Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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