A state law annulling private conveyances.
is also within the prohibition, as are laws repealing grants and corporate franchises ; Bailey v. Mayor, etc., of City of New York, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 531, 38 Am. Dec. 669; Lowry v. Francis, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 534 ; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 656, 4 L. Ed. 629.
A state constitution is not a contract, the obligation of which the state is prohibited by the federal constitution from impairing; Church v. Kelsey, 121 U. S. 282, 7 Sup. Ct. 897, 30 L. Ed. 960 ; nor is a judgment for a tort ; Louisiana v. New Orleans, 109 U. S. 285, 3 Sup. Ct. 211, 27 L. Ed. 936; Freeland v. Williams, 131 U. S. 405, 9 Sup. Ct. 763, 33 L. Ed. 193. But the prohibition applies to state constitutions as well as to the laws of a state; Mississippi & M. R. Co. v. McClure, 10 Wall. (U. S.) 511, 19 L. Ed. 997 ; New Or leans Gaslight Co. v. Light & Heat Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. 252, 29 L. Ed. 516 ; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 631, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746 ; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 203, 21 L. Ed. 447; Fisk v. Jefferson, 116 U. S. 131, 6 Sup. Ct. 329, 29 L. Ed. 587.
Contracts to which a state is a party are within the protection of this constitutional prohibition ; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cra. (U. S.) 87, 3 L. Ed. 162 ; and a provision in a charter of a toll bridge company that it shall not be lawful for any person to erect another bridge within a specified distance of the bridge au thorized by said charter constitutes a con tract which binds the state not to authorize the construction of such other bridge ; The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. (U. S.) 51, 18 L. Ed. 137. A contract between a state and a party, whereby he is to perform certain duties for a specified period for a stipulated compensation, is within the protection of the constitution ; Hall v. Wisconsin, 103 U. S. 5, 26 L. Ed. 302. It being held that where a state descends from the plane of its sover eignty, it is regarded, pro hao vice, as a pri vate person itself and is bound accordingly.
A state is bound by its grants of franchis es and exclusive privileges, such as the priv ilege of supplying a municipality with wa ter; New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Riv
ers, 115 U. S. 674, 6 Sup. Ct. 273, 29 L. Ed. 525 ; or gas ; New Orleans Gas Co. v. Light Co., 115 U. S. 650, 6 Sup. Ct. 252, 29 L. Ed. 516 ; Louisville Gas Co. v. Gas Co., 115 U. S. 683, 6 Sup. Ct. 265, 29 L. Ed. 510. A state is bound by the issue of bonds and coupons under the terms of an act which provided that such coupons should be receivable for taxes, etc., and a subsequent act which for bids the receipt of these coupons for taxes is a violation of the contract and void as against coupon-holders ; Poindexter v. Green how, 114 U. S. 270, 5 Sup. 'Ct. 903, 962, 29 L. Ed. 185 ; Royall v. Virginia, 116 U. S. 572, 6 Sup. Ct. 510, 29 L. Ed. 735.
A state, when it borrows money and prom ises to pay it with interest, cannot, by its own ordinance, relieve itself from perform ing to the letter all that it has expressly promised to its creditors ; Murray v. Charles ton, 96 U. S. 433, 24 L. Ed. 760. But with regard to grants, this clause of the consti tution was not intended to control the exer cise of the ordinary functions of govern ment. It was not intended to apply to pub lic property, to the discharge of public duties, to the exercise or possession of public rights, or to any changes or qualifications in these which the legislature of a state may at any time deem expedient ; Knoup v. Bank, 1 Ohio St. 603, 609 ; Bank of Toledo v. Bond, id. 657 ; President, etc., of Michigan State Bank v. Hastings, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 225, 41 Am. Dec. 549 ; Town of East Hartford v. Bridge Co., 17 Conn. 79.
The prohibition does not apply. to judicial decisions or the acts of state tribunals or officers under statutes in force at the time of making the contract ; Hanford v. Davies, 163 U. S. 273, 16 Sup. Ct. 1051, 41 L. Ed. 157, citing Wood v. Brady, 150 U. S. 18, 14 Sup. Ct. 6, 37 L. Ed. 981; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 16 Sup. Ct. 80, 40 L. Ed. 91.