Case Name: De Sobry, Ex'r. of Terrier de Laistre, vs. Terrier de Laistre
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1806-06
Citations: 2 H. & J. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: De Sobry, Ex’r. of Terrier de Laistre, vs. Terrier de Laistre.
Judges: The cause was argued before Tilghmax, 1$ochavan, Nichoi sox and Gantt, J. by
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 2
Pages: 191–230

Head Matter:
De Sobry, Ex’r. of Terrier de Laistre, vs. Terrier de Laistre.
Parol evidence admitted to prove! the manner in which wills ave made and pvov d in France
A. eoi r of a wi¡< tx< <*tiled in Philadelphia ami transmitted to the Island of Martinique by the testa» ?or, certm-d b> a notirv public of th u Is‘and, and rs turned under* a commission issued to take testimony, is suffiei ntl> authenticated by having the certifi cate of the chief colonial officer as to the siffnonu'e of the notary public; and which, with the testimony of the testamentary executor, returned stnder the eomimsdon, U si^icintlv proved, an<l may he read in evidence as the wifi of the
As to, the maim'T of .striking commissioners and issuing cenmu^iops tp a íoreiam onuntrv to * take-
Error to the General Court. The defendant in error, -Lewis Lugustine Terrier de Laisire, brought an action of assumpsit against Benjamin de,Éóbr¡/, executor of Michael Terrier de Laistre, (now plaintiff in error.) The declara» . ..s * '■ tion contained four counts: The first for ¿£4518 17 7 cur- ,. .. , . . , J . . ■ .rent money, for sundry matters, properly chargeaole in tin account. The second for money had and received; The third for money laid out) expended and paid; and the ■fourth for money lent add delivered'. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit and fene adminisl'ravit; to which the general issués weré joined.
Proof of fl\e French laws rn testamentary affairs', vctnrned under commissions issued to take testíó hiony, and admitted in evidence .
. How fir the pr.iceodimq in a court in a f ireig.t country is legallv authenticated; and how far ch<5 exempUiication thereof produced contain the whole proceedings, &c.
The mere showing the seal of a endvt of ou • own state ¡ú another court of the state, is a sufficient authentication o‘ th* Judgment of the court it purp iris ^certify.
The seal of the court of a foreign eountrv does not prove itself; Unt it must be proved by testimony Toro! evidence admitted tp prove th*-* sea! of the court of a foreign country
Where a question comes incident.!}' or. collaterally li'Tove the court, whether or not thé same strict* ness in the admission of evidence, is to he observed a? if tlie quest! >n was directly in issue?
.T|ie hnys of a foreign country are to be proved by evidence, and the court are to decide what is prop-r evidence of such laws1, and to construe them)and judge of their applicability to the question Before the court • i . .. '
i ' The letters of a witness permitted to be read in evidence to impeach his credit as to what Ite had sworn upon his examination taken under a commission, contradictory to the contents of the letters* hut not to prove any other fact , 4 . .
4 • ' If a contract is m writing it will itself show where it is tó be executed; lint if it does not appear on the fice, of it, the presumption is that it is to be exiettt ul in the country where it was made. If it ihx*s appear that it has a view to be executed in a particular country, it mdst be carried into effect pursuant to the laws of that country
If a contract is by parol*, the pa1 ty ?s at liberty to go into evidence to prove the inteiition of the parties ns to where it was tó be execu ted
A contract made in a foreign country must be governed by the laws country* no ac* Rimwledgment of the debt in another country can change the original nature of* tlie debt
If the piaintilf in an action of msump^t. files an account ifi court containing the items of his claim against tlie defendant; he is precluded from going into evidence to establish Ins claim in a manner dif» •ferent from that he had elected bv liis account to consider th“ defendant his debtor .
