Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Propagation_of_the_Gospel_in_Foreign_Parts_v._New-Haven
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:50:22+00:00

Document:
The cause was argued at the last term by Mr. Hopkinson, for the plaintiffs, and by Mr. Webster, for the defendants, and continued to the present term for advisement. Feb. 15th, 1822.
The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of 1794 provides, that the citizens and subjects of both nations, holding lands, (thereby strongly implying that there were no forfeitures by the revolution,) shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of their estates; that they may sell and devise them; and shall not, so far as respects these lands, and the legal remedies to obtain them, be considered as aliens. In the case of Kelly v. Harrison, [b] which was that of an alien widow of a citizen of the United States, the Supreme Court of New-York held, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover dower of lands, of which her husband was seised, prior to the 4th of July, 1776, but not of lands subsequently acquired. The British treaties were not considered by the Court as bearing on the case.
It was, therefore, the naked question, of the effect of the revolution, even upon a contingent right to real property, acquired antecedent to the revolution. In the same case, Mr. Chief Justice Kent says, 'I admit the doctrine to be sound, (Calvin's Case, 7 Co. 27 b. Kirby's Rep. 413.) that the division of an empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The revolution left the demandant where she was before.' [c] The case of Jackson v. Lunn, [d] gives the same principle, and also recognises the treaty of 1794, as confirming the title of persons holding lands.
In Harden v. Fisher, [e] which was also under the treaty of 1794, this Court held, that it was not necessary for the party to show a seisin in fact, or actual possession of the land, but only that the title was in him, or his ancestors, at the time the treaty was made. The treaty applies to his title, as existing at that epoch, and gives it the same legal validity as if he were a citizen. In a subsequent case, Jackson v. Clark, [f] where the point was, whether an alien enemy could make a will of lands in New-York, or convey his estate in any manner, the Court would not hear an argument, it being settled by former decisions. [g] In Orr v. Hodgson, [h] the Court confirmed the same doctrine, and also determined, that the 6th article of the treaty of 1783, was not meant to be confined to confiscations jure belli; but completely protected the titles of British subjects from forfeiture by escheat for the defect of alienage. But the great leading case on this subject, is that of Fairfax v. Hunter, [i] where the operation of the treaty of 1794 was determined as confirming the titles of British subjects, even where there had been a previous cause of forfeiture, but no office found, or other proceeding to assert the right of the State. And in Terett v. Taylor, [j] which was the case of an ecclesiastical corporation, it was held, that the dissolution of the regal government no more destroyed the right to possess and enjoy the property, than it did of any other corporation or individual, the division of an empire creating no forfeiture of vested rights of property.
Foreigners cannot, independent of conventional stipulations, by the general usage of nations, or by the common law, hold lands in this country. This pre-existing law, therefore, revives; there being no recognition in the treaty of Ghent of the articles of the former treaties, excepting British subjects from the operation of the rule. March 12th, 1823.
^a 2 Gallis. Rep. 127.
^b 2 Johns. Cas. 29.
^d 3 Johns. Cas. 109.
^e 1 Wheat. Rep. 300.
^f 3 Wheat. Rep. 1.
^g Id. 12. Note c, and the authorities there collected.
^h 4 Wheat. Rep. 453.
^i 7 Cranch's Rep. 603. S.C.. 1 Wheat. Rep. 304.
^j 9 Cranch's Rep. 43.
^k Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch's Rep. 603. 1 Wheat. Rep. 304. Craig v. Leslie, 3 Wheat. Rep. 563. Jackson v. Beach, 1 Johns. Cas. 399. Jackson v. Lunn, g Johns. Cas. 109.
^l Co. Litt. 129 a.
^m Hope Ins. Co. v. Boardman, 5 Cranch's Rep. 57. Bank of the U.S. v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch's Rep. 61.
^n Attorney General v. Stewart, 2 Meriv. Rep. 143.
^p The Attorney General v. City of London, 1 Vesey, jr. 243. 3 Bro. Ch. Cas. 171.
^q Barclay v. Russel, 3 Ves. jr. 424. Dolder v. The Bank of England, 10 Ves. 354.
^r Smith v. Maryland, 6 Cranch's Rep. 286. Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch's Rep. 622.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.