Summary

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan John Marshall Harlan Gross v. United States Mortgage Company…

That the act in question is not repugnant to the constitution, as impairing the obligation of a contract, is, in view of the settled doctrines of this court, entirely clear. Its original invalidity was placed by the court below upon the ground that the statutes and public policy of Illinois forbade a foreign corporation from taking a mortgage upon real property in that state to secure a loan of money.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan John Marshall Harlan Gross v. United States Mortgage Company…

When a legislative department removed the inhibition imposed, as well by statute as by the public policy of the state, upon the execution of a contract like this, it cannot be said that such legislation, although retrospective in its operation, impaired the obligation of the contract. It rather enables the parties to enforce the contract which they intended to make.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Marshall Harlan John Marshall Harlan Gross v. United States Mortgage Company…

In behalf of the defendant in error it is insisted that it does not appear from the record that the decision of the supreme court of Illinois was adverse to any asserted right under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, nor that the judgment or decree complained of could not have been passed without the determination of any such federal question.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature