Georgia courier. (Augusta, Ga.) 1826-1837, July 23, 1827, Image 1
VOL. 2.
AUGUSTA, GEO. MONDAY, JULY 23, 1S2'
NO. 22.
property of deceased persons, which must
‘—-vfrv MONDAY AND THURSDAY j j je disposed ofaccording to the law of the
PUBLisnr 1 ’ 1 • —- p m Bd. ! domicil of sucli persons. This, I appre-
2 O’CLOCK
[ s Rrick Buildings, oppo;
l*i w
site Mr. ramming*! ) hend, is a mistake, for in all die cases
| which have arisen under the bankrupt
i laws of England, the Courts have held
j that the statutory assignment is equiva
lent, and the same as an assignment bv
ors, F.xpcu-
> bo hold on tin
directions.
of Land and .VrgroM, by Adminirtrat
r (iaardians, are required, by taw, to be , .. , - — 0 -
a“court Weofthe voluntary act of the party, and that
°°"tv in wtiicb itic property is situate.—Notice of; the personal property of the bankrupt m a
1 foreign country thereby passes to Uie as-
? lex
; h ,.,r 8 -les must be given in a public
nrt vious to tb : day of sale
v, !"iocs of the sate of personal property must be given m sjgnees, and must be governed by the Zcz
if ^rtalitor^of an cfclutP,*uiust br j domiCllH. See Philips V. Hui'tfir, 2 H.
for FORTY days. , ” " * ’
that application will be made to.theCourt ofOr-
r leave to sell land, must bo publtsbcd for
Notice
.bljslicd for FOR TY day.
Not
linarv for lcav
months.
FOR TUB GEORGIA COURIER*
LAW REPORTS.
RICHMOND SUPERIOR COURT,
November Term, 1826.
Cunningham vs. WilsoeJ.
[Concluded.]
'dlv. Let us now proceed to examine
, 0 ; far the above investigation is sup
ported by authority. It is admitted that
the lex ioci contractus must govern, as to
tiie nature, construction and validity of
the contract, under certain restrictions
which will b.c hereafter noticed, and in
accordance with this principle of interna
tional law. the cases of Male v. Roberts,
3 £ S p. cases l64 Thompson v. Ketchnm,
S John. Rep. 189, and Alves vs.. Hodg
son, 7 Ter. Rep. 237, were decided.—
The two first were cases of contracts made
by an infant in a foreign country, and up
on he'mg sued lie pleaded infancy ; but
the Court declared that the plea could not
be available unlessheshowed that infancy
would be a good plea in the place where-
the contract was made. The other case
was an action brought on a promissory
ante, made in Jamaica, which by the laws
of that Island, was void for want of a
damp: and Lord Kenyon held, that it
could not be recovered in England, be
cause it was void by ibe laws of the place
where the contract was made. These are
rases which come strictly within the rnle;
for, it seems to mb that it applies orilv h>
cases hot veen the contracting parties, or
those claiming under the contract, and,
where such contract is sought to be enfor
ced, or carried into effect, in a country
lifierent from that in which it was entered
into. But 'lie rase now at bar does not
come under that >ule : because this is not
.i case between the assignor and assignees,
in which the validity of this assignment is
questioned : if i’ were, perhaps the case
might receive a very different determina
tion. But it is a contest between one of the
parties and a stranger claiming property
within this state, under conflicting law’s,
11 and it is requisite, in order to give a
binding force to a contract entered into in
mother country, that it does not violate
the rights of persons not parties to it.—
4 Efccta contractiium certo loco initonm,
pro jure Wins alibi quoque ohservantur, si
milium inde civibus alien's crartur preju
dicium ii\ jure sibi qua s'to' Huber.
Trader. To this qualification of the rule
may he referred those cases in which
Courts of justice . refuse to enforce eon-
tracts entered into abroad, which, »hough
there valid, are either violatorv of some
moral duty, or inconsistent with a positive
right derived ton third person, under the
law of ihe country in which such incon
sistent claim is sought to he made available;
in which case the rule is \magisesf in tali
conflictu ut jus nostrum quam jus alienum
servemus.' " 2 Fonb. Eq. 443 in note.
