was. Ogden vs.. Blackledge, 2 Crcmch, 276. This act changes the acknowledged' law for the past. It has decided that state bankrupt laws are unconstitutional in respect to contracts made previous to their passage (Sturgess vs. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122); though constitutional in respect to contracts made after their enactment. Ogden vs. Sanders, 12 Wheat. 261.
Retrospective laws are invalid at common law. 7 Johns. 477; 2 Johns. 263; 13 Serg. & Rawle, 353.' Nor can property be taken away, not even for public use, without.compensation. 2 Dali. 304; 2 Johns. 263 ; 2 Johns. Cha. Rep. 162; 8 Johns. 388. The principle being the same'at common law and under the constitution, they are applicable to this case.
The recovery in ejectment is conclusive evidence of the plaintiff’s right to recover in an action for the mesne profits.. 2 Johns. Rep. 371; 2 Dali. 156; 2 Burr. 665.
If this judgment is affirmed, Satterlee will lose the rents and profits which he would have held as his own, but for the .effect of the act in question.
In Green vs. Biddle, this Court decided laws of Kentucky to be unconstitutional which deprived the owner of a right to recover any part of. the profits on a recovery of. his- land.
The act having brought Satterlee within the operation of the statute of limitations, if he be dispossessed by the affirmance of this judgment, it has totally deprived him of all remedy. By the loss of all remédy all right is gone. For every right it is a maxim that there is a legal remedy for its vio-. lation. The converse of this must therefore be true, and if there be no remedy-there is no-right.
If this Court has not decided that the destruction of all remedy by a state law is an unconstitutional act, the several judges have at least-expressed such an opinion. C. J. Marshall, 4 Wheaton, 207; Justice Washington, 12 Wheaton, 271,267; Justice Johnson, 286; Justice Thompson, 295, 301 ; Justice Trimble, 327 ; Justice Story, 8. Wheaton, 12; and state decisions, 5 American Law Journal, 520, S Mass. 423, 430, 12 Serg. & Rawle, 358.
The question submitted in the present case was one of great interest;.not only to the defendant, out also to the free exercise of the legislative powers of the state of Pennsylvania. The question aróse opt of the aót of the assembly of the state, entitled “ an act relating to Connecticut settlers,” passed, the 8th day of April 1826.
On the case as presented by the plaintiffs, the act is alleged to have been passed on the 28 th, whereas it was in fact enacted into.á law on the 8th of April 1826. It is therefore respectfully submitted to.the Court as a preliminary point, whether théy win not- dismiss the writ of error for want of certainty in the date -of the act; as we contend, that under the decisions already made in this Court, it should distinctly and not' by reference appear that a statute of a state was■ drawn in question, upon thé ground of its being repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and that its decision was in favour of its validity..
But if the Court should decide that the record presents a case, so as clearly to bring the question before the Court ; then it is respectfully contended, 1. That the decision of the supreme, court of Pennsylvania, 13 Sergeant & Rawle, 133, wa$ contrary to law. 2. That the act of the legislature of.Pennsylvania, passed March 8th, 1826, was an explanatory act, and therefore constitutional. 3. That the judgment of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, which the plaintiff .in error seeks to reverse, did not impair.but affirmed the obligation of a valid contract, and yvas not against the constitution of the-United States.. 4. The judgment of the supreme court of Pennsylvania in the case now submitted to. this Court for revision, was not made upon the authority of. the act of assembly of the 8th of.Ápril 1826, but upon the known and established law of the -state.
Ifis contended, that the first decisiop of the supreme court of Pennsylvania was. erroneous. It appears, from looking back into the early-history of Pennsylvania that a number of,persons emigrated from the state of Connecticut, and settled in some of the northern countries of Pennsylvania, They alleged that the charter of Connecticut, being of an older date and covering the soil in question, they were. legally entitled to settle on the lands in question. Out of this dispute originated the celebrated Wyoming controversy, which produced the decree of Trenton, which went in favour of the jurisdiction of the state of. Pennsylvania. A number of laws weré passed by the legislature of Pennsylvania relative to the Connecticut settlers. The most importaht Were, what was denominated the li intrusion act,*’ and the act suspending the operations of the statute of limitation in that region of country.. The act to prevent intrusions was highly penal. - The first section provided,, that if any person shall take possession of, enter,, intrude, or • settle on any lands within the counties of Northampton,. Northumberland or. Luzerne by. virtue or. under colour of any conveyance of half share right, or any other pretended title not derived' under -Pennsylvania; he shall on conviction, &c. forfeit and pay two hundred dollars, &c. and be subject to imprison* ment not exceeding twelve months.
The 2d sectipn declared, that every person who shall combine, or conspire* for the purpose of conveying, possessing or settling any'lands within the limits aforesaid under any half, share, right or any pretended title as aforesaid, or for the laying out townships by persons not appointed or acknowledged by the laws of Pennsylvania, and accessaries thereto; shall forfeit and pay not less than four hundred dollars and not more than one thousand dollars, &c. &c. and be subject to imprisonment at kard labour not exceeding eighteen months.
The 8th section’enacts, that on trials of indictments for such intrusion, proof,-that the person indicted, entered into, intruded, settled on, or was in possession of the land, before the time of finding the indictment, shall be sufficient to convict thereof; unless defendant shall prove that’ he or she entered upon, took possession of, and settled on such land before the. passing of the original act, 11th of April 1795. '
When the casé of Matthewsón vs. Satterlee, 13 Serg. & Rawle, 133, came up before the supreme court of Pennsylvania, the impression, as is evident from'the report of the case, upon the minds of the judges of the court, was, that-the intrusion act was in full operation. For it no where appears either-in the argument of counsel or the opinion of the judges, that any thing had been said about its repeal. The act however had been repealed. This opinion was ho doubt based upon the case of Mitchel vs. Smith, 1 Binn. 1W. The plaintiff there sold the defendant a tract of land, lying in the county of Luzerne, and held by him under a deed from a coijnmittee of the Susquehanna Company, under the Connecticut title, and not derived from the authority of this commonwealth or the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania; and gave his note for $483 33 cents, payable in three years. The suit was on the note. The principal question, says the court in that case, is whether this be á legal or illegal consideration for the bill, and whether the contract for the sale and purchase of this land is a violation of the laws of this commonwealth, so taintitfg the whole transaction, as that this court cannot legally afford their aid to carry the contract into execution. The court say, the mischief intended to be remedied by the act of the 11th of April 1795 (the’intrusion act) was of a grievous nature. A warfare had been carried on between the claimants of land under Connecticut and the claimants under Pennsylvania for many years, and many lives were lost in the contest; the court then go on to staté that the decree of Trenton being in favour of Pennsylvania, “ the intrusion act” was passed to ■ enforce the rights' of that state, and finally decide that the action for the note could not be sustained.
But the intrusion act having been repealed, the case of Miíchel iis. Smith is now no authority ; and independent of the repeal of the intrusion act, the decision, of the court in 13 Serg. & RawU was erroneous, because the penalties- of that law were never extended to apply to a case like Matihew-son’s. The 8 th section, by special provision, excludes Mat-thewson from the operation of it. “ No person is to be liable to the severities of the law who could prove that he entered upon arid took possession of, or settled' on such lands before the passing of the act of the 11 tk of April 1795. Matthew-spn took possession as far back as.1784 or 1785, ten or eleven years before the existence of the intrusion act.
In the course of a short time after the repeal of the intrusion act; the law suspending the operation of the statute of limitatión in this section of the commonwealth, was also repealed. This was the last and only act remaining upon the 'statute book, to. the prejudice of the Connecticut settlers. So that if Matthewson had not ever settled upon these lands, rind leased them tc. Satterlee,1 long prior to these enactments, framed for the purpose of preventing any more intrusion from the settlers óf New England; yet, their total and unqualified repeal, afterwards, would have been sufficient to entitle him to the benefits of all the laws to whiother persons settling in Pennsylvania were entitled. Under this view of the facts connected with this case, we have but one. mode left for accounting for the decision of the supreme court of Pennsylvania, and that is the one heretofore adverted to; by supposing that the repeal of “ the intrusion act,” as well as “.the act suspending the operation, of the limitation act,?’ had not reached them. Certainly their repeal is not to be collected either from .the argument or opinion of the court, in the case of Satterlee vs. Matthewson, 13 Sergeant & Rawle. It being therefore, evidently, an oversight on the part of the court, we contend that the act,of the 8th. of April 1826, became necessary to effectuate justice between the parties, and to declare what vgf v-veally the law at the time the erroneous decision of the court was pronounced. We therefore maintain the position, that the act of the 8th of April is constitutional.
