Supreme Court of United States.
*380 Mr. Claughton, for the defendant in error.
*382 Mr. Justice MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.
In the case of Herndon v. Howard, it was decided that the proper course when a party to a writ of error had been declared bankrupt and an assignee duly appointed, was for the assignee in bankruptcy to make application to reinstate it and to be substituted for the bankrupt as plaintiff in error. The application, here, being made during the term, while the matter is still within our control, we see no objection to the substitution asked for, if the case is one which ought to be reinstated.
The motion on which the writ of error was dismissed last spring was based on the allegation that no question is found in the record which would give this court jurisdiction to review the judgment of the State court. As it would be useless to set aside the order of dismissal merely to try that question again, on which the parties were fully heard, we must now inquire if that objection is well taken.
It is now argued by the plaintiff in error that the original provision in the charter of the bank making its notes receivable for debts due to it was a contract; and that the obligation of that contract has been impaired. We have decided in the case of Furman v. Nichol, that such a law does constitute a contract, which attaches to the notes in the bands of any one to whom they may come, and we agree that if the *383 trustee of the bank is to be considered as occupying, for the purposes of this suit, the place of the bank, that the judgment of the Court of Appeals was erroneous.
But we are not authorized by the Judiciary Act to review the judgments of the State courts, because their judgments refuse to give effect to valid contracts, or because those judgments, in their effect, impair the obligation of contracts. If we did, every case decided in a State court could be brought here, when the party setting up a contract alleged that the court had taken a different view of its obligation to that which he held. As this court said in Railroad Company v. Rock,[*] it must be the constitution, or statute, of the State which impairs the obligation of a contract, or the case does not come within our jurisdiction.
What statute of Virginia is supposed to affect unfavorably the contract under which these notes were issued?
It is rather insinuated than fully declared, that the court gave such effect to the act of February, 1866, under which the bank made its assignment. But nothing in the record shows that the court based its judgment on any such proposition. Nor is there anything in that statute which by any possibility can be said to impair the force given to those notes by the charter of the bank. The latter statute merely authorized, in general terms, the insolvent banks to make assignments of all their effects for the benefit of all their creditors. This is a right which they probably had before. But whether they did or not the statute contains no expression from which the intent to affect the value of the notes of the bank as payment for its debts can be inferred.
In the case of Nichol v. Furman the State of Tennessee passed a law by which the notes of the bank receivable by its charter for taxes were no longer to be so received; and this court held that this latter statute impaired the obligation of the contract found in the charter. But there it was the statute which worked the injury and it was the judgment of *384 the State court holding the statute valid which gave this court jurisdiction.
So in the case of Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Company. The legislature of New Jersey had passed a law authorizing the company to erect a railroad bridge at a certain point where the complainants alleged that they had an exclusive privilege for bridging the stream under a statute passed many years before. If the first statute gave this exclusive right it was clear that the second statute impaired that right, and so impaired the obligation of the contract. This we held to be a proper subject of inquiry by this court. But in the present case there can be no pretence that the statute which authorized the assignment by the bank impaired the obligation of the contract to receive its notes for its debts, nor does the right or claim of the trustee to refuse the notes in payment rest on this statute, or on any construction given to it by the court.
We are of opinion that nothing in the record before us shows jurisdiction in this court, and the motion to reinstate is, for this reason,
OVERRULED.
At the same time with the preceding case was adjudged another, in which the principle established by the first case is illustrated in somewhat different circumstances. It was the case of
[*] 4 Wallace, 181; see also Railroad Company v. McClure, 10 Wallace, 511.
