HEPBURN'S CASE.—3 BLAND. 99

ferent, it was as effectual as ever it had been; and although
changed, it was altered not merely by one public Act of Assembly,
of which every one was bound to take notice; but by a whole system
of public Acts altogether in affirmance of the ancient pre-existing
principles of confiscation as regards debtor and creditor; and of a
character so important and interesting to the people at large, that
Hepburn could not fail to have been actually well acquainted with
them and all their provisions involving his interests.

Looking to these remedies, by some of which Hepburn might
certainly have obtained payment of his claim against the Molli-
sons, if it had not been previously satisfied; I might here safely
* rest the rejection of it upon tins peculiar Act of Limita- 118

tion. by which it was in the clearest terms designated, and

finally excluded, as a claim against the State on account of prop-
erty confiscated, which had not been brought in and passed by the
Auditor-General, on or before the first day of September, 1787.
1786, ch. 18. But, as it is fit that the whole ground upon which
the State rests its defence against this claim, should be fully laid
open, 1 shall proceed.

It is clear then, that this creditor lost nothing by the operation
of the Confiscation Acts; they placed none of the funds of his
debtors beyond his reach; nor did they leave him without the
most effectual remedies by which he might have made those funds
available. And consequently, nothing can be found in those Acts,
that will afford the slightest protection to his claim against the full
force of the presumption of satisfaction, arising from the great
lapse of time since it became due. But suppose no such Confisca-
tion Acts had been passed, then the Mollisons must be considered,

prior to the 4th of July, 1776, as British merchants resident be-
yond the jurisdiction of this State; after that time, until the peace

of 1783, as alien enemies; Barclay v. Russell, 3 Ves. 433; and thence-
forward as alien friends resident abroad: who during all that time

had property within the jurisdiction of this State. Then it may be
asked, would Hepburn have been without remedy, or would any of

his legal remedies for the recovery of his debt have been impaired

or destroyed by the intervening war or other circumstances ?

The case of a debtor resident abroad, who has property remain-
ing in the country of his creditor, is a common one, which must
frequently occur everywhere; and a code of laws, that gave no
adequate remedy to the creditor, in such case, would be mainly
defective. The name of the process, or the form of the proceed-
ing, is of no importance, so that relief can be obtained by it. In
the English books the London foreign attachment is said to be a
mode whereby the goods and debts of a foreigner in some liberty
may be taken to satisfy his creditors within such liberty. Jacobs'
Law Diet. v. Foreign Attachment. And outlawry in civil actions is
considered as in nature of civil process to compel an appearance to