Indeed it is nothing more than a declaratory or explanatory act. It whs but a re-enactment of what was understood in that part of the state to have been the law from the year 1785 down to 1813, and certainly ever since the repeal of the acts of restriction. Surely,.an undisturbed practice for twenty-eight or thirty years, during which period no tenant in the situation of Satterlee had brought a case of the kind into á court of law, ought alone to settle this question in fa-vour of Matthewson; and to have satisfied the Supreme court of Pennsylvania, that the title of the landlord, obtained prior to the intrusion act, could not be contested by his tenant»
But Satterlee became the tenant of Matthewson prior to the act of intrusion; and when the law was passed,- exempting Matthewson from the effects of the intrusion act, Satter-lee was his tenant.
By referring to the act of the 8th of April, it will be found, that its provisions are to apply to the ‘‘ trial of any cause then pending, or hereafter to be brought;”.and it is alleged, thát its application to a cause in court, proves it to be unconstitutional; and that it wears none of the features of an explanatory act. It is not necessary to call an act in its title an explanatory act, to make it so. If in its design.and effects it is explanatory, that is sufficient. If. the law of the ,8th of April had juot applied to the cause in court it would not have remedied the evil. This was theonly cause of the kind that had ever been decided1, and the legislature being satisfied th&t the court had misapprehended the meaning of the law, passed this act by way of explanation.
Again, it has been, suggested that tips act .violates the obligation of a contract,, and affects vested rights; because it “ does away the force of the law, as decided by the supreme court in this case.” .
In 15 Sergeant & Raiole, our. present case, the. court say that.the case of Overton vs. Tracy,, reported in 14 Sergeant & Rawle, virtually overrules the decision in 4 3 Sergeant & Rawle of Satterlee and Matthewson, which decides.that a tenant may resist the title of his Connecticut landlord. So far therefore as the judgment of the supreme court has decided the law, it is in our favour. For it appears, that in the very next volume of reports* a-case is decided virtually revoking the former decision.- They had no vested rights under the first judgment of the court, as it was an erroneous one. This question would have never reached this. Court, nor would we have heard of the infringement of vested rights, if the supreme court had not given an 'incorrect opinion-.in .the first instance.
But let us look at the law, as it stood between Satterlee and Matthewson. Matthewson leased the property in question to Satterlee. . It was also agreed that either of the parties might put an end to the tenancy at the end of one year. All this, took place when there was no act in existence against Connecticut settlers in Pennsylvania; on the contrary,>many of the New England men had. gallantly defended the northern borders of the state, where this land is íocatéd, from Indian barbarities, and many of them lost their lives there.
Under such circumstances, no one could imagine that the men, who thus exposed t1’"’ ." all in defence of their settlements, could be driven from them afterwards by honest or upright legislation. Hence we find the assembly of Pennsylvania, in 1784, passed an . act for restoring possessions, from which the Connecticut settlers had been removed. 7 Smith, 531. And when they enacted the law to prevent intrusion from new emigrants, they cautiously and with a just regard for good faith, declare, that their enactments shall not apply to those who resided there before the passage of the law. Both Matthewson and Satterlee had'been there from ten to twelve years before the act adverted to had been passed. By excluding the prior settlers and defenders of the state from the operation of the intrusion act, they virtually passed a law preventing them from disturbance in their possession. And as such, they were entitled to all the benefit of the laws of the state. During this time of peace and quiet, the lease was made ; and all the inhabitants of Pennsylvania were subject to the .same laws. At that time the tenant could not resist the title of his landlord. He was bound to deliver up possession, if he claimed through or by an outstanding title. We hesitate, therefore, not to say, that the act of the legislature pf the 8th of'April 1826, violated no' contract.;. ,but on the contrary it prevented injustice by sustaining a contract, made upon' The purest principles of good faith.
contended that there is nothing in the record to show upon-what principles the supreme court of Pennsylvania decided the case, or what in fact was the decision of the court. The facts of thé case may be found on the papers which coiné up with the' record, but there is no certificate by the clerk that the same are part of the proceedings of the cause. The certificate signed by the clerk affirms nothing more than the docket entries; and to all the papers in the case the clerk’s certificate has no application.
