(j) Calder v. Ball, 3 Dall. 386; Sat-terlee v. Mathewson, 2 Pet. 412; Watson v. Mercer, 8 id. 89; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 540, 549; Baltimore & Susquehannah R. R. Co. v. Nesbit, 10 How. 395; White v. White, 5 Barb. 474; Baugher v. Nelson, 9 Gill, 299. So in Wilson v. Hardesty, 1 Md. Ch. 66, it was held, that a law which limited the defence to a usurious contract to the excessive interest, was valid, although at the time the contract was made there was a law declaring such a contract absolutely void.

(k) Welch v. Wordsworth, 30 Conn. 149.

(l) Stnrges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat 122; M'Millan v. M'Neill, 4 id. 209; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 id. 213; Boyle v. Zacharie, 6 Pet. 348; Planters Bank 9. Sharp, 6 How. 328; Mather v Bnsh, 16 Johns. 233; Hicks v. Hotchkiss, 7 Johns. Ch. 297; Blanchard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1; Kimberly v. Ely, 6 Pick. 440; Norton v. Cook, 9 Conn. 314; Smith v. Parsons, I Ohio, 107.

Tennessee v. Sneed, 96 U. S. 69; as a change in the mode of serving process on a corporation, Railroad Co. v. Hecht, 95 U. S. 168. See Munday v. Rahway, 14 Vroom, 338; Watts v. Everett, 47 la. 269. Aliter, if it substantially lessens the value of the contract. Edwards v. Kearzev, 96 U. S. 595. While the obligation of contracts is impaired by such legislation as lessens the efficacy of the remedy which the law in force at the time they were made provided for enforcing them, a legislative enactment requiring a judgment creditor of a city to file and procure the registration of a copy of his judgment before the issuance of a warrant in his favor for the amount due, does not render less effective his pre-existing remedies, nor conflict with the constitutional contract clause. Louisiana v. New Orleans, 102 U. S. 203. A legislature may pass an act that an after-assessed tax shall constitute a lien prior to that of a mortgage executed before its pas* sage. Lydecker v. Palisade Land Co. 6 Stewart, 415. See Guaranty Co. v. Board of Liquidation, 105 U. S. 622. - K.

From our statements on this subject in the preceding chapter and the authorities there cited, it will be inferred, that a State insolvent law was held to operate in favor of its citizens who were insolvent - * whether as to remedy or as to obligation - only as to other citizens of the same State; (o) and not against citizens of other States, who have not assented to the relief or discharge of the debtor, expressly or by some equivalent act, as becoming a party to the process against him under the law, taking a dividend, and the like.(p)

(m) See cases cited ante, note iff),

(mm) Barnes v. Barnes, 8 Jones, L. 366; Lewis v. Lewis, 47 Pa. 127.

(n) Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; James v. Stull, 9 Barb. 482; Bruce v. Schuyler, 4 Gilman, 221,227; Stocking v. Hunt, 3 Denio, 274; Howard v. Kentucky & Louisville M. Ins. Co. 13 B. Mon. 285; Huntzinger v. Brock, 8 Grant, 243; Van Rensselaer v. Read, 26 N. Y. 558; Bridge Proprietors v. Hoboken Co. 1 Wallace, 116; Oatman v. Bond, 15 Wis. 20; Hawthorne v. Calef, 2 Wallace, 10.

(o) M'Millan v. M'Neill, 4 Wheat. 209; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 id. 213; Cook v. Moffat, 5 How. 295; Van Reimsdyk v. Kane, 1 Gallis. 371; Hinkley v. Marean, 3 Mason, 88; Baker v. Wheaton, 5 Mass. 509; Watson v. Bourne, 10 id. 337; Bradford v. Farrand, 13 id 18; Walsh v. Far-rand, id. 19; Hicks v. Hotchkiss, 7 Johns. Ch. 297; Norton v. Cook, 9 Conn. 314.

But a discharge by the bankrupt law of a State within which the contract was made, and of which the debtor was a citizen when it was made, is a good bar to an action brought in another State. Blanch-ard v. Russell, 13 Mass. 1. So also, where the discharge was granted in a State where the contract was made between the citizens of that State, and the action was brought in another State. Pugh v. Bus-sell, 2 Blackf. 366. See May v. Breed, 7 Cush. 15; where it was held, that a discharge under the English bankrupt law, of a merchant residing in England, from a debt to a citizen of Massachusetts, contracted and payable in England, is a bar to a subsequent action on the debt in that State, whether the debtor proved his debt under the English commission of bankruptcy or not.

(p) Clay v. Smith, 3 Pet. 411; Donnelly v. Corbett, 3 Seld. 500; Poe v. Duck,