Any creditor maj sue an executor pro forma, provided, he shows himself to be a creditor under the laws of the country where tlie contract was mad >; am! as Ion*,'as assets remain in the hands of suck executor, he is answerable io the creditors; and if th re is any surplus, it is to go into the mass of tlie succession, to be distributed to the laws of the country where *he testator was do iticiled
Personal property adheres to the person; and wherever the testator is domicil at the time of his the is be distributed to the laws of that
< Whatever fund in this state is answerable for debts, is answerable to all creditors alike according to the laws of the state
If the laws df.this state give a preference to its citizens 5n the payment of the debts of a deceased., the defendant, if sued by a foreign ci editor, must plead sucli once
An executor pró, forma is accountable to the testamentary executor only for tlie surp.lus remaining1 after of debts
If an lien* pure and simple, Ijeir with benefit of inventory, or beneficiary heir, has not intermeddled with the estate or succession of a person djing in France, so as to prevent His recovery as such under the laws of France, he can recover in the courts of this state on a contract made in France . Whether or not his having intermeddled would lele*,it his right of recovery?
It is a general principle,which admits of tew exceptions, that in construing contracts made in a foreign country, the courts artí governed by the le.v loci as to what respects the essence of the contract; that is, the rights acquired and the obligations created by it; and the remedy or mode of enforcing it is to be conformableto the laws of the country where the. action is insdtu ?•'<!
Where by the terms of a contract it is to be executed in another country, there the parties to it by common consent adopt the laws of that country as thrt rule of decision
Where a contradi is contra bonos mores, as f >r he price of prostitution, such a contract, though le* gut in some countries would not be enforced in thU state
ITnle-s the jury are satisfied according io tins laws of íV'otrtce, thata eo-heir with benefit of inven* tory, who is also a creditor; canno1- recover in the quality of creditor, without renouncing, then such co-heir is entitled to recover as a creditor whatever the jury may find due on a contract made in France, according to the law9 of France
If a contract is made in this state between foreigners, and the debtor dies in a foreign country, the creditor may recover m the courts of this state, accordmr to the U\Vsot* this state
, No part of* the personal estate of a te fator dying in France, K subject to distribution among his coheirs, but the surplus or residuum remaining alter the payment of ali his debts and legacies; and a debt due to one of the co-h drs is as much entitled to pavment asa d‘bt due to a stranger, unless there is proof that there is a law of France which extinguishes the right or claim, of the co heir creditor with henefir of inventory, if* he does not renounce ns co-heir
The laws of France an* matters of fict to be found by‘ho jury upon evidence to be produced to them, and unless they find some law of France which extinguishes the claim or right ot recovery of the plaintiff (being co-heir and creditor) he has a right co recover; and the court directed the jury that it did not appear to the court that there was any law of France, which was a legal impediment to the plaintiff’s recovery
A contract made in one country with a view to the execution or performance of it in another country, is governed in all things both as to its essence and the mode of enforcing it, by the laws o$ the latter country
1. In the course of the trial at October term 1804, the defendant in the court below, offered to read in evidence the testimony returned, with a commission, which he obtained at May term 1800, and which issued on the 22d of July following, to the Island of Martinique. This testimony was copies of the will, and several codicils, made by the defendant’s testator, and certain interrogatories and answers thereto by the testamentary executor; which being extracted and translated, are as follow, viz. “Mr. Lewis Augustin Terrier de Laistre, having produced, as a witness, Mr. Dominick Techier; merchant, dwelling in the parish of the Fort of the city of St. Pierre, testamentary-executor of the said Mr. Michael Augustin Terrier de Laistre, as appointed by his will, deposited in the hands of Messrs. D. he Blanc and Cicerón, royal notaries public of this island, the 14th of April i797, we have administered path to the said testamentary executor, and have interrogated him in the following manner: Inter. Do you know whether the said Mr. Michael Jlugustin Terrier de Laistre has put into wricing his testament and last will? Ans. Yes. He made an olograph will, of a copy of which I was the depositary in my quality of testamentary executor. To which said olograph will is annexed a codicil, likewise olograph. Inter. Can you say where and when the said will was made? Ans. The said will bears date, Philadelphia 1st April, 1795, and the codicil thereto annexed, bears date Philadelphia, the 29th of June, 17^6.” “And an attested copy of the said will, and codicil thereto annexed, of " the said Michael Augustin Terrier de Laistre, and which we have hereunto annexed, having been produced and read to the deponent, we interrogated him as follows: Inter. Does the paper, which has just been showed to you, express the last will and testament of the said Michael Augustin Terrier de Laistre, to the best of your knowledge and belief?- Declare all that you know, have heard, or believe. Jins. I know the said paper to be the last will and testament of the said Michael Augustin Terrier de Laistre. Inter. Do you know whether the said Michael Augustin Terrier de Laistre, made in his life-time any other codicils in writing? Ans. I declare that he made three others, of which I was likewise the depositary in my quality of testamentary executor; the first, bearing date St. Pierre, Martinique, the I4th of April 1797, received by Messrs. D. Le Blanc and Cicerón; rojal notaries of this island; and a supplement of ' the same day and year, signed by Messrs, jBonifaye and Cicerón; the second, St. Pierre, Martinique, the 25th' of April of the samé year, received by Messrs. Cica oh and í'Fanter, royal notaries of this island; and the third, St. Pierre, Martinique, the 10th July 17§7", nine days before his death, received by Messrs. Cicerón and Thcrry, royal Notaries of this island.
“And a legally attested copy of these three codicils hereto annexed, being produced and read to the said deponent, we interrogated him ás follows: Inter. Are the papers liow-shown to you the last codicils, and do they express the last intentions of thé said Michael Augustin Terrier dé Laistre? Ans. I declare that the said papers are truly the last codicils and last intentions of the said deceased.”' Annexed to copies of the said will and codicils, as returned With the commission; are the following certificates, to wit:
1 ‘Collated, Cicerón.
“We, John Augustin Begnaudier, commissioner of thé ihng, and procureur, (attorney,) holding for this purpose the place in the absence of Mr. John Aman Astory, commissioner of the King, litúlat senichal of Si. Pierre, Martini* que, certify to all whom-it may concern, that the above signature is that of Mr. Cicerón, notáry, dwelling in this island, and that faith ought to be given to it as well id courts of justice as thereout, and to all that he signs id that quality. In testimony whereof we have signed tliesé presents, aiid thereto fixed the seal of this colony, where stamped paper is not in use. Given in our hotel at St. Pierre, Martinique, the 20th July 1801. Pcgnaiidier.
|[Íi! S.] Sealed at Si. Pierre, Martinique the 20th July
Í82Í. Jaequier.”
Thé plaintiff1 objected to tíiése copies being read in evidence, because théy were not legally proved and certified.
Martin; (Attorney General,) arid Purviance; for thé Defendant,
stated, that by the laws of France there were two modes of making wills — one was a will entirely in the hand writing of the testator, which was called an O/o-graph Will; the other one written by a notary public, agreeably to the directions óf thé téstator; and that when written and read to the testator, and by him signed, and also signed by the-notary, it was a good will,and was call; id a Solemn Thill, The will offered in evidence was an olograph toil/, executed in Philadelphia by the testator, and by him transmitted to certain notaries public |n Martinique, where it remained. The commission, which issued in this case, was to ascertain if there was a will, and to have a copy exhibited and proved by the executor named in the will. It was legally authenticated, according to the act of 1785, ch. 46. The original will could not be produced, having been lodged in the office of a notary by the testator himself, but the copy war authenticated by the notary in the maimer directed by th^. Jaws of France.
Harper and Boyd, for the Plaintiff,
contended, that it» Was a fixed principle in the law of evidence, that a wilt 'must be proved in one of three ways' — 1. The original-must be produced, and the execution proved. 2. An authenticated copy from an office of record, properly certified. 3. If an authenticated copy is not produced, then proof that it is a true copy from the original; if-the origin nal is in the possession of a person or officer not authorised to record it. They cited Peake's .Ev'uL-48, (notes.) 73^ (notes.) ¿ikon. 9 Mod. <1©. Henry vs. Adey, 3 East, 221. Moises vs. Thornton, 8 T. R. 303, and Stevenson, vs. Myers, 1 Harr. & Johns. 102.
