290 U.S. 398 (1934)
Appellant challenged the validity of the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Law (Act), 1933 Minn. Laws 339, as being repugnant to the Contract Clause of U.S. Constitutional art. I, § 10, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV. The statute, which granted appellees an extension for the period of redemption for a foreclosure sale, was sustained by the Supreme Court of Minnesota.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Act had been enacted pursuant to the state's police power with regard to an emergency economic crisis and that the legislation was addressed to a legitimate end.
- The conditions upon which the period of redemption was extended were not unreasonable, and the legislation was temporary in operation.
- Thus, the Act violated neither the Contracts Clause nor the provisions of U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV.
The judgment of the state supreme court, which found that the Minnesota Mortgage Moratorium Law did not violate the Contracts Clause of the federal constitution, was affirmed because the law was enacted pursuant to the state's police power, was temporary in duration, and conditions imposed by the law were reasonable.