The Marshall Court determined another dispute in Sturges v. Crowninshield. The case involved a debt that was contracted in early 1811. Later in that year, the state of New York passed a bankruptcy law, under which the debt was later discharged. The Supreme Court ruled that a retroactively applied state bankruptcy law impaired the obligation to pay the debt, and therefore violated the Constitution. In Ogden v. Saunders (1827), however, the court decided that state bankruptcy laws could apply to debts contracted after the passage of the law. State legislation on the issue of bankruptcy and debtor relief has not been much of an issue since the adoption of a comprehensive federal bankruptcy law in 1898.
The Marshall Court determined another dispute in Sturges v Crowninshield The case involved a debt that was contracted in early 1811 Later in that year the state of New York passed a bankruptcy law under which the debt was later discharged The Supreme Court ruled that a retroactively applied state bankruptcy law impaired the obligation to pay the debt and therefore violated the Constitution In Ogden v Saunders (1827) however the court decided that state bankruptcy laws could apply to debts contracted after the passage of the law State legislation on the issue of bankruptcy and debtor relief has not been much of an issue since the adoption of a comprehensive federal bankruptcy law in 1898