Ratcliffe v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 21 November 1878
• Citation: 72 Va. 105
• Parties: RATCLIFFE v. ANDERSON.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

72 Va. 105

RATCLIFFE v. ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

November 21, 1878

1. The act of March 25, 1873, amending § 3 of the act of March 3 1866, so far as it authorizes the reopening of a judgment rendered since said March 3, 1866, is unconstitutional and void, both because it is an infringement upon the powers of the judicial department of the government; and because it impairs the obligation of contracts.

This was a petition to the judge of the circuit court of Fairfax county, filed in January, 1874, by Charles W. Ratcliffe, to have a judgment by default which had been recovered against him in said court in November, 1866, by C. F. Anderson reopened and scaled. The judgment was for $300 with interest from June 6th, 1833, and was founded on a bond for that sum which the petitioner alleged was given on a Confederate contract. The court below refused to open the judgment, and Ratcliffe obtained a writ of error from a judge of this court.

Thomas & Wells, for the appellant.

M. D. Ball, for the appellee.

CHRISTIAN J.

At the November term of the circuit court of Fairfax county in the year 1866 Anderson recovered a judgment by default against Ratcliffe upon a bond executed by said Ratcliffe, and payable on demand, and bearing date the 6th day of June, 1863, for the sum of $300.

On the 4th day of February, 1874, more than seven years after the judgment was rendered, Ratcliffe filed his petition in said circuit court asking the court to reopen said judgment and scale the amount of the same according to the depreciation of Confederate money, he alleging in his petition that the bond upon which the judgment was rendered was given for Confederate currency.

This petition of the appellant was filed under the act of the general assembly, approved March 25th, 1873, amending the act passed March 3d, 1866, which is in the following words:

1. Be it enacted by the general assembly, That the third section of the act passed March 3, 1866, in relation to contracts made between January 1, 1862, and April 10, 1865, be amended and re-enacted so as to read as follows:

§ 3. Where any judgment or decree has been recovered for a specific sum, or for damages, between the said 1st day of January, 1862, and the said 10th day of April, 1865, or shall have been recovered after the said 10th day of April, 1865, and before the 3d day of March, 1870, or if any judgment or decree shall have been rendered or recovered by default since the said 3d day of March, 1866, or shall hereafter be rendered or recovered by default upon a cause of action arising within the period from the 1st day of January, 1862, to the 10th day of April, 1865, and such judgment or decree remain unpaid, it shall be lawful for the courts, in a summary way, on motion, after ten days' notice, either before or after the issue of execution, to fix, settle and direct at what depreciation, or how, the said judgment or decree shall be discharged, having regard to the provisions of this act, to the cause of action for which the judgment or decree was recovered, and any other proof or circumstance that, from the nature of the case, may be admissible.

It is under this provision of the act of March, 1873, that it is proposed to reopen and annul in whole or in part a judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in favor of the appellee in November, 1866. I am of opinion that this cannot be done, and that the act of assembly above quoted is not only an attempted invasion of judicial authority, but is in contravention of that provision of the constitution of the United States and of this state which declares that the state shall pass no law " impairing the obligation of a contract."

First, the act is an attempted exercise of judicial power because it authorizes a court to reopen and review a case which has already passed into judgment. It is now too well settled to admit of serious dispute that the legislative department can no more exercise judicial power than that the judicial department can exercise legislative power. Each is supreme in the exercise of its own proper functions within the limits of its authority. The boundary line of these powers is plainly defined in every well-ordered government; and in this country it is now a well-established principle of public law that the three great powers of government--the legislative, the executive, and the judicial--should be preserved as distinct from and independent of each other as the nature of society and the imperfections of human institutions will permit. That system which best preserves the independence of each department approaches nearest to the perfection of civil government and the security of civil liberty.

The province of the courts is to decide what the law is or has been, and to determine its application to particular facts in the decision of causes. The province of the legislature is to declare what the law shall be in future; and neither of these departments can lawfully invade the province of the other. This not only results from the nature of our institutions, but it is enjoined by the express provisions of the constitution; which declares that " the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments shall be separate and distinct, so that neither exercise the powers belonging to either of the others. See Griffin's ex'or v. Cunningham, 20 Gratt. 31, and cases there cited.

I do not deny the power of the legislature to pass statutes in aid of judicial proceedings and which tend to their support by precluding parties from taking advantage of errors apparent on the face of the proceedings which do not affect their substantial rights--such a statute, for instance, as is found in our Code, ch. 177, § 3, which permits a court in which a judgment has been rendered, on notice and motion within five years, to correct any mistake, miscalculation, or misrecital of any name, sum, quantity, or time, when the same is right, in any part of the record or proceedings, & c.

Such, also, is the statute which authorizes a court, or judge in vacation, to reverse a judgment by default, or a decree on a bill taken for confessed, for any error for which an appellate court might reverse it.

Statutes such as these are not regarded as an interference with judicial authority, but only in aid of judicial proceedings for the purpose of correcting errors, such as are mentioned in the statute. See Cooley's Const. Limit., p. 107; Griffin & Cunningham, supra, and cases there cited.

Now, it is to be observed in respect to the judgment under consideration, that it was recovered in a suit brought after the passage of the act of March 3, 1866 to-wit:...