Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 8.djvu/128

 TREATY OF AMITY, COMMERCE AND NAVIGATION, Between ms Britannia Mkyesty and the United States of America, by their President, with the Advice and Con. sent <f their Senate. (a) Nov. 19, 1794. Hts Brittmnic Majesty and the United States of America, being """"‘“""' desirous, by a treaty of amity, commerce and navigation, to terminate their dilferences in such a manner, as, without reference to the merits of their respective complaints and pretensions, may be the best calculated to produce mutual satisfaction and good understanding; and also to regulate the commerce and navigation between their respective countries, territories and people, in such a manner as to render the same reciprocally beneficial and satisfactory; they have, respectively, named their plenipotentiaries, and given them full powers to treat of] and conclude the said treaty; that is to say: His Britannia Majesty has named for his Plenipotentiary, the Right Honorable William Wyndham Baron Grenville of Wotton, one of his Majesty’s Privy Council, and his Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and the President of the said United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof, hath appointed for their plenipotentiary, the honorable (a) For at list of the treaties and conventions between the United States and Great Britain, see ante, pa 54. fdditional note of the decisions of the courts of the United States, in cases arising under the Definitive Treaty of Peace with Great Britain of September 4, 1783. _ _ The treaty of pence between the United States and Great Br1tain, prevents the_operatton of the act of limitations of Virginia, upon British debts contracted before that treaty. Hopkrrk v. Bell, 3 Craneh, 454; 1 Cond. Rep. 595. _ _ _ _ _ The treaty of peace of 1783, between the United States and Great Britain, was a mere recognition of pre-existing rights as to territory, and no territory was thereb acquired by way of cession from Great Britain. Harcourt ct al. v. Gaillard, 12 Wheat. 523; 6 Cond. Yllep. 628. The act of the legislature of Virginia, of 1799, entitled "An act concerning escheats and forfeitures front British subjects," and under which a debtor to a subject of Great Britain had, in conformity to the provisions of that law, dunng the war, paid into the loan office of the state a portion of the debt due by htm, dtd not operate to protect the debtor from a suit for such debt, after the treaty of peace in 1783. The statute of Virginia, if it was valid, and the legislature could pass such a law, was annulled by the fourth article of the treatiy; and under this article, suits for the recovery of debts so due, might be maintained, the provisions o the Virginia law to the contrary notwithstanding. T’Vare, Adm’r of Jones, Plaintff in Error v. Hylton et al. 3 Dall. 199 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 99. Debts due in the United States to British subjects, before the war of the revolution, though sequestered or paid into the state treasunes, revived by the treaty of peace of 1783, and the creditors are entitled to recover them from the original debtors. late tj Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 1 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 8. G. Q., born in the colony of New York, went to England in 1738, where he resided until his decease; and being seised of lands in New York, he, on the 30th of November, 1776, in England, devised the same to the defendant and E. G., as tenants in common, and died so seised on the 10th of December, 1776. The defendant and E. C. having entered, and becoming possessed, E. C., on the 3d December, 1791, bargained and sold to the defendant all his interest. The defendant and E. C. were both born in England, long before the revolution. On the 29d March, 1791, the legislature of New York passedmn act to enable the defendant to purchase lands, and to hold all other lands which be might then be entitled to wuhtn the state, by purchase or descent, in fee simple; and to sell and dispose of the same, in the same_ manner as any natural born citizen might do. The treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1794, contains the following provision: “Article 9th. lt is agreed that British subjects who now hold lands in the territories of the United States, and American citizens who now hold lands in the donnnions of hismajesty, shall continue to hold them according to the nature and tenure of their respective estates and trtles therein; und may grant, sell, or devise the same to whom they please, in like manner as if they were natives; and_that neither they nor their heirs or assigns shall, so far as rospects the said lands_und the legal remedies incident thereto, be considered as aliens." The defendant, at the time of the action brought, still continued to be a British subject. Held, that he was entitled to hold the lands so devised to lnm by G. C., and transferred to him by E. C. New York v. Clarke, 3 Wlteat. 1 ; 4 Cond. Rep. 188. (116)