If by the law of Pennsylvania, a judge who tries a cause is bound to file his opinion, and the same when filed-becomes a part of the record; the law enjoins this duty only when the judge is so required; and there does not appear to have been any request in this case. 5 Smith, 197. Neither does the record show that the paper, which purports to' be the opinion of the court, #as filed by the judge. Its’ language would authorise the assertion that it had been drawn up . by another. Nor do the exceptions to the charge of the court of’common pleas, which were presented before the supreme court, exhibit the particular matters which are presented to this Court as ground of error in the court of Pennsylvania'; and if this Court are to consider these exceptions as bringing up the whole charge of the judge of the court of common plea®, they will have to decide upon the relevancy of all the matter in the «jhargé, and to review the same; some of which this Court are not judicially competent to examine.
Thus, therefore; as the charge of the court is not legally upon the record, and there is no exception,which is sustained by the actual or certified record, nothing is before thé Court in the form of assigned errors, upon which they ean form an opinion. Again, unless in the form,of instructions-to the jury, the opinion or charge of the court can- in no case constitute a part" of the record.
In Williams vs. Norris, 12 Wheaton, 117, this point was explicitly decided as has been stated. The law of Tennessee, like that of Pennsylvania, requires the judges, to file their opinions, in writing* among the papers of the causé.
We do not deny the right of this Court to-decide upon the constitutionality of a law of a state, where the question is fairly and regularly presented for determination, according to the provisions of the act of congress, and the settled rules of this Court;, nor that an act of a state is unconstitutional if it impairs the obligation of a,contract;■ nor that the grant of titles.to lands by a state, is a contract within the meaning of the constitutional provision.
All the principles claimed by the counsel for the plaintiff in error upon these points, are therefore entirely conceded.
But admitting all these principlés, it is submitted,. that this is not such a case as. comes within them,- or as' this Court can judicially notice.
To constitute such a case, it must appear from.the record, that the constitutionality of the law of the state has been drawn in question, and that the decision of the■ court was in favour of its validity
That court in-the following term, June. 1826, had there- > fore overruled, their former decision. Tracy vs. Overton,, 14 Serg. 8f Rauile, 311. In that .case it,was held, that an improvement made under a Connecticut title was an object of purchase, arid they affirmed the obligation of the mortgagor, who' had made the. purchase.
• These views 'show conclusively that the . court thought the Supreme court in 1.825 was mistaken; arid.that the law was not as they declared it.
Until the decision of the supreme court of Pennsylvania is overruled, it will be respected, by this Court. This is conclusive to the case.
2d point. The'counselor the plaintiff in error say, that the supreme court of Pennsylvania have violated the constitution of the United States,, because they have decided, that the act of the- 8th of April 1826 gives a right of recovery,, and doés away the force of the law as declared by the supreme court.
It is no where found on .the record that the court have said go.
All that the record contains is, that five errors in the charge of the court of Bradford county were assigned? and that the court gave judgment for the defendant in that court, he being the plaintiff below..
The language of the exception is such as deserves notice The court are said to have declared that the act of. assembly does away the force of the law, as declared by the supreme court. ' Not that the act of assembly does away the law of the land. This is saying that the act of 1826 was, as in truth it was, a declaratory act. There can be no doubt of the right of á legislature to pass á declaratory act.
• A reference to the opinion of the court'will show-that this was their'decision.
The act of 1826 is said fo be unconstitutional, because it impaired a.contract: but what is the contract which the counsel assert to be impaired 1
The right which settlers had to th$ possession of the land, undér the title obtained in 1812 by purchase from Wharton, is said to be affected, and the contract under the patent for the state is said to be impaired. Look at the situation of the parties. They both settled in 1784, or 1785j under a Connecticut title. If neither could acquire any legal possession under that title, they stood in the same situation up to the 10th of January 1812, when Elizabeth Matthewson took out a warrant for the land, and obtained a patent on the 19th of February 1813.
