The opinion
Dick, J.
The question presented in this case has often been before this Court, has been fully and ably argued by learned counsel, has received our most mature and deliberate consideration, and has been frequently solemnly adjudicated.
Robeson
v. Brown, 63
N. C.
554 .
Hilliard
v.
Moore,
65
N. C.,
540 , and the intermediate cases.
The construction which we have given to the ordinance and statutes governing contracts, like the one before us, has been adopted by the legal profession, and has adjusted nearly all the business transactions to which they relate, and their operation has almost ceased with the necessities which called them into existence, and they w,ill soon become obsolete by the ef-fluxion of time. The unfortunate and anomolous condition of things which resulted from the late rebellion called for elevated patriotism and the highest wisdom in our legislators. Our state government and public institutions; our system of law and social policy ; our private fortunes and public credit were all damaged or swept away by a deluge of misfortune, and every man seemed to be catching at the planks of the shipwreck, regardless of the welfare of his neighbor. Under such circumstances, the Legislature, acting upon the paramount principle, that
Solus popvli suprema lex,
enacted homestead provisions, stay laws, amnesty bills, and other remedial statutes, founded upon the broad principles of equity and justice, and intended for the general public good.
The Legislature may not have regarded with critical accuracy and technical precision, the doctrine about “impairing the obligation of contracts” contained in a constitution which our people had repudiated, and had just made such strenuous efforts to destroy. Our legislators acted in the exercise .of their
*283
wise discretion, and tbeir beneficent legislation has been sanctioned by a liberal and enlightened public opinion. The statutes which we are considering have done much good, and will soon cease to have any vitality, and to declare them unconstitutional now, would.be like speaking disrespectfully of the honored dead.
The power oí the Courts to declare Statutes unconstitutional is a high prerogative, and ought to be exercised with great caution, and they should “not declare a statute void unless the nullity and invalidity of the Act, are placed in their judgment beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt must be solved in favor of the legislative action, and the Act be sustained.”
Cooley on Con. lim.
102.
After so many decisions sustained by legislative sanction and public opinion, we think it would be unwise and unjust to declare these remedial statutes to
be
void, after their purposes have been nearly accomplished, and in a case in which such an inconsiderable amount is in dispute, and the justice of the matter is with the plaintiff.
We listened with attention and respect to the learned and elaborate argument of the defendant’s counsel, on account of the distinguished position which he deservedly occupies as a member of the bar.
We
have reconsidered the decisions mentioned in the argument, and think that they are uniform and consistent, and a just interpretation of the legislative will.
There is no error.
Fists Oubiam. Judgment affirmed.-