|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
112 HEPBURN'S CASE.
the purpose of satisfying that demand. It is a presumption, that
the debt has been paid, arising from the failure to take any steps
to obtain the payment. The rule which establishes the presump-
tion, 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 endeavours to shel-
ter himself from the force of the presumption by shewing, that his
predecessor, 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 situated, 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,
relied 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, (m) If these facts are shewn to be true the pre-
sumption of satisfaction follows as an irresistible deduction from
them; because, it cannot be believed, that a creditor who had the
power and the means of obtaining 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, during 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
necessarily exhibit the bearing which the positive statute of limi-
tations 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(m) Hillary v. Waller, 12 Ves. 266; Fladong v. Winter, 19 Ves. 196; The Mayor
of Hull v. Horner, Cowp. 109.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