If the warrant and. survey under the state of Pennsylvania carries with it a. contract for possession, E. Matthewson was to have the benefit of that contract; and the possession of Sattérlee being an illegal one, she must be deemed to. be.in possession.
After this, or- after the warrant to Matthewson, Satterlee bought of Wharton a title derived from the commonwealth by patent, in 1781, and which had lain dormant from that time thirty-one years.
He how say& that the law of Pennsylvania, of the 8th of April 1826, has divested him of his possession. This possession was not a possession which was-lawful.
The possession upon which the act of assembly operated, was one which the party could not avail himself of in a court of Pennsylvania. The act of assembly, therefore, in giving to the heirs of Matthewson the rights óf landlord; impaired no part of the contract óf the state, under Wharton’s patent. It only took away a disability, if any existed, as between the two persons who held under the Connecticut possession.
That act left all the rights derived under Wharton’s patent unimpaired.
Ejectment might have been brought, and may nóW be brought. And unless the act of 1813 is retrospective, which .itcannot be, there is no possession to bar a recovery.
■ This'view puts the case out of all the perils it would stand in, if the law interfered with th,e rights of Satterlee under the state. It is'earnestly presented to the consideration of tne Court; that thé act'of assembly .which is said to be unconstitutional by impairing a contract, has no such operation.’ It leaves the contract of the state under the patent to Wharton untouched, and the plaintiff in error to the assertion of all his rights derived under it. It does no more than declare, that the contract between the plaintiff and defendant, as landlord and tenant, shall operate upon them, and thus it affirms, instead of impairing the obligation of a contract;'
' From these views it is' claimed:
1. That the record does not exhibit a case for the consider ration, of this Court. .
2. The decision of the court of Pennsylvania was upon the general law of the land, and not on the act of assembly.
3. The act of the 8th of April 1826 was a constitutional law, and did nbt impair, but affirmed a contract which was' lawful; and has been since declared to have been so, by the highest judicial authority of the state.
1. As to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a,writ of error in this case under the 25th section of the judiciary act! — It appears that, in the court of common pleas, the act of the. 8th of April 1806 was relied upon by the plaintiff below. The court charged the jury that it was a binding act/ To this charge the defendant excepted, and the judge signed and sealed the bill of exceptions. Was this error1? If it was, the court above, by affirming the judgment, adopted the error, and affirmed the constitutionality of the law. That it was material to the decision, cannot be doubted, but the proof of its materiality does not lie upon the plaintiff. The rule upon this subject is laid down with great precision in Ettingvs. Bank of the United States, 11' Wheat. 59. “ But if he (the judge) proceed to state the law” {though not bound to do it), “ and state it erroneously, his opinion ought to be revised, and if it can. have had any influence on the jury, their verdict ought to be set aside.” It is necessary, therefore, for those who allege that an erroneous opinion of a judge in his charge to a jury, is not examinable in error, to show that it could not have had any influence on fhe jury.
But it is manifest that the opinion expressed in the court of common pleas, that the act of assembly was a binding act, had a decisive influence on the issue of the cause. It cut off all defence, by making the defendant tenant of the plaintiff. It was so considered by court and counsel; and it was the very ground of reversal of the previous judgment. 13 Serg. & Rawle, 133.
The exceptionable opinion thus expressed, sufficiently appears. It was filed of record, which in Pennsylvania is sufficient to subject it to revision in the superior court. Downing vs. Baldwin; 1 Serg. & Rawle, 298. It is set out, too, in a bill of exceptions signed and sealed by the judge. The supreme court, therefore, could not avoid passing upon it. They did páss upon it; and thus it became a final decision of the “ highest court” in the state, to which a writ of error lies from this Court.
