|
|
|
|
|
|
|
l24 HEPBURN'S CASE.
several stores; and, as it would seem, in the midst of the Mary-
land debtors of the Mollisons.
But it has been urged, that this creditor Samuel C. Hepburn had
no knowledge of the fact, that any portion of the property of the
Mollisons had been confiscated and taken into the treasury. The
records of the treasury must certainly shew what has been at any
time past, received into it from every source as well as from the
ordinary one of taxation; they are public and open to the inspec-
tion and use of every one at all interested in any fund, that may
have been carried into it. And it is a well known historical fact,
that the system of the revolutionary confiscation laws, from the
time of the passage of the first of them, and for many years after,
agitated, interested and engaged the attention of the people of
Maryland more intensely than any other set of laws, that ever
were passed by their representatives. With regard to the Molli-
sons in particular it appears, in addition to what has been already
stated, that a large amount of their property, which had been con-
fiscated, was publicly advertised for sale, and sold at auction on
the 20th of October, 1783, and the proceeds paid into the trea-
sury; out of which one of their creditors, it appears, was ordered
by the Legislature to be satisfied, on the ground of its being then,
1805, shewn, that there were at that time no debts due to them, (d)
From all these circumstances, it is but fair to presume, and I
cannot withhold my belief of the fact, that Samuel C. Hepburn
did know, or might, by any reasonable degree of diligence have
informed himself, of an amount of those debts of the Mollisons
abundantly sufficient to satisfy his claim. But apart from those
funds; and if he actually did not know of any of them, and after
using due industry, had failed to discover any of them, then he
would have so kid that foundation, upon which to claim satisfac-
tion out of the proceeds of the confiscated property of the Molli-
sons which had been token into the treasury, (e) And finally, hav-
ing failed in every particular; either to shew a want of remedy;
Of a want of funds, or an ignorance of funds against which his
remedy might have been directed, his claim is left exposed to the
whole force of the presumption against it arising from lapse of
time by which it is completely covered and extinguished.
Upon the whole then, it is my opinion, in the first place, that
there if evidence sufficient to shew, that this claim was actually
(d) Resol. 1805 No, 20.~~{e) 1786,ch. 18.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
