Summary

Mahlon Pitney National Surety Company v. Architectural Decorating Company…

The decision must turn, we think, upon the familiar distinction between a law which enlarges, abridges, or modifies the obligation of a contract, and a law which merely modifies the remedy, by changing the time or the method in which the remedy shall be pursued, without substantial interference with the obligation of the contract itself.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney National Surety Company v. Architectural Decorating Company…

But where parties have, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, entered into an engagement that is not contrary to good morals, and is invalid only because of some legal impediment, such as the incapacity of a nominal party or the omission of some merely formal requirement, there is ground for maintaining that the legislature may, by subsequent enactment, provide a legal remedy, and thus give vitality to the obligation that the parties intended to create.
Source: Wikisource

Mahlon Pitney National Surety Company v. Architectural Decorating Company…

Treating the bond as voluntarily made, and aside from the statute, it is, in its essence, a contract between the obligors (including the Surety Company) , on the one hand, and 'all persons doing work or furnishing materials' for the construction of the school building (including the Decorating Company as one of those persons) , on the other hand. The circumstance that the obligee in the bond as written was a public corporation named as trustee for the workman and materialmen affects the form, and not the substance, of the obligation.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature