Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Ware v. Hylton

Supreme Court of the United States · 1796 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawTreatiesSupremacy Clausetreaty supremacySupremacy Clausestate law preemptionTreaty of Paris 1783British debts

Facts

In 1774, the defendants executed a bond to British creditors for 2,976 pounds 11 shillings 6 pence sterling. In 1777, Virginia enacted a law allowing citizens owing money to British subjects to pay those debts into the state's loan office and provided that the governor and council's receipt would discharge the debtor to that extent. In 1780, the defendants paid part of the debt into the Virginia loan office and obtained the required certificate and receipt. After the war, the British creditor sued on the bond, and the defendants relied on the Virginia statute and payment as a defense.

Issue

Did Article IV of the 1783 Definitive Treaty of Peace override the Virginia statute and the defendants' payment under it, so that the British creditor could still recover the debt? More broadly, could a state law validly bar recovery of a debt when a treaty made under the authority of the United States guaranteed creditors recovery free from lawful impediments?

Rule

Treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land and prevail over contrary state constitutions and statutes. Under Article IV of the 1783 Treaty of Peace, creditors on either side must meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts previously contracted; thus state laws and state-authorized payments that operate as legal bars to such recovery are nullified.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 1810, residents of Richmond owed prewar debts to merchants from another nation. During the war, Virginia enacted a statute allowing debtors to pay those debts into a state fund and declaring the debtors discharged upon receipt from state officials. Two years later, the United States ratified a peace treaty stating that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to recovering the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts previously contracted.

When one of the foreign merchants later sues on a prewar bond in Virginia, what is the strongest argument against the debtor's state-law defense?

Explanation. The majority treated a treaty made under United States authority as superior to contrary state law. A state statute authorizing payment into a state fund and discharging the debtor is a 'lawful impediment' to recovery. Under the Supremacy Clause, state judges must disregard the conflicting state law without waiting for legislative repeal. The treaty reaches bona fide debts previously contracted and removes such legal bars.