Huberus in 2 voh B. 1, Tit. 3, lays
down the following proposition :—“ That
44 a contract made ncccording to the law
“ of the place, in which it was en’ored
“ into, throughout, in Court, and out
44 of Court, even in those places where
“such a mode of contracting is not al-
“ lowed, will be supported.” And in
illustration of this proposition, he gives
the following example, which goes to
prove the correctness of the position
I have taken, to wit: that the lex loci
contractus applies only between the con
tracting parties, or in cases where the
rights of others are not prejudiced. “For
“ example : In a certain place particular
“ kinds of merchandize are prohibited ; if
“ sold there the contract is void—but if
“ the same merchandize were sold else-
*• where, in a place, where there was not
“ any prohibition, and a suit is brought in
“ a place where they were prohibited, the
purchaser will be condemned and the
“ suit maintained, because the contract
<l was good in its origin, where made.—
“ But if the merchandise sold in another
“ place, where they were prohibited, were
“ delivered, the purchaser would not be
condemned, because it would be contra-
r y to the law and convenience of the
” government where they were sold, and
“ an action would not be countenanced
4 wherever instituted, even to compel the
“delivery; for, if on the delivery being
made the purchaser would not pay the
price, he would be bound, if at all, not
B1 i. Rep. 402, Smith v. Bnckannan, 1
East. f>. Sill v. Worswick, 1 fl. Bin- Rep.
691, Hunter v. Potts, 4 Ter. Rep. 192,
Holmes v. Remson, 4 John. Ch. Rep.
478,. Bur to this rule all the authorities
iprngn ze an exception, which is this
44 Unless there be some pos-tive law in
the foreign country forbidding it, or a pre
judice would thereby accrue to the rights
of such governments or their citizens.”—
Thus in Philips v. Hunter, the Court said,
“ The whole property of the bankrupt
must be under the controul of the assign
ees without reguard to its locality, except
in cases which directly militate against
the particular laws of the country in which
it happens to be situated”—so also in the
case of Hunter v. Potts. Lord Kenyon,
with the concurrence of the whole Court,
says—“ Every person having property in
a foreign country, may dispose of it in
this: though indeed, if there be a law in
that country, directing; a particular mode
of conveyance, that must be adopted ;”
and this exception is recognised in its full
est extent by Chancellor Kent, in the case
of.Holmes v. Remson. “ The true ques
tion is,” says Chancellor Kent, “ whether
it be not wise, and politic, and just, (where
no positive law intervenes, and where it
is not repugnant to the essential policy
and institutions of the country,) to adopt
the. rule of international law which other
nations apply to us, and which impairs no
right, but promotes general justice, and is
founded on the mutual respect, comity
and con venience of commercial nations.”
Huherns pUces this subject in a very
clear light, a hiclr the following extracts
will show. Speaking of the effect of for
eign laws in another jurisdiction, he says :
“ This cannot he dene bv iho immediate
“ force and operation of a foreign law,
“ but with the concurring consent of the
“ Supremennwerin 'hep»hergovernment,
“ which gives an effect to foreign laws ex-
“ eroded unnn property within its own
“ jurisdiction, without anv prejudice being
41 received to its sovereignty, or tbo rights
44 of its citizens, regarding the mutual con-
“ veninnee of the two nations or gnvrrn-
“ ments, which is the foundation of all
“ these rules.” Again :—“ There is a
“ further application of the restriction
44 mentioned. The effects of a contract
“ entered into at any place, will b
“ allowed according to the law of that
“ place, in other countries, if no incon
“ ven'ence results therefrom to the
“ citizens of that other country, with
“ respect to the law which they de-
“ mnnd ; and the sovereignty of the
“ latter place, is mot, bound, nor indeed
“ can it so far extend the law of another
“ rerritorv. For pxamolo: the oldest and
“ first hypothecation (mortgage) of a'mov-
“ able, is to be preferred even against a
“ third nossessnr, by the law of Caesar,
“ and in Friezeland, not among the P>ata-
“ vians ; therefore,' if anv one upon such
“ an hypothecation proceeds to demand
“ the article from a third person; he shall
“ not be beard, hut his suit rejected ; be-
“ cause the right of the third person to
“ that chattel, shall net he taken away,
“ bv the law of another jurisdiction or
“ lerritorv. Let us enlarge this rule to
“ the following extent :
“ If the law of the place in another go-
41 vermnent is contrary to the law of our
“ State, in which also a contract is madp,
“ inconsistent with a contract celebrated
“ and made in anodier place, it is reason-
“ able in such rasp, that we should o! -
44 serve our own law, rather than a foreign
“ law. For example
“ In Holland, matrimony is contracted
44 with the agreement, that the wife shall
“ not be responsible for the debts con-
“ tracted by the husband.only; although
44 this is a private contract, it is said to he
“ valid in Holland, to the prejudice ofthe
“ creditors, with whom the husband shall
“ afterwards contract debts ; but in
“ F riezeland such a kind of contract would
“ not be binding unless published, nor
“ would ignorance of the necessity of
“ making if public, be an excuse accord
ing to the law ofCeesarand equity.—
44 The husband contracts debts in Frieze-
“ land, and the wife is sued as jointly re-
“ sponsible, and liable for one half of the
“ debt :—She pleads her marriage con-
“ tract—the creditors reply that thiscon-
“ tract is contrary to the laws of Frieze-
“ land, because not published; and this
“ is the rule with us, where the marriage
“ was contracted here ; as I lately gave
“ my opinion when consulted on the
“ point. But those who contracted in
“ Holland, and in whose favor the debts
“ were contracted there, were nonsuited,
“ notwithstanding thsir«suit was brought
“ in Friezeland, because, as far as respect-
“ ed them, the law of the place, where the
“ marriage was contracted, not the laws
“ of the two countries, came into consi-
“ deration.
