HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0166 and id is 1 raw text is: WRIGHT V. NUTT
in a Court of Law nothing short of actual payment is good. Upon the whole there-
fore, as the case stands, there is nothing to prevent this Court from giving
Judgment for the plaintiff.
[The reporter was favoured with the following case, cited
in that preceding, of Folliolt v. Ogden.]
WRIGHT against Nurr AND AN6THER. [3 Br. C. C. 326, S. C.]
In Chancery. January 23, 1788.
In circumstances resembling those of the preceding case, it was a good ground of relief
in equity, that an ample fund was provided out of the effects of the attainted debtor
in America, for the payment of his debts, to which the creditor might have resorted,
and out of which he might have been paid. Accordingly an injunction was granted
by the Court of Chancery to prevent execution from being taken out on a judgment
obtained in an action at law by such a creditor (b).
This was a motion for an injunction, upon the coming in of the answer of one of
the defendants, to restrain them from taking out execution on a judgment obtained
in an action at law. The case made by the bill, was as follows :-
That Sir James Wright, deceased, was for many years before and in the year 1774,
and from thence to the acknowledgment of the Independence of the United States of
America, governor of the then province of Georgia, in North America, and constantly
resided there, till the troubles in that country commenced ; in the course of which
residence, he acquired very considerable property in the said province, consisting of
plantations, negroes, cattle, and other effects on his [137] said plantations; that in
the course of managing and cultivating the said plantation, Sir James Wright purchased
of Miles Brewton, of South Carolina, certain negro slaves, at the price of 88021. 5s.
current money of South Carolina, being of the value of 13001. sterling or thereabouts,
for which he gave the said Miles Brewton, his promissory note payable at a future day.
That the disturbances in America having soon after commenced, and the persons
who opposed the British authority having assumed to themselves the government of
the said province of Georgia, Sir James Wright, and the other persons who remained
loyal to Great Britain, were obliged to fly from the said province; that Sir James
Wright left behind him the whole of his property to a considerable amount, and
amongst the rest, the several slaves which he had purchased as aforesaid; that the
persons who on that occasion assumed the government, and established themselves
in the province of Georgia, in the month of March, 1776, passed an Act of Assembly
in the State of Georgia, entitled, An Act for Attainting such Persons as are therein
mentioned of High Treason, and for Confiscating their Estates both real and personal,
to the use of that State, for establishing Boards of Commissioners for the Sale of such
Estates, and for other Purposes therein mentioned, and it was thereby enacted, that
Sir James Wright, and 115 other persons should be attainted, and adjudged guilty
of high treason, and should be liable to the several penalties therein mentioned, and
that all the land and heritages, debts, goods, and chattels, whatsoever, of such persons
within that State, should according to the several estates and interests, which the
persons so attainted had therein, be deemed, and were thereby enacted, and declared
to be in the real and actual possession of the Government thereof, without any office
of inquisition ; and to the end that all the estates of the persons thereby attainted,
and the incumbrances thereon, might be the better discovered and ascertained, and
that the same might be applied to the uses of the State, it was enacted, that five
persons should be appointed in manner therein mentioned, to act as a board of com-
missioners, for each county within the said State, who were to sell all the real and
personal estate of the several persons named in the said Act, and the monies arising
by such sales were to be paid into the treasury of the said State, and that all persons
having any [138] demands on the forfeited estates, were to lay their claims before
the board of commissioners; and after liquidating all such claims on the said forfeited
estates, the said board of commissioners was to empower the sheriff of the county, or
(b) [Vide Cottin v. Blane, 2 Anstr. 544. Wright v. Simpson, 6 Vesey, 728. And
see the case of Odwin v, Forbes, reported by J. Henry, Esq. p. 160.]
1 H. BL. 137.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0166&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)