Newspaper Page Text
Law Report.
WRIGHT and another.
In C banttry—January 1 3, 1788*
[Continued from our laft-"]
TO this bill, the defendant, Joseph Nntt,
pm in his answer; thereby admitting
the several arts of Aftembly, and proceeding!
Coward 6 the cunfifcation oFthe eflatea and ef*
fr(U of Sir James Wright, in Georgia, and
then stated, that the said Charles Pinckney,
the younger, claiming to be the personal re
* p efentative of the said Milea Btewtoa, made
a claim of the said sum of 88o*l. 5®- South-
C'arolins currency, with' interest under the
authority of the last mentioned ad of Aflem
bly, again!} the estates and effeda of Sir J.
Wright, which were feiaed and confifcated
under the authority of the said aft, but that
he did not, as waa believed, procure- himfelf
to be admitted aa a creditor of-the said Sir
James Wright, or upon his said estate or ef
fects, or obtained any order for the payment
of the said 88021. s®. currency, or had ob
tained any fatisfaction whatsoever, for the
fame or any part thereof; but on the contra
ry, that such claim of the said C. Pinckney,
was rejected by the Commiffioneis of claims,
against cotiftfcatcrl estates, and that the Com
nvflionerr entered minute* of their refufing
such claim, in their books in' the following
Words $ “At a board of commiflioners of
** claims against the confifcated estates, held
**' at Savannah, in the Rate - of Georgia, on
«« the 19th Hay of December 1783, present,
«« the Hon. Brigadier-General MTnrofh, f re
s' fident; the board having taken into their
** consideration an account preferred by Ch®.
Pincknev, Efq* one of the ececutore of
** Miles Brewtoo, Esq. deceased, by his at
«* torney James Moffman, against the efla*ea
«' of Sir James Wright for 132001. South
s' Carolina currency, and also an ac omit
againfl the estates of John Graham, &c.
«' are of opinion, that as the lare Charles
s» Pinckney became a Bntidi fubjert and re
s' sided with thun above two yeais, while
•' the Britilh courts and laws were open in
this (late, the accounts due fume years b*-
«‘ fore the revolution, and the peribns agamft
«‘ whom they aie brought, able to pay them,
** those accounts appear in their consequence
*• of too important a nantie for this board to
•* determine upon, and therefore they mult
• r< fer them to the Legtllirure, and elpe
cia'ly as it appears, the delay can be no
«• injury to the claimant, who acknowledges
lie may not be fufficientlv informed yet of
«* the true date of some of the accounts, and
«« therefote this boat icahnot think themselves
«‘ at liberty to make any provision for the
*' fame.,* He admitted that he and Robert
Norris, of Loudon, were the joint and seve
ral attorneys of the said Charles Pinkney, and
that they afted for him under a power of at
torney, dated the 26th day of May 1784,
whereby the said Charles Pinckney ceuftituted
the defendant, and the said Robert Norris,
liis attorney! jointty and feveralfy for him,
and in his name, and to and for the proper
vise and benefit ot the said Miles Brevrton*s
estates, to sue for, and recover from the said
S r James Wtight, all such sum and4\ims of
money, as were due and owing from him to
the estate of the (aid Miles Brewton : that be
bad obtained such letters of administration, of
the goods and chattels of the fan! Miles Bicw
ton, as in tfce said bill mentioned, but that
be had obtained the fame, as being receflary
to enable him to recover the said demand a
gairft the said fair jaxner Wright, lor ihe be
nefit cf the said Aubs btcuui 1, aud a} / 1) the
Ttcnn trade fay vine thinly, in d, (hi t\( if a
Cfbt, due Jxtn ju b 'Jictn »j ih ,itid Ames
J>rtn.vtin . tth.m iht dijndimi ; auil that when
the said (hailes P’mkney remitted the laid
pr< mift'ory note to the defendant, be dr retted
ike d'Jitraant to obtain payment thereof sum
Fir June* Wright, and u re an bn tom, in
of the debt dee firm the estate cl the
said Mile* Frewton to ti e defendant, the It m
s»f r.«col. Pet ling; that in ( tteber 1784 le
appljrd to 811 j.mer Wright lor (rymeur of
ti e money dt e on laid note, amounting to
cun«n«y, or 18941 14s bd. fill,
•hai in the conrlt of ihiec lolluwirg momhi,
I e had feveial eonlfrenrea w ih ihe • said fcir
j-uies Wiifthij ou u« ikbjtCi u tie Uid di*
