# Curran v. Arkansas

> Supreme Court of the United States · December 29, 1853 · 56 U.S. 304

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416539

## Case

- **Full name:** James N. Curran, Plaintiff in Error, v. the State of Arkansas, the Bank of the State of Arkansas, John M. Ross, Financial Receiver, and David W. Carrol, Bank Attorney
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** December 29, 1853
- **Citations:** 56 U.S. 304; 15 How. 304; 14 L. Ed. 705; 1853 U.S. LEXIS 286
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Daniel
- **Judges:** Curtis, Catron, Daniel, Nelson
- **Cited by:** 134 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416539

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice. DANIEL.
From the decision of this court, just announced 1 am constrained to declare my dissent. According to my apprehension there is no legitimate ground of jurisdiction, and of course for the interference of this court in this case, within the just, intent, and objects of the 10th section of the 1st article of the Constitution. By tiie legislature of the State of Arkansas, which has *322 been assailed, the obligation of no contract is denied. The claims of every stockholder and every noteholder of the Bank of the State of Arkansas are, in reference to that corporation, fully recognized. The utmost that can.be objected to the action of the State is, that in a contest amongst the creditors of a failing corporation, the State,asone of those creditors, and the largest creditor of the number, may have appropriated to herself a portion of the assets of that corporation greater than would have been warranted by perfect equity, or other eauality, amongst all the creditors. But should this conclusion be con-, ceded, the concession implies no attempt to deny or impair any obligation of the bank to' satisfy every creditor. It might raise a question of fraud or unfairness in the action of the State in reference to the other creditors of the bank, but it carries with it no interference with the obligation or the. sanctity of their contract with the corporation, whatever that might be. The mere question of fraud, in the execution or non-performance of contracts, surely the Constitution never intended to constitute as a means by which the federal authorities were tó supervise the polity and acts of the State governments. Such a claim of power in the federal government would justify the interference with, and the supervision by this, court of- any act of the' State legislatures, and of every -transaction Of private life, and in the necessarily imperfect attempts to exercise such a power, would encumber it with a mass of business, which would disappoint and entirely prevent the performance of its legitimate duties.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court óf Arkansas, and.was argued by counsel; On consideration whereof, it is now- here ordered and adjudged by this court, that thé judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause-be, and the same is hereby, reversed, with costs, and that this'cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Supreme Court, in order that such further proceed-' ings may be had therein, in conformity to the opinion of this court, as to law and justice, and the Constitution of the United States, shall appertain.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9416539. Public record. Not legal advice.