“ The place, however, where the con-
“ tract is entered into, is not to be exclu-
“ sively considered. If the parties bad in
“ contemplation anotlier place at the time
“ of the contract, the laws of the latter
“ will be preferred in the construction of
«—|dhe contract.” Huberus, 2d vol, B. 1.
at Tit. 3. Upon this last exception of the
to i get
by the contract, but that having got the
“ goods of another, it would be unreason-
1 able that he should enrich himself at
“ the expense and loss of another.” Thus
m the case of Alves vs. Hodgson, in 7 Ter.
Rep. 2o7 before cited, although Lord
Kenyon rejected the note for the want of
a stamp, yet a new trial was granted in or
der to let the plaintiff recover on the gen
eral quantum meruit Count.
Let us next enquire whether the lex do
micilii, or to use a larger term, the law
which governs the person of the ow^gjj of
personal property, can be soappli^ n j
support this assignment against the~artacr.~
iag creditor. It was said at the bar that w . r r .
'he lex domicilii applies exclusively to > general rule, Lord Mansfield appears to
have founded his decision in the case of
Robinson v. Bland, in 2 Burr. 1077.
The cases of Solomons v. Ross, Joliet
vs. Deponthieu, and Neale vs. Cotling-
ham, cited in a note toFolliott vs. Ogdeu,
in 1 Hen. Biac. Rep. 131, were cases in
which effect was given to foreign bank
rupts laws against domestic attaching cre
ditors. Bur tho principle upon which
they were decided, to wit: that the as
signments of the bankrupt’s effects was an
assignment for a valuable consideration,
and for the purpose of making an equal
distribution among all the creditors of the
bankrupt, and that no creditor shall be
permitted to acquire an undue preference,
and by so doing prevent such equal distri
bution See Philips v. Hunter, 2 Hem.
Biac. 405, so far from denying 'he excep
tions to the general rule in regard to the
lex loci, does most clearly admit and en
force them. For the general rule would
not have been admitted or applied in these
cases, if the law of England had been re
pugnant to the law of Holland, or the law
of Ireland repugnant to that of England :
nor, if the assignment in Holland bad been
made to certain particular creditors in ex
clusion of the creditors in England ; and
the reason is clear and obvious, because
in the first case, there being conflicting
laws, the Courts would have been bound
to enforce those of their own State in pre
ference to a foreign law ;* and in the se
cond case, because by giving effect to such
partial assignment, they would be allow
ing the debtors to givo au undue prefer
ence to certain creditors to the preju
dice of their own subjects.
I am aware, it may be answered that in
cases of intestacy, the property, no matter
where situated, must he distributed ac
cording to the law of the place where the
intestate was domiciled. See Pipon v.
Pipon, Amb. 25, Vattel B. 2, Ch. 8, Sec.
