|
|
|
|
|
|
|
118 HEPBURN'S CASE.
rest the rejection of it upon this peculiar act of limitation, by
which it was in the clearest terms designated, and finally excluded
as a claim against the state on account of property confiscated,
which had not been brought in and passed by the Auditor-Gene-
ral, on or before the first day of September, 1787. (d) But, as it
is fit that the whole ground upon which the state rests its defence
against this claim, should be fully laid open, I 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 confis-
cation acts had been passed, then the Mollisons must be consi-
dered, prior to the 4th of July, 1776, as British merchants resi-
dent beyond the jurisdiction of this state; after that time, until the
peace of 1783, as alien enemies; (e) and thenceforward 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 every where; 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, (f) And
outlawry in civil actions is considered as in nature of civil process
to compel an appearance to the suit; or after judgment to pro-
cure satisfaction. The forfeiture, though nominally to the king, in
truth goes to the plaintiff towards payment of his demand. If the
outlaw appears, pays all the costs, puts in sufficient bail, and does
(d) 1786, ch, 18.—(e) Barclay v. Russell, 3 Ves. 483.—(f) Jacobs' Law Dict.
v, Foreign Attachment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