Does it sufficiently appear that the constitution of the United States came in question1? This is the only remaining inquiry under this head, and it is settled by decisions heretofore made. Clt is not necessary, to found the jurisdiction, that it should-appear that the constitution, or an act of congress, or a treaty, was insisted upon. It is sufficient, if it be seen that either of them was applicable to the case. Miller vs. Nichols, 4 Wheat. 311. Williams vs. Norris, 12 Wheat. 124. Hickey vs.' Starkie, 1 Peters, 98. But it is very apparent, that the unconstitutionality of the act was insisted upon in both courts. The charge was excepted to in the. common pleas, on the ground that it stated the act to be binding. In the supreme court, it was evidently pre1 sented in the first and second errors assigned. It appears, also, that the suit was brought in 1817, so that the act passed after the commencement of the action; and it further appears from the charge, what the former decision had been upon the same alleged lease, before the act was. passed. The judge decided (and the supreme court ' of Pennsylvania affirmed the decision), that the court arid jury were bound by tfie .act. If. it was unconstitutional, it was no law, and they were not bound by it. He therefore decided that it .was not unconstitutional.. The question is thus directly brought before, this Court, and it is th.e only question in .the record which is" examinable here.
2.' Is this act then a constitutional act, consistent with the eonsutution of the United. States *? Before the,act passed^ there.was no subsisting lease between the parties. The act created one. Satterlee vs. Matthewson, 13 Serg. & Rawle, 133... It was impossible that any valid lease. could_ be, der rived from, or founded upon a Connecticut title. That title was from the beginning adverse to the sovereignty of Pennsylvania, was maintained by force, was treated by the laws of Pennsylvania as hostile, and its assertion as criminal. For proof of this position, he referred to the history of. the controversy, the decree of Trenton which settled the right, and the various laws of Pennsylvania which prohibited, under severe penalties, every form of Connecticut title, of deriva^ tion from it, or possession under it. He referred, also to judicial decisions, to show that every contract growing out of it. was void, and especially to Mitchell vs. Smith, 1 Binn. 110, and the preamble of the act of 1.802, 3 Smith, 525. The period of settlement or claim under that title made no difference. -The act of 1795, it was true, gave peculiar powers, in certain cases, to punish and remove certain intruders. But all were intruders, pot upon private right merely, but upon the state sovereignty, who came in or continued,.under pretence of Connecticut right 5 and. as such they were public .disturbers, obnoxious to-public chastisement. So, they were always considered, both in the legislation.and in the judicial decisions of Pennsylvania. Overton vs. Tracy, J 4 Serg. & Rawls, 3:11, was not to the. contrary.. It only decided that it was not unlawful and criminal for the owner of a Pennsylvania title voluntarily to pay a Connecticut settler for his improvements. That case, admits that it would be unlawful to buy the title. .
Independently then of the act in question, there could be no relation of landlord - and tenant, because there could be no valid lease. The act. Creates.the relation' id § pending suit. It was a law to alter the rights of property between individuals without their .consent, so as to give to One a right to recover from the. other which he had not before. It works this result, by making a new rule to govern between tne parties, so that A, shall be enabled by means of it to recover the property of B,. In, other words, it-enables A. to turn B. out of the possession of his freehold. This is precisely equivalent to a law declaring that A. shall have B.’s. •property without his consent. Such a law, penned in plain terms, would excite universal abhorrence in, every one who; has the least feeling of respect for individual rights.- It is not the less dangerous and objectionable, for being inore indirectly accomplished.
This act does not profess to be declaratory. If it did, it would still be objectionable.1 To expound laws is,a judicial, and not a legislative function. Ogden vs. Blacldedge, 2 Cranch, 211. But, admitting the law to be, as it had been laid down by the supreme court, it changes the law, as to existing cases, so as to divest vested rights. To do.,this, it makes that rightful and valid which before was wrongful and void. It creates a lease where none befpre existed. It makes, one a landlord and the other a tenants creating for each, the capacities and disabilities belonging to that cha-' racter. It carries this back for thirty-five years. It thus make¡s A.’s possession the possession of B., and introduces the statute of limitations as a ban Thus,, it creates lease. tenancy;, possession, bar,' and completely changes the whole case. The effect is precisely this, that Satterlee shall have no defence in the pending suit.
