|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HEPBURN'S CASE. 103
surer of the state, and sundry others said to be the debtors of the
Mollisons, who had paid money into the treasury. None of the
defendants answered, and the bill was dismissed by the com-
plainant's solicitor in open court on the 6th of December, 1821.
And finally, that the present petitioner John M. Hepburn was, on
the 30th of January, 1826, appointed administrator de bonis non
of the late John Hepburn, by the Orphans Court of Washington
county, in the District of Columbia, by virtue of which he has
been invested with a capacity to sue in this state, (p)
By an order of the House of Delegates, passed on the 18th of
December, 1823, this case was referred to the Auditor General;
and he, taking the entries and vouchers as they stood, according to
their dates and natural import, stated an account by which it
appears, that, charging the Mollisons with the whole debt due as
of the first of April, 1776, amounting then to £316 sterling, or
$1,404 44 of our money, principal, and giving them credit for a
payment of ,£260, or f 1,155 56, as of the 12th of January, 1779,
and then giving them a further credit for f 840 71, the amount of
the assignments as of the year 1790, calculating interest both for
and against, the estate of the late John Hepburn had been over-
paid f 7 92. This at first blush seemed to be the plain and natural
result of the whole affair.
But it has been urged, that the late Samuel C. Hepburn drew a
bill of exchange upon the Mollisons on the 15th of March, 1776,
for just the amount of .£260, and that the payment of £260 was
in truth no more than a credit for the proceeds of the bill of ex-
change. The whole controversy turns upon this point; whether
the bill of the 15th of March, 1776, and the payment, as stated,
of the 12th of January, 1779, are identical. This assertion, that
the bill and the entry are the same, places them in direct contradic-
tion to each other. The bill is too explicit, and too well fortified
to be impugned in any single particular; and therefore, all the
efforts of the petitioner have been directed against the entry to
make it conform to the bill; and thus the matter in dispute is still
further reduced to the single point as to the truth or falsehood of
the entry of the 12th of January, 1779.
That entry, as it stands, purports to be an admission of the re-
ceipt by Samuel C. Hepburn of £260, as a payment from the
Mollisons, in part of a pre-existing debt due from them. It makes
(p) 1813, ch. 165.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
