Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Blount v. Windley — Opinion of the Court

That the right to set-off is by the statute extended to obligations of the bank, bought by defendant after the judgment was rendered against him, does not necessarily make it unconstitutional. The debt of the bank is a just debt. To compel the defendant first to pay his debt in money, and then take the chances of collecting of the bank, is unjust.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Blount v. Windley — Opinion of the Court

In what we have here said, we do not mean to be understood that, where the creditors of the bank have a right to have such a debt paid in lawful money, the legislature can deprive them of that right; nor that in any other case, where the judgment creditor represents an interest in the contract, which has a right to demand its payment in lawful money, the State can authorize its payment in any thing else.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature