Ogden Cornell v. Blackledge Salter
| Decision Date | 01 February 1804 |
| Citation | 2 Cranch 272,6 U.S. 272,2 L.Ed. 276 |
| Parties | OGDEN, administrator of CORNELL v. BLACKLEDGE, executor of SALTER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case came before the court on a certificate of a division of the judges of the circuit court of the district of North Carolina.
The certificate set forth:
'United States of America, North Carolina district.
'At a circuit court of the United States, begun and held at Raleigh for the district of North Carolina, on Wednesday the twenty-ninth of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and two, and in the twenty-seventh year of American independence.
'Present, the honourable John Marshall and Henry Potter, esquires.
'Robert Ogden, administrator de bonis non with the will annexed of Samuel Cornell v. Richard Blackledge, executor of Robert Salter deceased.
'State of the pleadings.
'This is an action of debt upon a bond given by the defendant's testator, to the testator of the plaintiff, on the second day of March 1775.
'The defendant, among other pleas, pleads in bar an act of the general assembly of the state of North Carolina, passed in the year 1715, entitled, 'an act concerning proving wills and granting letters of administration; and to prevent frauds in the management of intestate estates;' the ninth section of which is in the following words:
'And be it further enacted, that creditors of any persons deceased, shall make their claim within seven years after the death of said debtor, otherwise such creditor shall be for ever barred.
'To which plea the plaintiff replies, in substance, that the plaintiff's testator was, at his death, a British subject, and the debt within the true intent and operation of the fourth article of the treaty of peace concluded between the King of Great Britain and the United States.
'To this replication the defendant demurs, and the plaintiff joins in demurrer.
'This case coming on to be argued at this term, it occurred as a question, whether the act of assembly, recited in the plea of the defendant, was, under all the circumstances stated, and the various acts passed by the legislature of North Carolina, a bar in this action.
'On which question, the opinions of the judges were opposed.
'1. That Samuel Cornell, the plaintiff's testator, was, and till his death continued to be, a subject of the king of Great Britain; and the defendant's testator was, and till his death continued to be, a citizen or North Carolina.
'2. That the defendant's testator died in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty; and the defendant in the same year was qualified as executor.
The question in the case was, whether the plaintiff was barred of his action by the ninth section of the act of the assembly of North Carolina, passed in 1715.
The laws of the state of North Carolina, which operated on the question, certified by the circuit court, were:——
An act passed in April 1784, entitled, a supplemental act to an act entitled an act for proving of wills, and granting administration, and to prevent frauds in the management of intestates' estates:
'1. Whereas it is enacted in the ninth section of the said act, 'that creditors of any person deceased shall make their claims in seven years after the death of such debtor, otherwise such creditor shall be for ever barred; and if it shall happen that any sum or sums of money, shall hereafter remain in the hands of any administrator after the term of seven years shall be expired, and not recovered by any of kin to the deceased, or by any creditor in that time, the same shall be paid to the church wardens and vestry, to and for the use of the parish, where the said money shall remain.' And as there are no church wardens and vestry to make claim in such cases,
'2. Be it therefore enacted, &c. that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Addison v. Huron Stevedoring Corp.
...In Town of Koshkonong v. Burton, 14 Otto 668, 104 U.S. 668, 678-679, 26 L.Ed. 886, the Court said: "When counsel, in Ogden v. Blackledge, 2 Cranch 272, 277 2 L.Ed. 276, announced that, to declare what the law is, or has been, is a judicial power, to declare what the law shall be is legislat......
-
Presley v. Mississippi State Highway Com'n
...on this particular subject, which under our Constitution only the Legislature may do. Miss. Const. Art. IV, § 33. Ogden v. Blackledge, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 272, 2 L.Ed. 276 (1804); Case of Hayburn, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 408, 1 L.Ed. 436 (1792); Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1, 42-43, 6 L.......
-
Weaver v. Graham
...penal decisions with prospective effect and the judiciary and executive to applications of existing penal law. Cf. Ogden v. Blackledge, 2 Cranch 272, 277, 2 L.Ed. 276 (1804). 11 See Jaehne v. New York, 128 U.S. 189, 194, 9 S.Ct. 70, 71, 32 L.Ed. 398 (1888) (portion of legislation void which......
-
Riepe v. Riepe
...by the people, either directly or through the legislature in a representative capacity, not by the court. See Ogden v. Blackledge, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 272, 277, 2 L.Ed. 276 (1804) ("To declare what the law is, or has been, is a judicial power; to declare what the law shall be, is legislative.......