This cannot be called judicial legislation. It is neither judgment nor legislation, but mOrei Neither does it merely exercise appellate power. It makes a case for a party to insure a recovery in an existing cáse. It is an exercise of power, neither legislative, executive or judicial, but arbitrary. The intention of the legislature is not material. The time when this apt was. passed, a few days before the end of the session, warrants a belief that it1 was not much considered. But, though the legislature did not so intend, it Vvas' clearly devised for this very case. The haste with which it. was carried to the common pleas of Bradford county, immediately after it- was. passed, and before the laws of the session could have been published, is proof of its design. It was meant for this case.
Is such an act constitutional ?
1. It is a violation of contract. In 17S1, the state sold the land to Mr Wharton, who paid for it; and granted him by patent art estate in fee simple. In 1812, he sold to John F. Satterlee, who succeeded to all his rights. Thus, Sat-terlee held by contract of the state who sold the land. Could' the state resume the grant? No. Fletcher v$. Peck, 6 Cranch, 57. 131. If the state could not resumé, the grant, Could she grant it to another? That would, in fact, be a resumption; for she could not grant without'assuming the dominion Over the land., Such a-proceeding is entirely indefensible, and is used as the strongest illustration of what rightful legislation cannot accomplish, by Justice Patterson in Vanhorne vs. Dorrance, Si Dali. 304, and Justice Chase iri Calder vs. Bull, 3 Dttll. 356.
Can the state, then, rightfully resumé any part of the dominion over the land ? The answer is implied in thejuni-vérsality of the former proposition. She has parted with' the whole. ' To resume a part violates the contract of sale' as much as to resume the whole.' Can the state grant any part of it. ? Certainly not, Can she, by Her mere authority, impose upon it any incumbrance ? subject it to mortgage, judgment or lease ? Can the state alter the relation of the owner to his property, or make, him less than, an owner, or less than a tenant in fee simple % Can she, directly or indirectly, deprive him of his title, his possession, or right. of possession % Either is inconsistent with the grant, and a violation of the contract. These deductions are ail. legitimately and unavoidably made from .the first principle. Now, this act of assembly does take from the owner.his possession and his right of possession, and. transfers them to another. It, therefore, violates the contract and transcends the just powers, of legislation. If this can be done, what limit shall be. assigned to the power The truth is, that the act gives Matthewson a title. That is its effect. It takes away the right of Satterlee. It is the same exercise of power, as to declare that, a valid, lease should be void, or a younger grant better than an older, one.
2. It is retrospective and ex post facto. There are three provisions in the constitution which,, in defining the limits of legislative power, ought to be taken together,; — rThe guarantee of a republican government, in the 4th section of the 4th article,- which secures the , distribution of legislative, executive and judicial authority; the prohibition to the states of the power to pass bills of attainder, ex post facto laws arid, laws.impairing the obligation of contracts, in the 10th section of the 5th article; and the fifth amendment,, restricting the exercise of the power of the eminent domain.. They were intended, together, effectually to secure the political and civil rights of the citizen, and to- protect from legislative encroachment. They ought always to be liberally construed in favour of the rights of the. citizen. Opinion of fudge. John-.. son, 12 Wheaton, 256. These provisions were intended., tq be equal and invariable in their operation, and tq embrace all cases of unjust legislation affecting tfieproperty pr liberty of. individuals. Retrospective laws are always unjust, and are contrary to the fundamental principles of oqr social com-pact. In . these clauses of the constitution,, regard-must be had to the spirit. Suppose a law. were.to. declarea valid lease void. This would impair the obligation of the con-, tract between the parties. Suppose a law to declare é void lease valid. Precisely the same injustice is done. Will the constitution be satisfied with a distinction between them, when there is no difference 9 The spirit of the constitution abhors it. Private property cannot be taken, even for public use, without full compensation and process of law. To affect the rights of property in any other way, was deemed to be beyond the power of legislation, and therefore the guard is applied to the taking for public use. The other parts of the constitution had done the rest.
Retrospective laws, violating the rights of property, are contrary to the contract of any socfety established upon a republican basis. • They not only impair, they break it. The great, object of our constitution is to preserve individual rights, not to destroy them. There is no power in the government but what is given for this end; The freedom of the citizen, the enjoyment of his own without disturbance or interference, are what constitute his happiness; and in a government where that is consulted, constitute his rights. They are sacred, and ought not to be interfered with.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
