Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/410

404

been subjected to the penalties of confiscation in other States, and of British merchants and others residing in Great Britain, and of all other British subjects, were vested in the said State.

“That James Spalding, a citizen of Georgia, and surviving co-partner of Kelsall & Spalding, was indebted to the defendants in the penal sum of ₤7085. 9s. 5d. upon a bond dated theof1774, which debt, by virtue of the said recited law, was transferred from the obligees and vested in the State:—Brailsford being a native subject of Great Britain, constantly residing there from the year 1767 ’till after the passing of the law; Hopton’s estate real and personal, (debts excepted) having been expressly confiscated by an act of the legislature of South Carolina; and Powell coming within the description of persons, whose estates real and personal (debts excepted) were also confiscated by acts of the legislature of South Carolina, if after refusing to take the oath of allegiance, they returned to the State.

“That an action had been brought upon the bond, by Brailsford, Powell and Hopton, against James Spalding, as surviving partner of Kelsall & Spalding, in the circuit court for the district of Georgia, ofterm, 1791, in which action there was a plea, demurrer to the plea, joinder in demurrer, and judgment thereupon for the plaintiffs.

“That the State had never relinquished its claim to this, debt, but, on the contrary, had asserted it by divers acts of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, departments; and, particularly, by directing the Attorney General to apply for a rule, to be admitted to assert the claim, in all suits brought in any court, for debts within the descriptions of the confiscation law above cited.

“That the Attorney General applied to the Circuit court for the admission of the State, as a party, to defend its claim in the said suit of Brailsford and others versus Spalding, then depending there, which application was rejected; and that in that suit, as well as divers other suits, recoveries were had against citizens of the state by British merchants, for debts within the descriptions of the confiscation law, upon the sole principle of debtor and creditor, and without any reference to the right and claim of the state.”

The bill proceeds to charge a confederacy between the parties to the suit in the circuit court to defraud the State; and that in pursuance thereof the plaintiffs had issued execution against the defendant, and the defendant had confederated with them not to take out a writ of error; so that the defendant’s property will be levied on, and disposed of, and the State will be defrauded of its just claim thereon.

The bill then suggests the general foundation for the jurisdiction on the equity side of the court;—puts the proper rogatories ;