5 D.C. 403 (C.C.D.C. 1838), 847, Bank of Alexandria v. Dyer

Docket Nº:847[1]
Citation:5 D.C. 403, 2 F.Cas. 605
Party Name:BANK OF ALEXANDRIA v. DYER.
Attorney:Mr. R. S. Coxe, for the plaintiffs. Mr. W. L. Brent, contra. Mr. Bradley, on the same side. Mr. Coxe, in reply.
Judge Panel:MORSELL, Circuit Judge, contra

Page 403

5 D.C. 403 (C.C.D.C. 1838)

2 F.Cas. 605

BANK OF ALEXANDRIA

v.

DYER.

No. 847 [1]

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March 1838. [2]

At law. Assumpsit [by the Bank of Alexandria] for money had and received by the defendants [Edward Dyer and Francis C. Dyer] to the plaintiff's use. The defendants pleaded non-assumpsit, and the statute of limitations of Maryland, (1715, c. 23.) The plaintiffs relied, that at the time of making the promise ‘ they were in the county of Alexandria in the District of Columbia, beyond the seas, and so in the county of Alexandria, beyond the seas, remained and continued until the day of the impetration of the original writ aforesaid, to wit, at Washington county aforesaid; and this they are ready to verify,’ & c. To this replication the defendants demurred. [Demurrer sustained. This judgment was subsequently affirmed by the supreme court in Bank of Alexandria v. Dyer, 14 Pet. (39 U. S.) 141.]

Mr. R. S. Coxe, for the plaintiffs.

Alexandria county and Washington county are governed by different laws; as much so as Virginia and Maryland. This point has always been so decided by this court, in the removal of slaves from one county to the other. When two places are under different sovereignties, they are beyond seas as to each other. The laws of Alexandria and Washington are derived from different sovereignties; and those laws are specially continued in force in the respective counties, by the act of congress of the 27th of February, 1801, (2 Stat. 103.) Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. [24 U. S.] 361.

Mr. W. L. Brent, contra.

The savings in the statute do not apply to a bank; such as non-age, coverture, and imprisonment. A bank has no residence. The replication merely says that the plaintiffs were in Alexandria county when the promise was made.

Mr. Bradley, on the same side.

The judicial jurisdiction of the two counties is the same; and by the act of congress of the 24th of June, 1812, § 5, (2 Stat. 755,) executions may be served in either county. Scotland is not beyond seas in respect to England. Byles, Lim. 193; Le Roy v. Crowninshield, [Case No. 8,269.]

Mr. Coxe, in reply.

If this case had happened before the 27th of February, 1801, the replication would have been good. The act of congress of that date continues the laws of the two counties as they were before; if so, the plaintiffs have the same...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP