1821. Prevost V. Gratz. conveyed by either of these deeds ever turned out productive. And there are the strongest presumptions in the case, and it seems, indeed, to be on all sides conceded, that either the title to these lands wholly failed, or became altogether unsaleable. There is no reason to suppose that these facts lay more peculiarly in the knowledge of one party than the other; and if the trust became utterly frustrated and inert, there could not be any necessity of giving a formal notice, that Bernard Gratz must look to other property, and particularly to the property in Westmoreland county, upon which alone, it is understood by the laws of Pennsylvania, the lien of the judgment attached. There is no proof that any assets ever came to the hands of Bernard Gratz or Michael Gratz, out of which this judgment was, or could be satisfied. Bernard Gratz was alone interested in it; and it was kept alive from time to time, until the levies in question were made. It will be recollected also, that even if Michael Gratz were disposed to connive, after the death of his brother, in the levies of his son Simon, William Powell, who was another executor, had no such motive. And, it is not shown that, by any law or usage in Pennsylvania, any notice is required to be given to any other persons than the personal representatives of the deceased, of the execution of any such judgment on lands, so that laches could be fairly imputed to the executors for neglect to give notice to the heirs of Col. Croghan of the sale. The very length of time during which this judgment remained unsatisfied, is evidence of the desperate state Prevost V. Gratz. of Col. Croghan's affairs; and the record abounds with 1821. corroborations of the great embarrassments attending all his concerns, and of apparent insolvency at the time of his decease. No evidence has been submitted to us to establish that the levies on the lands, under the judgment, were fraudulently conducted by the sheriff, or that they did not sell for the full value of the title, such as it was, which Col. Croghan had in them. It appears that the title, as to some part of them, is still in controversy. And Simon Gratz, the judgment creditor, had as much right, if the sale was bona fide conducted, to become the purchaser, if he was the highest bidder, as any other per son. the proceeds of lands, Upon the whole, the majority of the Court entirely Decree, as to concurs, in the opinion of the Circuit Court upon theeversed, this part of the case. But, as to the decree respecting the proceeds of the Tenederah lands, we are all of opinion that it ought to be reversed. If the Court had felt any doubts as to the merits, it would have been proper to have given serious consideration to the very able argument made at the bar, respecting the defect of proper parties to the bill. But, as upon the merits, the Court is decidedly against the plaintiff, it seemed useless to send back the cause upon this objection, if it should be found tenable, when, after all, the case furnished no substantial ground for relief in equity." DECREE. These causes, being cross appeals, VOL. VI. a Vide 1 Peters, jun. Rep. 364. S. C. 1821 Bowie V. Henderson. came on to be heard at the same time, and were argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is ORDERED and DECREED, that the decree of the Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania in the premises, be, and the same is hereby reversed. And this Court proceeding to pass such decree as the said Circuit Court should have passed, it is farther ORdered and decreED, that the complainant's bill, as to all the matters contained therein, be, and the same is hereby dismissed; and that a mandate issue to the said Circuit Court, to dismiss the same accordingly, without costs. (LOCAL LAW.) BOWIE V. HENDERSON et al. The third section of the act of Congress, of March 30th, 1803, for the APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia. This suit was instituted by the appellant against the respondents, on the Chancery side of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, for the county of Alexandria, under the local law giving a process in Chancery in the nature of a foreign attachment. The bill charged a debt due on bills of exchange, from the defendant, Henderson, to the complainant; that the debtor was an absentee; that he had funds in the hands of the defendant Auld; and prayed a condemnation of those funds, to answer the complainant's demand. The defendant, Henderson, pleaded the statute of limitations, non assumpsit infra quinque annos. To this plea the complainant filed the following replication: And the said W. Bowie saith, that he ought not to be precluded from having and maintaining his bill aforesaid, by any thing alleged by the defendant, Henderson, in his plea aforesaid; because he saith, that the said A. Henderson, on the 8th of May, 1806, in the county of Alexandria, before N. F., one of the judges of the District of Columbia, did take the benefit of the act for the relief of insolvent debtors within the District of Columbia, and did then and there give a schedule of his estate, and a list of his creditors; and in the said list of his creditors so given in, he, the said Henderson, did state, that the said complainant was a creditor of his to the amount of $4,586 39 centswhich said list of creditors so given in, he, the said Henderson, did state, was entered of record in the clerk's office of the Court of the county of Alexandria, as by reference to the records of the said Court will fully and at large appear, and which said debt 1821. Bowie V. Henderson. 1821. Bowie V. Henderson. so given in, is the debt for which the complainant has instituted his suit aforesaid. And the said complainant saith, that the moneys and effects which the said complainant seeks, in his bill aforesaid, to subject to the payment of his debt aforesaid, were obtained and acquired by the said defendant, Henderson, long subsequent to his taking the oath of insolvency aforesaid. And the said complainant saith, that as soon as he, the said complainant, obtained any knowledge of the said defendant, Henderson, having obtained the funds aforesaid, and within the period of six months after he obtained a knowledge thereof, he, the said complainant, did institute his aforesaid bill in Chancery, to subject the funds to the payment of his said debt, all which, &c. The defendant demurred to this replication, and the Court below, on hearing, adjudged the demurrer good. The question in this case turned upon the construction of the third section of the act of Congress, for the relief of insolvent debtors within the District of Columbia, passed March 3d, 1803, which is in these words: "And be it further enacted, That upon the petitioning debtor's executing a deed or deeds to the said trustee, conveying all his property, real, personal, and mixed, and all his claims, rights, and credits, agreeably to the oath or affirmation of the said debtor, and on delivering all his said property which he shall have in his possession, together with his books, papers, and evidences of debts of every kind, to the said trustee, and the said trustee's certifying the same to the said judge in writing, it shall be lawful |