Chase, Ch. J. The court are of opinion, that the. certificate of the colonial officer of the signature of the notary public, is sufficient to authenticate the copy of the will, and that the same is sufficiently proved, and may be reaij, in evidence to the jury,
2. The defendant also offered to read in evidence the commissions which issued in June 1803, to Paris, Martinique and Bourdeaux, and the returns of those commissions made at May term 1804; but which were objected to by the plaintiff, because the commissions had not been regularly issued. The facts were, that on the docket of the, court at May term 1803, the entry is “commissions are ordered by consent, on the pari of the defendant, to Paris, Martinique and Bourdeaux, on striking commissioners; if the commissions are not returned at the next term, it will then be ea.ujie ofcontipuaace,” “The defendant’s commissioner* s,tru.ck the 18th June 1803, (Saturday.) See their names mentioned in a paper filed.” On that paper, in the handwriting of the attorney general, (one of the attorneys for, the defendant,) after naming four persons as commissioners to each place, is as follows: “An order for commissions to, our commissioners, unless plaintiff strikes commissioners op Monday,” (the 20th June.) Th?re was no order made in the docket or in the minutes of the court. The court met on Monday the 20th June for the purpose of making some few entiles. The jury had been discharged' on Satunjay the 18th June, The plaintiff, and his counsel, and the counsel of the defendant, left the court for Baltimore on Saturday., The defendant remained, and on, Monday the 20th Jiinq, he obtained his commissions front the clerk. Neither the plaintiff, nor his counsel, had any. notice of the names of the' commissioners struck by the, defendant, nor of the order intended to. be obtained for, the striking commissioners on. the part of the-plaintiff. Defendant, after obtaining the. commissions, went, to Baltimore, where interrogatories \vere prepared to be forwarded with, the commissions. The interrogatories and commissions were taken to the plaintiff’s counsel, and a proposition mad.e to him to strike, commissioners, if he did iiot approve of. those persons t.o whom the commissions had issued, so that n.ew commissions might be obtained. The plaintiff’s counsel alleged that his client had left Baltimore for Elizabeth-Town in the state, of Nevo-Jersey^, that he did not himself know of proper characters, nor would he consent, to any thing, but Would take all legal advantages. It was then proposed,, (as stated on the part of the defendant,) that the counsel should write to the plaintiff, and the defendant would wait, and retain the connnissions until be should hear from the plaintiff; but this was declined by the plaintiff’s counsel, and the commissions were forwarded. ' Rut. on - the part of the plaintiff, it was stated, that the defendant proposed to jyait one post, which the plaintiff’s counsel observed would not answer, as he could not hear from the plaintiff in that time.
Chase, Ch, J; The court consider the order as not done in the usual form for striking commissioners; but it Appears to have been done in the hurry of business at the rising of the court. Time ought always to he given for. striking commissioners; and an order of court for that purpose should have been made. In this case the order is general, that the commissions were to issue on commissioners being struck. It should therefore be executed in a reasonable time. The-commiaslons issued precipitately, without sufficient time to the plaintiff' to strike commissioners; and if the case depended solely upon the docket entries, it would be considered as irregular. But upon the disclosure of facts stated in the affidavits, it appears that the plaintiff’s counsel had an opportunity given hint of striking commissioners. If the court had made an order, they would not have allowed more than five days for striking commissioners. The defendant, it appears, offered time — ‘‘one post, v Here., too, isa material fact in which the affidavits do not agree. The defendant’s attorney’s affidavit states, that no specific time was proposed, but generally that the defendant would wait an answer from the plaintiff; hut the plaintiff’s attorney’s affidavit states that the time was limited to “one post.” The court, however, suppose this time was sufficient to obtain the names of commissioners, situated as the parties were. The irregularity of issuing the commissions was cured by these circumstances. Every thing which tends to bring the justice of the case before the coui;t ought to be done. These commissions were returned to tj?e last term, when this objection might have been made; and if the commissions had been considered by the court as having issued irregularly, they might have been suppressed, and the defendant would have had time to issúe new commissions, upon the same terms as the former, “that if they were not returned at this term it would be no cause for a continuance.” But if they had been considered- as illegally issued, and if the, plaintiff thought that the commissions liad been improperly executed, he had then an opportunity of counteracting them, by obtaining at that time new commissions upon the same terms the defendant had obtained his; for it is an established rule of this court, that upon the return of a commission, the opposite party has a right to a continuance of the cause, until the next term. For these reasons the court are of opinion, that the commissions, and the testimony taken thereunder, ought to be .read to the jury.
