Case ID: us_2/html/0217-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ward versus Hallam.
    THE plaintiff was a citizen of, and resident in, South-Carolina, and the defendant was a citizen of, and resident in, Pennsylvania for six years before the present action (founded upon a promissory note) was commenced. The statute of limitation being pleaded, judgment was confessed for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court, whether, under the circumstances of the case, the plea in bar was sufficient?
    The point was argued on the 9th of April, 1793, by Rawle, for the plaintiff, and Dallas, for the defendant.
    In support of the plea, it was contended, that the exception in favor of absentees, contained in the last section of the act of Pennsylvania (1 Vol. p. 97. Dall. Edit.) obviously extended only to the case of creditors beyond sea; for, it is to their case expressly, that the words "returning into this Province,” are applied. So, in the construction of the statute of 21 Jac. 1. c. 16. respecting-absent creditors, and the act of 4 and 5. Ann. c. 16. respecting absent debtors, the exception has always been confined to persons absent beyond seas; and Scotland has been adjudged not to be within the statute. Espinasse 153. 1 Bl. Rep. 286. The several American Provinces, before the revolution, were as nearly connected under the same sovereign, as England and Scotland, since the Revolution, they form one nation, it would be a geographical absurdity to consider an inhabitant of South-Carolina to be beyond the seas, in relation to Pennsylvania; and it would be a political absurdity to consider him, in the phraseology of some English books, to be in foreign parts. If an inhabitant of South-Carolina is to be regarded in either light, so must an inhabitant of Delaware, or New Jersey.
    
    Jersey.===It was answered, for the plaintiff, that, in the general opinion, the act of limitations had never been supposed to operate against persons who were out of the State, whether they resided in any other part of America, or were actually beyond sea. The act of Pennsylvania is subsequent in date to the English statutes on the same subject; and conforms to the 21 Jac. 1. except that the 21 Jac. 1. speaks of returning from beyond seas, while the act speaks of returning into this Province. The words “beyond seas,” however, will be found to have been adopted as a general substitute for the words "out of the realm,” from the time that the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland, became united under one King. To consider those words in our code, in a strict geographical sense, would render them extravagant, and in many cases useless; for a man might reside at Lima, or Cape-Horn, and yet be within the operation of the act; Besides, the Legislature of Pennsylvania has no political, or moral, right, to make laws to bind persons who are out of her jurisdiction.
   After the argument, the Court declared a desire to obtain some information, as to the practice of other States on the subject and kept the caufe under advifement for that purpose, ’till the present Term; when they gave judgment for the defendant, as in the cafe of anon-fuit.

Judgment for the defendant.