delivered the opinion of the court.
This wаs an action of debt by Yernon vs. Henson, in the Washington circuit cоurt, on a promissory note. Henson pleaded to the aсtion, and in his second and third pleas alleged facts that brought Yеrnon within the provisions of the act of. assembly, approved 31st May, 1864. To these pleas Yernon interposed a demurrer, whiсh was overruled; and resting on his demurrer, final judgment was rendered for Hеnson, to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.
The act of assembly provides as follows:
“ Seo. 5. Be it further enacted, That any person hereafter аiding or abetting the rebellion, or that has, or shall hereafter violate his oath of allegiance, aid all persons who are now in arms, and all rebels in prison by the federal authorities, аnd all persons who have abandoned their homes and havе fled, and taken protection under the so-called cоnfederacy, shall be forever barred from the collection of their debts in this state, of every description whatsoever, and all courts having jurisdiction in this state are hereby required to dismiss said suits whenever such proof is made, at the plaintiff’s costs.”
The question presented is whether the section of the act above quoted, violates that clause of the constitution of thе United States which declares that no state shall pass any lаw impairing the obligation of contracts; and we are clearly of opinion that it does. There has been some discussion in the cases as to the extent to which the legislative aсtion of the state may alter the remedy without impairing the obligаtion oí a contract; but certainly never has been contended, anywhere, that a state has the power to entirеly take away the remedy, as was done by the enactment in question. The rule is, that whatever belongs merely to the remedy may be altered according to the will of the state, provided the alteration does not impair the obligation of the contract. But if that effect is produced, it is immaterial whether it is done by acting on the remedy, or on the contract; in either cаse it is prohibited by the constitution. (Smith’s Com. on Const. and Stat. Construction, 388.) In Brоwn vs. Kenzie, 1 How. U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep., 317, Mr. Chief Justice Taney, alluding to this rule says: “ It is difficult perhaps to draw a line that would be applicable in all cases between legitimate alterations of the remedy and provisions which, in the form of remedy, impair the right. But it is manifest that thе obligation of the contract, and the rights of a party under it, mаy, in effect be destroyed by denying a remedy altogether; or mаy be seriously impaired by burdening the proceedings with new conditions and restrictions, so as to mate the remedy hardly worth pursuing. And no one, we presume, would say that there is any substantial differencе between a retrospective law declaring a particular contract or class of contracts to be аbrogated and void, and one which took away all remedy tо enforce them, or encumbered it with conditions that rendered it useless or impracticable to pursue it.” See also McCracken vs. Hayman,
It follows that the court erred in overruling the demurrer, and for this error the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.