94 HEPBURN'S CASE.—3 BLAND.

On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the presumption
as urged against him, is deduced from the state of facts ordinarily
existing between individuals, enjoying the common facilities of in-
tercourse, where the creditor is in a condition to demand the pay-

ment of his claim, and the debtor is liable to legal coercion
112 for * the purpose of satisfying that demand. It is a pre-
sumption that the debt has been paid, arising from the failure to
take any steps to obtain the payment. The rule which establishes
the presumption, therefore, assumes the fact, that such a state of
things existed as would have enabled the creditor to make these
efforts, and might have rendered them available to him.

Upon these general principles the petitioner endeavors to shelter
himself from the force of the presumption by shewing, that his pre-
decessor, on whom the duty to collect this debt had devolved, was,
by the Revolutionary struggle of our country, thrown into the midst
of a new and extraordinary state of things; that his debtors were
cast out as alien enemies, and their property confiscated, or so .sit-
uated, or so disposed of, that he knew not where to find it, or how
to make it available toward the satisfaction of his claim.

The presumption of satisfaction arising from lapse of time, re-
lied on as a defence against this claim, is a deduction from two
facts which it assumes to be true; first, that the creditor always
had an efficient remedy for the recovery of his debt; and secondly,
that there always was property of the debtor, known to the credi-
tor, within reach of his remedy, fully sufficient for the satisfaction
of his claim. Hillary v. Waller, 12 Ves. 266; Fladong v. Winter,
19 Ves. 196; The Mayor of Hull v. Horner, Cowp. 109. If these
facts are shewn to be true the presumption of satisfaction fol-
lows as an irresistible deduction from them; because, it cannot be
believed, that a creditor who had the power and the means of ob-
taining satisfaction would so long neglect the recovery of his right.

This creditor complains, that his remedies have been impaired
or destroyed by the law of confiscation and forfeiture which were
enforced by the State against his debtor; by the war, daring which
his debtors were alien enemies; and by his debtors being foreigners
resident abroad. And in the next place, even supposing his reme-
dies to have been in their nature efficient, and in no way impaired,
that he knew of no debts or property of his debtor which could
have been brought within reach of those remedies. These are the
positions to be examined; and the examination of them will neces-
sarily exhibit the bearing which the positive Statute of Limitations
has upon this case.

By the law of England, a person convicted of treason or felony
forfeited his estate; and all his property, including debts due to
* him, were confiscated and carried into the public treasury.
113 And in like manner when any one died intestate without
heirs or next of kin capable of taking after him, his real and per-