110—Marsh vs. Hutchinson, 2 Bos. So
Pull. 226, and Bruce v. Bruce, in note to
that case. But it must be remembeied
that the cases are not parallel ; because
in the one case, the transfer is the act of
the party, and in the other, the succession
is by operation of law; and, as hut one
law can govern, it is better that, that
should be the Tex domicilii, than the ler
loci ret sitae: for the intestate can have
but one domicil, whereas the goods a r, d
effects nr'V he situated in manv, having
diflerent laws : therefore Lord Hardwick,
in i lie case of Pipon v. Pipon, verv wise
ly determined, that he would not restrain
the administratrix ; he would not-direct
in what manner ahe ivas to dispose of the
property, or to distribute it. Having ac
quired the right to it, she was to distri
bute it according to the law which guided
the succession to the personal estate of
the intestate. And in M'llar vs. IT 11, 1
Dali. Rep. 232, a further reason is given,
why, the lex domicilii must govern in
testamentary cases, and in the surrrssio
ab intestato. “ In the State of DeJaa-
“ ware'' says Ch. Jus. McKeen, “ there
“ is a law, a narrow and contracted one
“ indeed, which obliges, the executors or
“ administrators to discharge the debts
“ due from the deceased to his creditors,
“ within the state, in preference to every
“ other. This the executor is obliged to
“ comply with, because he is immediately
“ under the coercion of the law which
“ prescribes it; so that the distribution
“ thus made, is certainly binding out of the
“ State, and the law is in that respect eve-
“ rv where received ; for, it would he
“ more unjust to compel the executor who
“ acted le< ally in his own State, to pay
“ the money out of his pocket, than that
“ the creditor should lose the amount of
“ his demand.”
The causes of Philips v. Hunter, 2 H.
Blac. 492—Sill v. Worswick, 1 Hen.
Blac. 673, and Hunter v. Potts, 4 Ter.
Rep. 132, do not directly apply to the
case now under consideration, because the
principal point determined in them all,
was ; that if, after assignment of a bank
rupt’s estate, a creditor, knowing of it,
and residing in England, attaches the ef
fects of the bankrupt abroad, the assign
ees may compel him tc refund them in an
action for money had and received to
their use: and this, upon the ground that
the parties were, all English subjects, e-
qually owing obedience to the bankrupt
laws, and should therefore do no act to
contravene them. But these cases are
valuable because they treat largely and
liberally the general principles of .inter
national law now under discussion ; as
will be seen by the extracts here given.
In the case of Sill v. Worswick, Lord
Loughborough said that “ it was a clear
proposition, not of the law of England,
but of every country in the world, where
law had the semblance of science, that
personal property had no locality, and
was subject to the law which governed the
person, both with respect to the disposi
tion of it, and to the transmission of it,
either by succession', or the act of the par-
13', though he admitted that, if, by the law
of a foreign country, a foreign creditor
had been preferred, it could not.be help
ed ; and such preference, however repug
nant to principle, could not be disturbed.”
This admission of his Lordship is in ac
cordance with the exeep'etion to the gen
eral rule which runs through all the au
thorities upon this subject, and goes to
prove the position which I have been la
bouring to establish—to wk—that the
lex locirei sitae, must be the rule of de
termination, where it comes in conflict
with the lex domicilii, except in testamen
tary cases, and in the successio ab intesta
to ; though that law nta}' be repugnant to-
principle." See also Potter vs. Brown 5
East. 124, in support of this position.
*Ste Potter r. Brown,, 5 East. 124.
Whether the statute of this state now
under consideration be wise, politic, or
just, is a questioh with which I have no
thing to do in this branch of the investi
gation, because I am now examining the
question upon the mere ground ef author
ity. But I think I have already shewn
that it is not onl)’ wise and politic, blit
founded upon the first principles of jus
tice and equit}'. „ #
The cases of Lodge vs. Phelps, 1 John
Gas. 139. Smith v. Spinolla, 2 John
Rep. 198. ImIay T v. Ellepseu, 2 East.
455. Dixon’s Exors. v. Ramsays Exors.
3 Cranch 319,-establishing the position
that the lex loci applies only to the inter
pretation of the contract, and not to the
mode of enforcing it: but the cases of
Donframp v. Burrel, 4 Dali. 419, and Me-
lan v. the Duke de Fitz James, seem to
hold a different doctrine.
The cases of Smith v.^S mith, 2 John
Rep. 235. Sames v. Allen, 1 Dali. 188.
Smith v. Buckanan, 1 East. 6, and Pot
ter v. Brown, 5 East. 124—go to estab
lish the doctrine, that a discharge under
the bankrupt or insolvent laws of one
state, is nd discharge in anotlier, unless
the contract wore made in the state where
the discharge was given, See.
