The Sun.
London, England, 1812-12-12 00:00:00

Royal lignk ; but
.as matters stand; qt cleat' that
the demand is, in the face of All those general
brinciples of inter-national law which the Courts
oth of England and Scotland haveolltite
ply recognised. It is impossible, in consistency'
with these principles, to suppose two separate and
conflicting commissions going on at the same time,
in distribution of the sameestate to the same body
of creditors,;. a state of things, the first view., of
which,. as the inevitable consequence of the plea
9f the
,ROyal Bank, is lluite enough, previously to.
ail imairy, to warrant the presumption that such
could never be the law, either of :England or
Scotland.

For the Royal Bank it was argued, that the as-
sumption of the assignees, that as London was the,
domicile, or one of the domiciles of the company,
it Must be held as effectual to sustain any proceed-
ing in bankruptcy, sous to carry the whole es-
t-.l.te and effects of the company wherever situated,
is a plea which makes the assumption of so many
points, some of them,
.at the best,. very dwubtiul,
and others entirely false,,and seems very ill suited
.for opposing the_nridoubtedly legitimate proceed-
ing of' the Scottish creditors of a Scottish house,
carrying on trade 'in Scotland, down to the very
day of their failure, and directed against property
locally situated -in Scotland. The ground on
which the -English assignees rely, in contending
forthis, etraordinary power of the English com-
mission, is that maxim which they have so egre-
gionsly mistaken, that movables have. no Titus;,
anal they have founded upon as if it were not
fiction, but a rule of Yaw. That the maxim al-
luded to is a mere fiction, is manifeSt from this,
that it is Contrary to the-truth of the fact, and (le-
pied iii hang cases by the law, The locality of
-debts "-cannot be questioned ; and -movable pro-
perty in another country, s subject- to the terri-
torial law concerning it ; it can be-recovered only
by the aid of the territorial law, and being attach-
ed where it lies, it will found a jurisdiction in the
ec,nirtS of that. country against the owneV: Even
if the "right contended for by the assignees-were
admitted-, they could recover, the property of
Messes. Steins in this country,--only by the aid of
the Scottish law, and through 'the 'operation of
Scottish forms -of execution.

, _lt seems to be
,one of the most essential prin-
ciples of the law of debtor and creditor, that the
jurisprudence in the country in which the debtor
resides, in which the contract is made, and in
Which execution is to proceed, forms one distinct
part of the connexion subsisting - between the
creditor and the debtor. At bile the'debtor continues
solvent, he may, in the admiuistratio.-. of his af-
fairs, have its effect's in other countries, or may
himself be accidentally there ; but he Cannot,
without fraud, do any act intentionally, to defeat
the rights to which his creditors bad trusted, or to
force him to make his claim according to the rule!
of a foreign law. If this be the true principle its
the ease of an individual, it remains to lie seen on
•what footing it is possible to rest the extraordi,
:nary. doctrine; . that where there are two compa-4
nies and a double domicile, the English commis-
sion must necessarily supersede the sequestration
in Scotland. It is admitted, in the first place,
that the effect thus ascribed to the commission, is
derived from its priority alone ; and therefore it
follows, not only that sequeStration war originally
competent in Scotland, but that it might, by the
same priority, have been the ruling process, and
have brought ;dr the English effects hither for dis-
tribution. -But sequestration could not have been
competent, except on
-the footing of domicile
in Scotland ; and this, implies,. that the company
of Scott, Smith, Stein, and Co. had been esta-
blishedin Scotland—had carried on their dealings
an Scotland--e-had raised.a credit *lib Scotti'sh -mer-
chants—and. had•indUced those Merchants to rely
on the Scottish law for! ecovery of their debts.—
Themovable estate of the bankrupt is,- however,
to be considered as in his place lA' domicile,
though locally elsewhere; and by which the domi-
cile itself is to lie ascertained. It is by the law of
Scotland, therefore, according to this reasoning,
that proceedings against the Scottish company and
its partners domiciled here can be taken. Now,,
is ;here any injustice, any incongruity., in giving
effect to these firm principles, if there be no en
eroachment on the right of the English creditors?
'ls there no alternative between the total extinc-
tion of the domicile already established in Scot-
land, and consequent annihilation Of all those
rights which the Scottish creditors had acquired,
and. the inefficiency of the English commission ?
The applicants do not contynd for the annihila-
tion of the commission, so far as it is applied to
the English company and effects ; they only con-:
tend for the efficacy of their own proceedings,
and the preservation of their own rights,as.Seottish
creditors. There is neither incongruity, nor in-
justice, nor inexpediency, but much the reverse of
all this, in admitting each *of these great processes
of the respective laws tus their fair operation,
against the English an.] Scottish firms-. Nay,
without this, the fair principle of law„which con-
templates the property as concentrated in the
seat of trade; is denied its due operation. A case,
may be supposssti, in which the two proceedings
would necessarily both have effect.
.For as it was
the duty of the bankrupt to be impartial in their -
dealing's with their creditors, it may be supposed
that they had given their aid, respectively in Eng-
land and Scotland, rsith such correctness, ks to
enable the commission and tie sequestration to
be issued in London and awarded in. Edinburgh at
one and the same time. Is is unquestionable, in
that case that both must have been inevitable, for
in each country there was a domiile to authorise
the proceedings : in each there was a firm 'and a
separate establishment, and in each there were
distinct funds.

These are the general arguments of the parties
applicable to this case, in so far as our limits will
allow us to go. .There were no doubt other oh=
jections stated by the Royal Bank, to the title, to
the domicile,- to the Connexitm of the Scottish with
the English company, AO to the bona. fides of the
company of Scott, Smith, Stein and Co. who,
they Alleged, were in collusion with the English
assignees. These objections were satisfactorily
answered by the assignees, and the great and cer-
tainly important question for the consideration of
the Court was, whether or not the commission of