Case ID: add_1/html/0009-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WASHINGTON COUNTY,
    September Term, 1791.
    Pennsylvania, v. Charles Simms.
    TWO bonds, each in the penalty of 478l. and for the payment of 239l. were given by Charles Simms to Alexander Ross on 24th August, 1775; one of them payable in two years, the other in three, from the date of the bonds. The property of Alexander Ross being confiscated by the “act for the attainder of divers traitors,” &c. the agents for confiscated property in Westmoreland obtained these bonds from the persons in whole custody they were left, by A. Ross, and issued two foreign attachments, founded on them, by which land of the defendants in the county of Washington was attached. Special bail was entered in both actions, and payment, with leave to give the special matter in evidence, pleaded ; and now, by consent, both were tried by the same jury.
    6 March, 1778.
    
    1 St. L. 750.
    Brackenridge, Ross, and Woods for defendant,
    produced a long statement of facts admitted by Mr. Ormsby and Mr. Galbraith, agents for confiscated property: from many of which it appeared, that it had been intended, that this cause should be argued, on the ground, that C. Simms and A. Ross, having both lived at Pittsburgh under the government of Virginia, and as citizens of Virginia, and never citizens of Pennsylvania, this debt was not forfeitable nor attachable by a law of Pennsylvania. But the points admitted, on which the case was argued, were that the bonds in question were given for land in Washington county, sold to Simms in 1775, part of a grant by the Six Nation Indians to George Croghan, who had no other title to it; that this land sold to Simms by Ross, had been sold by Croghan to Ross, who had no other title to it; that the grant from the Six Nations to Croghan expressed, that it was to have no operation within the limits of Pennsylvania; that an act of assembly of the state of Virginia (which had exercised a disputed jurisdiction in Washington county) passed in 1779, made void all Indian grants, and that Simms derived no right or benefit by his purchase from Ross.
    
    2 Burr. 1012.
    1 Bla. 445.
    1 Str. 674.
    
    1 Eq. ca. 84-5.
    
    Dall. 17, 28, 257.
    They then read the Virginia act of assembly above mentioned, the conveyances from Croghan, &c. and relied on want of consideration, and an assignee standing in no better situation than the obligee.
    
      Bradford for the State.
    At the time of the purchase from Ross, legal titles were not common. Many purchased mere improvements, and took their chance of title. Here there was no fraud. If the land had become of great value, Ross could have claimed no more, therefore Simms ought to pay no less.
   President suggested, that Simms, disclaiming all right to these lands under this title, and refusing to pay the consideration money, ought, at least, to release this title to the state. Mr. Simms immediately offered to do this; but Mr. Bradford thought it not worth accepting.

President directed the jury, that, if they thought it the meaning of the parties to buy and sell a legal title, they should find for the defendant. But if it was their meaning to buy and sell only a claim or occupancy, which might be beneficial or otherwise, they should find for the plaintiff. This is not the case of an assignee for a price paid for the bond, but like the case of an heir or executor of a dead man, who must take all the property of the deceased with all its incumbrances. Were it the case of an assignee for full value, our act of assembly puts him on the same ground with the obligee. Were it otherwise, the state, having fold the land to others, or if to the defendant, for another consideration (the compact between the two states is a consideration) ought not to require payment twice for the same property. Pennsylvania therefore stands in a worse situation, than any other assignee; and Simms has received no consideration for these bonds. The risk of a rise or a fall of the value of the land, is out of the question either way.

There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. 
      
       It seems Mr. Simms, despairing of holding this land by the Indian grant, had surveyed some of it on a Virginia treasury warrant, and to held it under the compact between the states: and the land attached was the same land.