The principal points decided in these
cases have however no direct application
to the question before me, but have been
thus noticed because they were referred
to in the'agreement. Tn some of them
however, the general principle under con
sideration with the exceptions to it, have
been noticed by the judges in delivering
their opinions, and those opinions have
Ueen noticed above, when it was believed
that they applied to the question.
It was said at the 'bar. that “ the ex
ceptions to the general rule which adopts
the lex loci, destroy the rule itself, because
unless we give effect to foreign laws which
conflict with ours, there is no room for
the exercise of enmity which is the essence
of thernle.” To this opinion I cannot
subscribe, because there is abundant room
fur the exercise of this comity where there
is no direct conflict between the laws of
the two Sta'es; as, for example was done
in the cases of Solomons v. Ross. Jol-
lottv. Deponthett, and Neale v. Cotting-
h'tni, before cited, where effect was given
to a foreign assignment, because not re
pugn mt to the laws of England, although
money was thereby taken from English
subjects, and given to foreign assignees,
upon the ground that the bankrupt laws
wpre equitable and just, and in accordance
with those of England; and, because also
it was in accordance with the essential
policy of England as a commercial na
tion to do so, in order that she might with
mere propriety', claim the same respect
foi her bankrupt system. But, if the
courts, in these cases had refused to give
effect to the foreign assignment, by pre-
feriug their own attaching creditors, when
thire was no positive law requiring them
todo so ; then they would have been re
testing the general rule of international
lav, by refusingto extend to other nations
that comity which is the essence ofthe rule.
And even this has been done in our own
country in the case of Milne vs. Moreton
6 Binney, 353.
The cases of Milne v. Moreton, 6 Bin
ney 353, and Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cranch
2S9, have bee i cited and relied upon by
tlie counsel for the plaintiff.
If however there was no stronger
.ground, or authority for sustaining his
cruse, those caser would be unable to do
it. In bo'll these cases the courts refuse
tdgive effect to an assignment under a for-
egn bankrupt law ; Chief Justice Mar-
slall declming that a foreign bankrupt
law is incapable of operating a legal
transfer of property in the United States:
and in Milne v. Moreton, the Chief Jus
tice says “ if this assignment were made
by the party himself, the case would not
admit of a moments speculation, because
wi have no law regulating the transfer of
personal property, and therefore the own
er conveys it as he pleases.” As regards
the claim of the Unitdrf States in the case
of Harrison vs. Sterry, the Court was
clearly bound to give that the preference
to all other claims; because,it "as re
quired by a positive law: But so far as
relates to the attaching creditors whose
lien by the attachment was subsequent in
point of time to the date of the assignment
under the commission of bankrupt, I must
be permitted, most respectfully to differ
in opinion from the high authority which
holds such doctrine, because I perfer that
contained in Solomons vs. Ross, Jollett
vs, Depoutheu, Neale vs. Coltinghani and
Holmes vs. Remson, and believe with
Lord Mansfield, Lord Kenyon, Lord
Loughborough and Chancellor Kent, that
an assignment under a commission of
bankrupt is fiquivolem to, and ought to be
considered in the same light, as an assign-
mentbythe voluntary act of the party;
and ought to bind the personal.property
wherever situated in the same manner ;
unless there be a positive law ofthe coun
try where it is located directing a parti
cular mode of conveyaucc, or giving a pre
ference to other claimants.
But the plaintiff Cunningham is not a
citizen of this state, and therefore, it has
been said, he is not entitled to the favour
of this Court. I am not deciding this
case on the ground of favour. Our law
is no respecter of persons: Neither the
act in regard to attachments, nor that up
on the subject of assignments, draws any
distinction between citizens and foreign
ers ; and therefore the plaintiff ha3 the
same rights under them, that a native
born, and domiciled citizen would have.
Georgia is liberal and has never been ac
tuated by a contracted policy: no such
statute as that existing in I)elaware as
mentioned by Chief Justice McKean,
can be found in her statute book.
It remains now, only to enquire into
the second ground taken by the Counsel
tor the assignees, i. e. Whether the act of
Georgia upon the subject of assignments, ■
is unconstitutional and therefore void.
