Statutes which provide that debts of certain classes or due from certain persons cannot be recovered upon for certain periods have been held valid.1 This holding is undoubtedly due in part to the fact that such statutes have generally been enacted on account of war. A statute giving the defendant in a foreclosure suit six months in which to answer is valid, even though applying to pre-existing mortgages.2 Statutes providing for delay in issuing execution, the judgment being-allowed to be rendered,3 have been held invalid.

14 Harris v. Harsch, 29 Or. 562; 46 Pac. 141; Strode v. Washer, 17 Or. 50; 16 Pac. 926. Contra, Tracy v. Reed, 38 Fed. 69; 2 L. R. A. 773; Marx v. Hanthorn, 30 Fed. 579; 12 Sawy. 377; Smith v. Cleveland, 17 Wis. 556.

15 Roberts v. Bank, 8 N. D. 504; 79 N. W. 1049.

16 Tiblier v. Land Trust, 49 La. Ann. 1471; 22 So. 411

17 State v. Whittlesey, 17 Wash. 447; 50 Pac. 119.

1 Effinger v. Kenney. 115 U. S. 566. A statute providing for the recovery of an attorney's fee by the plaintiff, if successful, has been held not to violate this principle. Dowell v. Paving Co., 138 Ind. 675; 38 N. E. 3S9.

2 New Orleans, etc., Ry. v. Louisiana, 157 U. S. 219; affirming State v. New Orleans, etc., Ry. Co., 42 La. Ann. 550; 7 So. 606.

3 Davis v. Road Co., 103 Ga. 491; 29 S. E. 475; Standifor v. Wilson, 93 Tex. 232; 54 S. W. 898.

1 Barkley v. Glover. 3 Met. (Ky.) 44: Johnson v. Higgins, 3 Met. (Ky.) 566.