Dawson Lessee v. Godfrey

• Decision Date: 01 February 1808
• Citation: 8 U.S. 321,2 L.Ed. 634,4 Cranch 321
• Parties: DAWSON'S LESSEE v. GODFREY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

8 U.S. 321

4 Cranch 321

2 L.Ed. 634

DAWSON'S LESSEE v. GODFREY.

February Term, 1808

ERROR to the circuit court of the district of Columbia, sitting at Washington.

Russel Lee, a citizen of the United States, in the year 1793 died seised in fee of a tract of land, called Argyle, Cowall and Lorn, situated in that part of the district of Columbia which was ceded to the United States by the state of Maryland. Mrs. Dawson, the lessor of the plaintiff, would be entitled to the land by descent, unless prevented by the application of the principle of alienage. She was born in England before the year 1775, always remained a British subject, and was never in the United States.

The court below instructed the jury that she was an alien, and could not take the land by descent from Russel Lee in the year 1793.

The question having been fully argued, but not decided, in the cases of Lambert's Lessee v. Paine, (ante, vol. 3. p. 97.) and M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, (ante, vol. 2. p. 280.) the counsel (viz. Morsell and Jones for the plaintiff in error, and P. B. Key for the defendant) agreed to submit it to the court without further argument.

JOHNSON, J.^* delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:

This case rests upon the single question, Whether a subject of Great Britain, born before the declaration of independence, can now inherit lands in this country? The general doctrine is admitted, that in the state of Maryland, in which the land lies, an alien cannot take by descent; but it is contended, upon the doctrine laid down in Calvin's case, that the rights of the antenati of Great Britain formed an exception from the general rule. The point decided in the case of Calvin was, that a Scotsman, born after the union, could inherit lands in England. It is evident that this case is not directly in point, for the only objection here to the right of recovery did not exist in Calvin's case, as whether in England or in Scotland, he was equally bound in allegiance to the king of Great Britain. It would be a contradiction in terms to contend that Dawson or his wife ever owed allegiance to a government which did not exist at their birth. It is upon a supposed analogy, therefore, and the reasoning of the judges in Calvin's case, that the argument for the plaintiffs is founded. In the two cases of Coxe and M'Ilvaine and Lambert and Payne, in this court, this doctrine was very amply discussed, and this case is submitted upon those arguments. The counsel there contended, that the relation of the postnati of Scotland (after the union) to the subjects of Great Britain, was identically the same with the antenati of Great Britain (before our revolution) to the citizens of this country, and that the...