It is contended that this act impairs the i
obligation of contracts, in as much as it
declares such assignments as the one tin-!
der consideration, void. This argument j
might do, if this assignment had been
made before the act of Assembly was
passed, but it would be an alarming doc
trine, to hold that the states have not the
right to regulate the transfer of property
within their, own jurisdiction ; and, if
this act be unconstitutional, then this as- j
signment if made in Georgia, would be j
good and valid. Tim provision in the!
constitution does not extend to prohibit i
the states from declaring what cohtracts ;
may or may not be made; but to prevent i
them from passing any law, to discharge 1
the obligation into which a party' has law- |
fully entered; and it matters not .whether
such act be passed before, or after the j
contract between Wilson and his assignees
was lawfully made in the state where it
was entered into. Admit it, and what
does it prove ; not that our law is uncon
stitutional; and why? Because it does pot
seek to discharge either of the parties to
that contract from his liability under if,
It does not in any way impair the obliga
tion of the contract: and if Mark Wil
son has undertaken in Philadelphia to
transfer certain property to the assignees,
which is located in Georgia, and which bv
the law of Georgia cannot be transferred
by the particular mode of conveyance
which he has thought proper to adont,
then he has undertaken to do that, which
he cannot perform ; and the partv who is
injured by the non performance of his
contract, must seek his remedy under that
contract, from the obligation of which,
Georgia has not attempted to release him.
If this act be unconstitutional because it
declares that property shall not be con
veyed hv a particular mode of transfer,
then the aet which requires two witnesses
to a dped of land, would bo equally so ;
and if, in another state the law required
hut one witness, and a deed was there
made for lands in Georgia, such deed
would be good and valid to pass land here
upon the ground ihat our statute impairs
the obligation of contracts. The conse
quences which would result from this ar
gument are absurd, and therefore the
premises are untrue. Rut it has been de
cided by tbo highest authority in this coun
try, that the title to land can he acquired
and lost, onlv in the manner prescribed
bv the law of'be pla^e, where such land
is situate. The U. S. vs. Crosby 7
Cranch 115. And in the discussion of
‘bis rase, neither the Counsel nor the
Court, thought of an objection to the law
of Massachusetts, which required a deed
of land to have a Seal, on the ground that
it impaired the obligation of the .contract
entered into in the Island of Grenada,
which had no seal and was valid by the
laws of that place. And the constitution
al provision makes no difference between
co*tracfs for real and personal estate, but
the states are equally prohibited from im
pairing the obligation of either.
I had intended to notice at some length
the opinion of Judge Gould, but this de
cision has occupied so much more space
than I had expected, that T can only say,
it is in the main, in accordance with my r
own, and is of itself good authority.
Upon the whqle then, for the reasons
above stated, I am of opinion that both
upon principle and authority, ibis assign
ment cannot be supported against the
claims of the plaintiff, and that he must
therefore have judgment upon the ver
dict.—Judgment for the Plaintiff.
Wilde, Reid, for Plaintiff.
Walker, King, for Assignees.
DISSOLUTION.
T HE Copartnership heretofore existing be
tween the subscribers, under the firm of
L. Gibson Co. is this day dissolved by mutua!
consent. Those indebted to the late firm are re
quested to coine forward and settle with Ralph
Net chum, and those having claims will present
them as above.
RALPH KETCHUM,
J. H. BURROUGHS.
L. F. P, GIBSON.
July 11 19 3t
LEWIS 2*. P. OiXBSOSr,
(wheeler’s building,)
OFFERS FOR SALE,
24000 Lbs. Sweedcs Iron,
200 Casks Thomastown Lime,
50 Bbls. Flour,
15 Bbls. Apple Brandy,
35 Kegs Vvhite Lead,
a Box^s Raisins,
10 Quarter Casks Wines, assorted,
10 Reams Writing Paper,
St. Croix Sugar in Hhds. and Bbls.
5 Tierces Jamaica Coffee.
Jr.ly 12 19 tf
JUST PUBLISHED,
AT THE
Office of the Georgia Courier,
THE I ETTERS OF THE
REV. JAMES S. GLErTIff,
Of Mount Ariel, Abbeville, Dist. S. C.
IN' ANSWER TO THE SERMON OF THE
Rev. Joseph C, Stiles,on Predestination. Those
w ishing to read the above letters, can be supplied
with copies, by application to the Rev. Mr. Ken
nedy, or at this office..
July 19 21 3t
RXOTICE.
John P. King, Esq. will
transact business for me in niv
absence. SILAS BRONSON. '
June 25, 1827
15 tf
A
TO HIKE,
good healthy Girl, for a Wet Nurse. En
quire at this office.
July 9 is tf
TO RENT.
