|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116 HEPBURN'S CASE.
a specified period; (w) and it was declared, that all claims against
the state on account of property confiscated, which arose before
the time limited by law for bringing them in, might be brought in,
passed, and settled by the Auditor-General on or before the first
day of September, 1787, and when so settled should be paid as
directed by law; Provided, that the claimant satisfied the Auditor
General, that for want of notice, or for some unavoidable impedi-
ment, he could not bring in his claim within the time limited by
law. (z) And it was further declared, that no such claim should
be passed unless satisfactory proof was given that there were no
debts due in the country to the persons whose property had been
confiscated, to satisfy the claim exhibited against the state, and
that due industry had been used by the claimant to discover the
debts subject to attachment, and the proper means taken by him
to secure his claim out of such debts. And in conclusion it was
directed, that the Auditor-General should give notice of this act
in such manner as be might think proper to communicate its con-
tests throughout the state, (y) It was also provided, that when
any claim of a creditor against confiscated property should be re-
jected by the Auditor-General, the claimant might lay his papers
before the Chancellor, who was authorized to make up an issue
upon the case, and send it for trial before a jury, (z) And, as if
to leave the door wide open for any citizen to come in and obtain
a judicial decision upon a claim of any kind which he might have
against the state, any claimant was allowed, in the manner pre-
scribed, to commence and prosecute an action at law against the
state; (e) which law remained in force until within a short time
past, (6)
The confiscation acts divested the Mollisons of all their pro-
perty, debts only excepted, upon the ground that they were alien
enemies; and, consequently, those very acts, as to all such pro-
party, virtually declared them to be civilly dead, The question
then arises, how far did those laws really impede or embarrass
Hepburn in the collection of his debt ? It must be admitted, that
but for the confiscation of the property of the Mollisons, Hepburn
might, by an attachment, have taken any part of it, real or per-
sonal, as well as their debts, in satisfaction of his claim. But the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(w) 1784, ch. 45 and 1785, ch. 10.—(x) 1786, ch. 18.—(y) 1786, ch, 18; Journ.
Cong. 23d July, 1787; 27th August, 1786.—(z) 1786, ch. 49, s. 4.—(a) 1786, ch,
53.—(b) 1820, ch. 210.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
