CAMPBELL'S CASE. 237

tutionally, so that it be without prejudice to any one, confirm an
anti-nuptial settlement, (c) or cure the defects in any contracts or
conveyances, so as to quiet the possessions of purchasers and
others. But in doing so, they can exercise no power which has
been delegated exclusively to the government of the United
States; nor any power properly belonging to the judicial depart-
ment; nor can they suspend the recovery of debts, or deprive any
one of a privilege, or impair the obligation of contracts, or divest
any right previously vested so as thereby, in effect, arbitrarily to
take property from one person and give it to another, (d)
With regard, therefore, to the case now under consideration, it
follows from what has been said, that this act of assembly, (e) by
which the devisees of the late William Campbell have been autho-
rized to mortgage his real estate, can, in no way, be allowed to
alter or affect the rights of his creditors. For, mortgaging the
assets is not the natural way of paying debts with them; although,
in some cases, it may be the most expedient mode; as where a
sufficient sum may be raised in that manner to satisfy all the credi-
tors, without delay, and without prejudice to the heirs, devisees?
legatees, or next of kin of the deceased, (f) This special act
may be admitted to be fully, and in all respects obligatory upon
those devisees who are parties to it, and at whose instance alone
it was passed; but the creditors of the testator, being entire stran-
gers to it, must be permitted to stand here as if it had never been
passed; and to sustain their rights against these devisees, in like

(c) 1S07, ch. 5 —(d) Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 Ball. 304; Calder v.
Bull, a Ball. 386; Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 51$; Owings v.
Speed, 5 Wheat. 420; McCreery v. Somerville, 9 Wheat. £54; Satterlee v. Mat-
thewson, 2 Peters, 380; Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Peters, 627; Dash v. Van Kleeck,
7 John. Rep. 477; Enslin v. Bowman, 6 Binn. 462; Trustees of the University v.
1 Foy, 2 Haywood, 310, 374; Jones v. Crittenden, 2 North; Carol. Law Repository,
I 385; Berry v. Haines, 2 Ib. 428; Alien v. Peden, 2 Ib. 638; Opinion of the Judges of
Georgia, 2 Ib. 31; Per Judge Martin of Louisiana, 2 Ib. 173; Crane v. Meginnis,
1 G. and J. 463 * Berrett v. Oliver, 7 G. and J. 192; Acts of Assembly of Mary-
land of 1781, ch. 3 j 1785, ch. 9; 1795, ch. 30; 1807, ch. 24, 52, 121,138, and 149;
1808, ch. 17, 78, and 101; 1809, ch. 164; 1811, ch. 101; 1814, ch. 14; 1815, ch. 71;
1816, ch. 164; 1317, ch. 204 -f 18% ch. 90; 1819, ch. 53; 1820, ch. 147, and 172;
1825, ch. 88; 1826, ch. 7, and 164; 1827, ch. 67, and 141.—(e) 1825, ch. 135, ante
215, note.

(f) Andrew v. Wrigley, 4 Bro. C. C. 138 —By the act of 1831, ch. 311, s. 12, if
constitutional, this court has been clothed with power to mortgage the interest of
infants in lands, where it shall appear to be for their advantage so to procure money,
for the benefit of such estate of the infants; or to improve the same, or to relieve it
from any incumbrance, or otherwise, for the benefit of such infants.—Williams' Case,
post. 3 vol.

31 v.2