Case ID: kirby_1/html/0291-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beekman, Son, and Gold v. Isaac Tomlinson and Russel Tomlinson.
    A judgment of confiscation, and proceedings thereon, does not bar the recovery of any debt not exhibited to the commissioners.
    AonoN — Book debt. Plea •— That the defendants were prosecuted by the selectmen of the town of Woodbury, in Litchfield county, for having put themselves under the protection. of tbe enemies .of tbe United States; and tbat their whole estate was confiscated, and adjudged to be forfeited, to tbe use and benefit of tbe state of Connecticut: Tbat an administrator, and commissioners, were appointed, to administer and settle tbeir estate, wbo duly advertised tbeir appointment in tbe public papers, and requested all creditors to exbibit tbeir claims of debt against tbe defendants. And said administrator proceeded to tbe complete settlement of tbeir estates, wbicb was found to be sufficient to pay all tbe claims exhibited to said commissioners, and all charges thereon; and also, there was a surplus remained, more than sufficient to pay and satisfy tbe plaintiffs’ debt and demand, and all other just demands against tbe defendants; and tbat tbe claim of tbe plaintiffs being founded upon a contract antecedent to said judgment of confiscation, ought to have been exhibited in due and legal manner against tbe administrator of tbe estates of tbe defendants, and cannot now be supported against them.
    Eeplication.— Tbat tbe plaintiffs were inhabitants of tbe state of New York, and bad no knowledge of tbe proceedings against tbe defendants’ estate, until tbe whole, was finished; and tbat they bad no opportunity to exhibit tbeir claim.
    To this there was a demurrer, and joinder in demurrer — and judgment for tbe plaintiffs.
   By the Court.

Tbat'the defendants committed treason, and thereby incurred a forfeiture of tbeir estate to tbe public, gives them no claim to tbe discharge of tbeir debts, nor bad any effect to dissolve tbeir contracts. Marks v. Johnson, ante, 228. And tbe provision under tbe act of confiscation, for letting in creditors upon tbe estate forfeited to tbe public, was in favor to tbe creditors, and intended solely for tbeir benefit, that they might not lose their debts: But their waiving the benefit of that provision, does not, by the words, or any implication of the act, bar their right of recovery against the person of the debtors, or the estate they might afterwards acquire, or had at the time of confiscation, either in this state or elsewhere.