r* mmd,Jwho not deny *e be-Joftlr
doe, but requested to have time to advise
with hit friends on the fubjeft of the said
debt, concerning which he informed the de
fendant he intended to apply to Parliament
for and that the defendant accordingly
indulged Sir Jam's Wright with, time until
the 9th of February 1785, when the defen
dant received a letter frotnßir James Wright
of that date, wherein be informed the defen
dant, that after having maturely conlidered
the fubjeft, he had resolved on applying to
Parliament, and if the defendant thought pro
per, he might commence an aftion against
him for the recovery of the fame: that the
defendant a* administrator of Brewton, ac
cordingly commenced an aftion against bit
James Wright, in April 1785* to which in
June following Sir James Wright pleaded a
(ham plea, but in the month of November
1785, the defendant obtained judgment in
the aftioit for 19811. (ss. sd. sterling; that
then Sir James Wright died ; and proceed
ings being commenced to revive the judg
ment against the plaintiffs as his executors, to
which they pleaded, the cause came on to be
tried, and the defendant recovered a verdift,
and judgment was entered on the 19th day of
Jury that then the plaintifts brought a
writ of error, which was ordered to be non
poffed, it appearing that on the defendant’s
agreeing not to proceed by original in the
aftion against Sir James Wright,, his attor
ney had undertaken to bring no writ of error t
after which the defendant applied te the plain
tiffs, to know whether they would pay the
debt, and on their refufal, commenced an
all ion on the said judgment, which aft ion
was still depending. He admitted that the
confifcated property of Sir James Wright had
been fold, and that by an aft of Alterably of
Georgia, directions had been given for apply
ing the produce, in the firfl place, in payment
of such debts as should be proved against such
effefts, to the fatitfaftion of the commissio
ners, but he did not know of any steps taken
towards proving this particular debt fublc
quent to ihe beforementioned entry., of the
board of commiflioncrs. He admitted that
Charles Pinkney was a member of the Ame
rican •Congtefs, but infilled that be ought,
notwitbftanding to be»at liberty to resort te
the plaintiffs as executors of Sir James Wiight
for payment of the debt, more especially as
Sir jams Wright in his life-time received
coyJtderabu Jams of moneyJrom the BritiJtJ Go
vei rwuHiy in part jnttsj actionJor the tojs vjbuh
b? jujtaintd bj ihe lonfcation of b>s property in
America*
The Attorney General, Solicitor General,
and Richards on behalf otthe plaintiffs*
The plaintiffs arc intkled to an mjur.ftioo,
at least till the coming in of Pinkney’s anlwer:
till then, it cannot appear that this demand
has not been aftually fatisfied in Amenta, it
is flateri, that when a claim was made on the
confifcated estate, the commiflioncrs did n 1
give a peremptory refufal, but doubting whe
ther they were at liberty to allow the debt,
referred the claimants to another tribunal.
Until the court therefore can fee, whether
resort was made to that tribunal, and if it
weie, wbat was the event of it, it is impof-
Able to fay whether part of the debt has not,
or might not have been recovered. In order
to the full difcuflion of this question, it may
be neceflary to know what the filiation and
conduft of Brewton and Pinkney were, as to
which, Nutt being resident here can give no
diflinft account, but out of which, when ex
plained by Pinkney’s answer, many points
may arise material in the cale. If a person
by fraud has been prevailed upon to give a
promiflory note, and the payee endorses it
over to another, merely for the purpose of
bringing ar aftion upon it but is himfclf a
broad ; if the indorfee brings an aftion, and
a bill for an injunftion is filed against him,
and it should appear from bis answer that the
note was indoifed to him merely to enable
him to bring an aftion, in that case the court
would grant an injunftion till the answer of
the real defendant came in. So here, Pink
ney is the real defendant, and it is poflible,
that he may by his answer admit that he has
received all the money, the claim having never
been absolutely rejefted hy the commiflioneri.
