| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state legislature cannot pass laws which would impair or invalidate private contracts made before its passage. The case involved two parties who had conflicting claims to land in Virginia due to an earlier contract between Lord Fairfax and Thomas 6th Lord Culpeper regarding ownership of the land. In 1779, Virginia passed a law which allowed for escheated lands (lands whose owners were deceased) to be sold at public auction with all proceeds going towards paying off Revolutionary War debts owed by Virginia. This law was challenged by both parties claiming rights over this particular parcel of land as it impaired their prior agreement from 1690 when Fairfax granted his estate to Culpeper’s heirs upon his death without issue. The court held that such legislation could not be applied retroactively and thus found in favor of Fairfax’s devisees since they had already established their right through an existing contract prior to enactment of the new statute.
In Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Virginia statute that allowed for escheat of land to the state when an owner died without heirs violated Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because Congress had not yet legislated on this matter and thus could be left up to individual states. Justice Johnson dissented from this decision arguing that since Congress had exclusive power over federal lands, any law regarding them must come from them and not individual states. He argued further that while there may have been no legislation at present on such matters, it would still be unconstitutional for a state to pass laws concerning these lands as they were outside their jurisdiction and only within Congress’s purview. As such he believed Virginia’s statute should have been struck down by the court as unconstitutional in order to protect Congressional authority over federal lands granted by Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution