HEPBURN'S CASE.—3 BLAND. 79-

The State may, as against itself admit the truth of any fact, or waive the
benefit of any rule of law.

The Legislature may by law, remove difficulties, or grant facilities, as be-
tween individuals, without prejudice to private rights.

Before the Revolution there was a legal money of six shillings to the dollar,
and a current money of seven shillings and six-pence to the dollar; but
the accounts of executors and administrators were always adjusted in
legal money.

No one can be allowed to discredit his own testimony.

The lapse of years cannot fail to give rise to an unanswerable presumption
against the validity of an antiquated claim of any kind, (a)

The Statute of Limitations must be pleaded or specially relied on; but a pre-
sumption of satisfaction, arising from lapse of time, may, without put-
ting it as a defence upon the record, be taken advantage of at the hear-
ing.
Lapse of time is a defence available against the State; and may well be taken
advantage of by it.

A presumption of satisfaction rests on two facts; first, that the creditor had
a remedy; and secondly, that the debtor himself was, or had property
within reach of that remedy.

The debts of a debtor were formerly, as a matter of grace, always paid out
of his forfeited or escheated estate.

The Revolutionary Confiscation Acts gave to the creditors of alien enemies,
remedies as effectual as those taken away; and removed no property be-
yond the reach of such creditors.

The object of the judicial proceeding by attachment is to enable a creditor
to obtain satisfaction from his absent debtor's property found here.

It is intended to enforce payment of debts only; it will therefore lie on a
judgment, bond, note, account or the like; but not on a covenant, bond
with collateral condition, for trespass, &c. (b)

Although a non-resident alien enemy cannot sue: yet a citizen creditor may,
by attachment, obtain satisfaction from the property found here of
such alien debtor.

The nature and principles of the Revolutionary Confiscation Acts considered
and applied.

JOHN M. HEPBURN presented a petition to the General Assembly
by which he claimed from the state a large sum of money as admi-
nistrator de bonis non of John Hepburn, deceased, who was a cre-
ditor of William and Robert Mollison, whose property had been
confiscated, leaving the claim of the petitioner, as he alleges, un-
satisfied. Upon which the following resolution was passed:

Resolved, That the Chancellor of Maryland be, and he hereby is
authorized and directed to examine into the merits of the claim of
John Hepburn, as creditor of William and Robert Mollison,
against the State of Maryland, and to decide thereon according to the

(a) Approved in Landsdale v. Smith, 106 U. S. 395. As to laches and limi-
tations in equity, see Chew v. Farmers Bank, 2 Md. Ch. 231, note.

(b) Approved in State v. Steibel, 31 Md. 37. See State v. Beall, 3 H. & McH.
347; Wilson v. Wilson, 8 Gill, 192, note (b).