|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COOMBS v. JORDAN. 807
spect to the payment of his debts, into personalty; and as such.,
held to be assets in the hands of his executor or administrator for
the benefit of his creditors, (i) In Virginia, that section which
subjected lands to the payment of debts, was rejected and nul-
lified, as an unconstitutional encroachment upon her sovereign
rights; (j) but the first section providing a mode of collecting
proofs in Great Britain, was admitted to be in force there until our
Declaration of Independence, (k)
It has been often said, that this statute in itself made a distinc-
tion between the people of Great Britain and those of the colo-
nies; that domestic debts were not included by it; and that by
an equitable construction only it was so extended as to embrace
Maryland as well as British creditors. (I) It is true, that it may
have been passed at the instance of British merchants; and the
first section which makes provision for the manner of proving
debts, could, from its nature, be only applied for the benefit of
those resident in Great Britain, and not to the inhabitants of the
Plantations. But the fourth and most important section, and the
only one now in force, makes no distinction whatever as to the re-
sidence or domicile of the party. On the contrary, all distinctions
arising from the local situation of the party, or his being a subject
resident in Great Britain, or in the colonies, or in any other part of
the British dominions, or his being a subject trading to the Plan-
tations, are expressly excluded by the strong phraseology of the
law itself; by which it is declared in the clearest terms, that the
real estate situate in the Plantations, shall be chargeable with all
just debts owing by any person to his majesty, or any of his sub-
jects; without any allusion whatever to the residence, domicile,
or trading character of the subject or persons thus described as
debtors or creditors; nor is there any distinction as to the kind of
debts; the estate is made chargeable with all just debts, duties
and demands of what nature or kind soever.
Real estates having been thus made 'subject to the like reme-
dies, proceeding and process,' as personal estate, towards the satis-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(i) Galphin v. McKinney, 1 McCord, 292; Telfair v. Stead, 2 Cran. 418; Thomp-
son v. Grant, 1 Russ. 540, note; Will, Exrs. 1017.—(j) 1 Jefferson Corr. 106;
1734, ch. 25, 4 Hen. Stat. 452; 1744, ch. 40, 5 Hen. Stat 292; 1748, ch, 12, 5 Hen.
Stat 526; 1759, ch. 34,7 Hen. Stat, 328; 1761, ch. 28S 7 Hen. Stat. 450.—(k) Lewis
v, Bacon, 3 Hen. & Mun. 89.—(l) Morgan v. Davis, 2 H. & McH. 12; Donaldson
v. Harvey, S H. & McH. 13; Davidson v. Beatty, 3 H. & McH. 608; Kilty's Rep.
250; Tayloe v. Thompson, 5 Peters, 358.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
