|
|
Calvert
Papers
No. 520
[1754]
|
Robinsons moiety of Turkey point in Lieu thereof, Therefore
altho' it should be admitted that Robinson was not indebted to
Brown, and so Robinsons Heir Injured by the said Act, yet it ought
not to be repealed without putting Richard Bennetts Devisee in the
same state and condition to Recover the £250.. Sterling (the Se-
curity taken for, w.ch was distroyed by the said Act) as he woud
have been in, if the said act had never been made, w.ch is not done
by the present bill, nor can it be done as no Act of Assembly of
Maryland can be Obligatory upon Maurice Burchfield whose Effects
are in England, so that the passing the present bill into a Law, it is
conceived wou'd be doing as great Injustice to Richard Bennetts
devisee, as was done to Robinsons heirs by the Act in 1720 in case
Robinson was not indebted to Brown tho' the Contrary Appears to
be fully proved by the said Act passed in 1720.
[Opinion of William Murray (1705-1793), afterwards Attorney
General, and later Lord Mansfield]
|
|
|
|
Calvert
Papers
No. 546
1754
|
1.st Qust.......Was the Law in 1720, at the time and under the
Circumstances it then past and upon the Principles Laid down in
the Preamble a just and Right Law and a proper Exertion of the
Legislative power of the Province or was there any and what Irregu-
larity in it and are the Objections to and defects in it of such a
nature as to have induced a Repeale upon a Recent Application
whilst it was res Integra,
I am of Opinion that the Act 1720. upon the face of it is a
just and reasonable Exertion of the Legislature in a matter of
private property being only to cure a Defect of Forms, and it is
to be presumed that every Body was heard.
2d.......In Case the Law of 1720 was Originally Irregular and
Defective either in the Circumstances mentioned in the Preamble to
the Repealing Law or otherwise Ought such Irregularitys and
Defects to have been Considered as Cured & purged away in 17537
after 30 Years Acquiescence without any Intermediate Disabilitys
alleged/or was the Repealing Law then past a Wise and just Inter-
position of the Legislature upon the foundations mentioned in the
Preamble with the Answers Opposed thereto by the Party now
Petitioning both Considered together — And when ought the Com-
missioners of the Customs to have been heard thereon — And as this
Law now Stands has the Purchasers Representative any and what
remedy for the Moiety of the Purchase money or for any other
and what Equivalent or Satisf .n for the Moiety of the Land in Case
he sh.d be Evicted therefrom and against whom and by what means
and how wo.d you advise him to proceed in Case of such Eviction.
There are no Objections to the Law made out and the Ac-
quiescence for 33. years is a Demonstration that there were
none material. I think the Repeal one of the most unjust Arbi-
|
|
