The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-04-23
REPORT OF n DECISION
In THE
Digb Court of appfais.
ROBERT REED, COLLIN REED, ,
huea n b.. LEN. AND Plaintiff.
VS..
MARGARET REED,
Defendant.

the period of the declaration of American In
dependence. In confequencc ofthe right which
he poileiied of acquiring and holding real pro
perty IN this country; right common to him
with every competent inhabitant of the Britilll
dominions, and fecured not only by the common
law OF England, but by the exprefs ttipulations
OF the colonial characters (Tuck. Bla. Vol. 9
note Co. he purchafed in the year l7o3 half
acre lot No. Z in the town of Staunton, and in
the year 1867, TAO acres of land in the county
OF Augufa. Being childIefs and without an
heir in this country, he wrote to his brother
John Reed of Ireland, conforming him that he
was pof1etled of coiderabe eftate, and that
he wilhed him to fend in fome of his children to
herr 1t. In confequence of this invitation, the
plaintiffs to the pretent fuit came over' to this
country; Robert Reed, Hugh Balentine and his
wife, (the daughter of John Reed) in the yea,
1854, and Collin Reed, two years afterwards.
In 1887, Robert Reed, the elder, departed this
lite without will and without iiluc, "leav;ny
Margaret his widow and reet, who fince his
death hath retained poflefIon of the etate.'
Whatever right might have been in the fate of
Virginia to this property by the operation of
efcheat, was vefted in Margaret Reed and her
heirs, by an act of ailemhly pailed December
18th 1889. Neither of the plaintiffs took the
oath of abjuration or allegiance before the death
of Robert Reed.
Under thefe circumstances the plaintiffs as
heirs at law, laid claim to the property of the
deceafed. Having attempted in vain TO COM
promife with the defendant, they determined to
try the validity of this title in a court of jufice;
and accordingly they inaituted a fut on writ
of ejectment, in the Staunton diftriGt court in
the year 100. After repeated combinations of
the caufe, and after two Eecial 4,erdiS:5 had
been found by jury, the diftriet court on Sept.
10th 1899, at length decided in favour of the
defendant. From this Judgment the plaintiffs
prayed an appeal to the high court of appeals,
before whom it was regularly brought at their
October term in 1900.
The decilion of the court has been pronoun-
ced during the preient feflion.
The principal queition at iilue was, whether
the plaintiffs who were born in Ireland prior to
the year 1870, and who did not become citizens
of this commonwealth, unit! after the deficient
OF the lands in queltion, were 1T that time difa
bled to take and hold lands within this COM
monwealth, and to bring any real or perfonal
action concerning them?
Coniidering the disabilities under which an
alien labours by the principles of the common
law, the queltion may be more iuccn6tly and
more generally ftated to be: Is an inhabitant
of the Britlh dominions who was born before,
and has not been natura!ized in this common
wealth fnre our revolution, TO be regarded as
an alien or not
The right ofthe plaintiffs was conidered ii
three points of view:
1T: How far it is fupported by the doc
trines of the common law of England, with no
other variation than what would arifc from the
erection of a new government in Virginia III '76.
end How far thofe doctrines are confronted
and modified by the principles of the revolution
and the iprit of the contribution.
srd: How far the title of the plaintiffs was
fupported by the treaty OF peace OF 1853.
lit was 1tated thatb the princip!es of The En-
e!iih common law, the allegiance OF TIC fub-
jeGt to the government was perpetual that
this allegiance impofed upon him, the duty OF
always obeying its lave, * conferred upon him
the correlative privilege of always proft;ng by
its proviions that among theic was the right
ofacquring and holding real property in Cife-
rent ways that hence every man was TO be
coniidered as inheriting perpetual capacity OF
inberiting real property that the people Of
this country and Of Great Britain, who were
born before our revolution, had beer bound by
the fame allegiance to a common government;
that they each of them had acquired the fame
Unbeatable capacity, in thofe douiinions, and
that they were entitled 70 long as they exiited,
TO inherit real property in either country. The
decfon of the EngIih court was cited in the
y cafe of Calvin, Co. 1. prove that flch was
1.-THE doctrine of the common law.
In anfwer TO this ltatement, il was contended,
that this Unbeatable quality was ultimately de-
rived from the exitence or allegiance: that e.
ven in Calvin's cafe, (Which contains the 4vboie
doctrine on this fubjett) it was adjudged that
whofoevers an alien born, is 20 accounted by
law in relbea Of tie HHg;" that the queftion
therefore in Calvin's cafe was more particularly,
whether he were an alien born, or not in yeLoed
?ftbe king Of England. Hence the quefti0n in
the prefent cafe is, whether the plaintiffs are a.
liens or not in refpect of the commonwealth of
Vbginia. But this quefion will fcarc.ly adj
NIT of any controversy. They were not even
citizens Of Virginia at the ara of the revolution,
though the people Of Virginia were the iubieets
of G. Britain, becauie there was no fuch fyE-
TEN At that time in exiitence, as the common
wealth Of Virginia. Thefe men cannot there
fore in reality DC faid to have been either citi-
zens OF aliens with refpect TO the commonwealth
of Virginia, either to have owed her any allie
glance, or not to have owed her any.
Great frsf was placed by the plaintiffs on
refolution ID this cafe OF Calvin. II was reGolyed
that if the two Kingdoms England and Scot
land which had iut been united under James H.
hould by deficient be divided and governed by
)s1erai Kings, yet that all thofe who were born
under one natural obedience while the realms
were united under one ioveregn ihould remain
natural born fubieGts and 10 aliens" Co. 81.
Here then the judges were Of opinion that in a
cafe of dlimenberment OF the two Kingdoms
and theie being governed by Everai kings, the