Two convenient Dwelling Dr.-yif
Houses on the South side
of Broad-Street near the
lower end of the Market,
one at present occupied by Mr. B. B. Cheshire,
and the other, late’y by Mr. Charles Wilson,
the Kitchen of the latter i? prepared for moiildinir
Candles, and the dw elling has a convenient store
on Broad-street. Possession given on 1st Octo
ber. Applv to
J. G. MTVIIORTER.
July 19 21 fit vv.
July 19
Messrs. Reilly & Shells
will act as my agents du
ring my absence from the
Citv.
J. C. SNEAD.
21 3t
THE SUBSCRIBED
C ONTINUES the Manufactory of TIN
WARE, at No. 115, corner of Broad and
Centre-streets, opposite the lower market, where
he keeps constantly on hand, a general assort
ment of
READY MADE TIN,
At wholesale or retail.
Also, a general assoitmcnt of
Which will be sold for Cash, or town acceptances,
. W. A. MITCHELL.
July 19 21 3t.
CORN & IRON.
2000 Bushels Prime Corn,
6 Tons Chair and Waggon Tyre Iron.
For Sale by
July 12
THOMAS M’GRAN.
2t 19
TO RENT,
A large commodious Dwelling, on
Ellis-street, at present occupied by
Mr. Ware.
ALSO,
A Dwelling on Ellis-street, at present occupied
by Mrs. Marks.
ALSO,
A Dwellingon Green-street, at present occupied
by Mis. Hatcher.
ALSO,
A Dwelling on Green-streetj at present occu
pied by Mr. Cary, and possessionigiven on the
1st of October. Enquire of
W. H. M AHARRY.
v No. Id2.
'July 9 13 tf
TO REiNT,
From the first of October next, tin
Dwelling House on Reynohl-street
opposite Ihe Episcopal Church, occu
pied by M. Roff, Esq.
The Dwelling, on the ally, in the rear of thi
subscriber’s grocery store, and now occupied hi
James Oliver, Esq.
The Store, on Broad-street, occupied by Mr
A. S. Tuipin, an excellent stand for business.—
For terms enquire of
BENJAMIN HALL.
July 19 21 tf
TO RENT,
From the first of October next, th<
Building, No. ldl Broad-street,ownei
and occupied by the subsciibers —
The stand for business is desirable
The store for pleasantness and convenienci
is not equalled by any in the city, and is ad
mirably calculated for an extensive Wholesah
and Retail Dry Goods business. The dwellinj
contains four spacious rooms, pleasant and con
venieht for a family.
JEWETT, ABELL St Co.
June 28 l(j tf
TO RENT.
FROM the first day of October
next, the Brick Storenear the Market
at present occupied by Messrs. Vick-
ling Glenn.
The Brick Store next below
Wm. Smith, Junr. at present occupied bv Mr
C. Smith, and
The Dwelling House on Rey-
nold-Street, near the Eagle Tavern, at present oc
cupied by Mr. R. Malone.
JOHN PHIMZY.
July 12 19 wtf
NOTICE.—During the
ijpSSr Subscribers’ absence from the
State, Messrs. L. Reed and It. Gresham, will act
as our Attornies.
CARLTON, COOK h KNOWLTON.
June 11 11 2 m 3 m
NOTICE.
M essrs, a. i. l g. w. huntingtcn
will act as our attorney, during our absence
from the State.
TAMPLET &, ROWAND.
June 28 16 tf *
WANTED, to attend
in a Bookstore, and make him
self generally useful, a smart active Boy or
Young Man. Enquire at this office.
June 28 16 tf
TO HIRE,
A N active and intelligent Negro Boy, sixteen
years of age, who is accustomed tn w aiting
in the house. Enquire atthis office.
April 26
90 tf
WHISKEY, RUM, «$• GIN.
Just "received from New-York :yid Philadelphia
HHDS Rye Whiskey
10 do N. E. Rum
30 Bbls Country Gin
20 do superior Beer, Fuller ii Taylor’s brand
20 do Newark Ciffier
20 Qr.' Casks Sicily Madeira, TeneritTc.
Muscatel, and Malaga Wines
Muscovado Sugars, in hhds and bbls
Coffee in Bbls and bags and a general as
sortment of GROCERIES and DRY GOODS,
constantly on hand, for sale on reasonable terms,
by ' BUGG & GREENWOOD,
224, Brand Sine*
February 12
- « ?
tf