It is probable that Pinkney would have resort
ed to an ample fund for payment, rather than
purfut an insolvent debtor. Supposing Sir
James Wright had been alive, aud taken in
execution here, tins would have been a faiii-
1 faft’ou for the debt, at the moment when
Pinckney might have been receiving the mo
ney in" Georgia. Though the court should
have been of opinion that Sir James Wright
was liable to the payment of the debt, yet if
he were alive, he ought to be capable of being
put in the filtration in which Pinkney was,
with regard to the debt, before the confifea
tion and attainder : so also ought the execu
tors of Sir James Wright; Pinkney ought to
be able to entitle them to recover a (hart of
the confifcated- effefts in hie-stead. But ia
this cale neither Sir James Wrighs, if he were
alive, nor his executors linee his death, could
be enabled so to do by Pinkney. The court
will insist on Pinkney’s recovering ail he coaid
out of these effefts before he sues the plain
tiffs, becaufc if he does not recover faimfelf,
he cannot enable them to recover from that
fund in America. It is neceflary therefore
to grant an injunftion, at least till the anfwec
of Pinkuey comes in. But assuming the case
to be, that a person resident in and fubjeft to
the United States of America, has had an op
portunity of access to an estate for the pay
ment of his debt, taken from the debtor by
the legislature of that state to which he is fub
jeft, tbe question is, whether such person (hall
be permitted to bring an aftion in this country
and refufe to take that remedy which the
country to which he was a fubjeft thought
proper to grant him. In the case of a bank
rupt, if a creditor does not come in under
comraiflion, and the certificate is obtained,
he cannot sue the bankrupt in another coun
try. Pinkney was the real plaintiff at law,
a fubjeft of America, well affefted to the
American States, who was not disabled from
seeking his remedy in that country : this case
therefore is different from that of Kemp v •
Antill, where an aftion at law was brought
agaiuft Kempe on similar circumstances, and
an injunftion refuted, on the ground of Antill
being a loyalist, and ut.-tble to sue in Ame
rica. It is iucumbent on Pinkney, to ihew
all diligence to recover tbe whole debt ia
America, lince it would be grolly unjust, that
a cieditor who had it in his power to be fa*
tisfied in that country, should pursue the un
fortunate debtor in this, whose only fault was
his loyalty to Great-Britain. Though in this
particular case, Nutt made himfclf tbe perso
nal representative of Brewton, yet in truth he
is only attorney for Pinkney; when he took
out letters of admiuiftration, he did it as at
torney, and afted as such. r Nutt could not
sue in this country, without letters of admi*
mftration, which lie took out under the au
thority of Pinkney. The right of executing
in one country a ccntraft made in another, ia
founded on the law of nations : but the prin
ciple of the law of nations is mutuality; each
country allows to the ether the advantages it
receives. But if any one country should re
clare, that personal contrasts made by fo
reigners should not be executed within its
dominion, though the parties making the con
trast should there reside, that part of the law
of nations would cease with refpeft to the
country so declaring. The maritime law ia
adopted by all civilized nations who have any
use for it \ but lome there are who refufe to
admit it. The Algerines could not command
in Spain or Portugal, the justice of the coun
try refpefting captives at sea, not having
themselves received the maritime law, which
if not mutually binding, is not binding on
either party. So in the present case, the lfate
of Georgia seize all the property of Sir James
Wright both real and petfonal, and though
they incapicitate him from suing for any debt,
yet they declare they will sue for all debts due
to him, and vest them in the public flock*
The creditors therefore of Sir James Wright
in this country could not recover their debts
in Georgia, that state having declared that
they would apply those debts which were ow
ing to persons here, to the public fervice*
Every person resident in Great-Britain is
profciibed and deptived of all chance of re
covering a debt due to him in Georgia. A
creditor iu Georgia would have the land to
resort there, and the perfou of the debtor here,
as incidcut to a transitory contrast : but %
creditor in England could ooiy betake him
felt to the effects in England; he could not
make s claim ou ihe land of Geoigia, be has
not s double remedy. If this debt should be
receveitd from the petfonal cfftfta of Sir j,
Wiigbtiii thia country, payment could not
be enforced agairft his eftatti in Georgia.
If tbcrcfuit juuttuluy i* the true principle