Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation.
About The Augusta chronicle and gazette of the state. (Augusta [Ga.]) 1789-1806 | View Entire Issue (July 31, 1790)
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
