|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HEPBURN'S CASE. 117
confiscation acts allowed him to come in and have his claim
passed by the commissioners, or the Auditor-General; and so far,
therefore, his remedy was changed without being impaired.
In regard to this change of remedies, it is evident that the con-
fiscation acts considered the Mollisons as deceased debtors, and
the state as theirv trustee for the benefit of their creditors, citizens
of this country; and as administering their assets according to the
principles of equity. Upon a creditor's bill, in this court, all the
assets of the deceased debtor are made subject to the payment
of his debts, so that the personalty, or natural fund may, at the
instance and for the benefit of the heirs and devisees, be first
applied. And all his creditors are called in, by a general notice;
and their claims, on being proved and adjusted, are ordered to be
paid from the proceeds of the sale of the estate. If any claims
are not brought in before a distribution is actually made, they are
excluded from any satisfaction in that case. Such is the course of
administering the estate of a deceased debtor in Chancery, (e)
The course of proceeding prescribed by the confiscation acts, is
strikingly analogous to it; those acts requiring that the creditors
should endeavour first to obtain satisfaction from the debts due to
their debtor in this state; and on there being no such debts, that
their claims against the property taken by the state, should be
exhibited within a limited time, or be excluded; and should be
legally proved, if required, to the satisfaction of a jury.
Considering the actual situation of the Mollisons, and the whole
subject in this point of view, it is manifest that Hepburn's remedy
for the recovery of his debt, was in no manner whatever materially
impaired or obstructed; that although in some respects different,
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 those 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
(e) Hammond v, Hammond, 2 Bland, 307; Tessier v. Wyse, ante 28.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