3. The first bill of exceptions. The plaintiff gave in. evidence, that he is the eldest son of Michael, the defendant’s testator. He also read to the jury two original letters from hi's father to him, dated at Bourdeaux, in France^ and addressed to him at Paris, in France, one dated the 21st of May 1793, wherein the testator acknowledged that he.had received a sum o£ 'money for the plaintiff, and as he could not invest it, he proposed, to take the sum of 12,000 livres himself, at 5 p. c. interest; and the - other letter, dated-the 1st of August 1793, acknowledging that he had received for the plaintiff 28,000 livres from Mrs. Aubin. He also offered in evidence, that sometime in-the year. 1794, the testator, and the plaintiff, came to Philadelphia, where or near to which the testator resided till the 6th of April 1796; and that the plaintiff, from the time of his arrival at Philadelphia, until the present time, hath, always resided within the U. S. He also read in evidence a memorandum, in the hand-wriling of the testator, made in a.memo-; randum book kept by him, which memorandum bears date on the 30th of September 1795, and is as follows, viz. “The four servants given to my eldest son by his marriage, contract, to wit:
Bruno, a mulatto, hair-dresser, estimated at. 4500.
Antoine, my domestic hair-dresser, 3000
Liv. 7500.
Both of. whom are dead*
Noel, a cook — sold, 2850
Maydelon, a washer-woman, 2000.
*-* 4850,
12360
' N. B. He returned to me the above mentioned four servants on his departure from Martinique; for which said servants, as well as for the sum of- 40,000 livres, which he caused to be delivered to me at Bourdeaux, before his departure for North America, my eslate is responsible to him.” He also read in evidence a letter from the testator to him, bearing date at Philadelphia, on the 22d of May 1795, and addressed to him at Trenton, viz. “I have not yet been able to employ myself in making use of the bill of exchange of 170 dollars, (3440 livres,) en >Havre, but A will attend to it as soon as my health permits rae to go out.” Also another letter From the testator to him, bearing date at Philadelphia, on the 15th of October 1795, and addressed to him at Trenton, of which the following is an extract: — “I remitted to St, Claire Claudel your bill of exchange, drawn by Moisy, for 170 dollars, (3440 livres,) that he might receive páyment and pass it to the credit of my account.” He also gave in evidence, that all the aforementioned letters, and the memorandum, are in the handwriting of the testator, and that the letters were by him transmitted to the plaintiff, and duly received, according to their respective dates and addresses: and they were offered and given in evidence, to prove the debt due to the plaintiff, for which this action is brought, as stated in the Account by him filed, líe also gave evidence that the several sums of livres mentioned in the said letters and memorandum book, were of the value of, and amounted in the whole to the sum of 89628 63 current money of the United States; and that the usual and legal interest of money in France, and her colonies, was at the times aforesaid five per centum. He also gave in evidence, that the testator departed this life on or about the 20th of July 1797, and that the defendant, as his executor, did, in the .month of October in the same year, receive into his hands money belonging to the estate of the deceased to the amount of 813,092 68 current money of the U. S. out of which lie claimed an allowance for disbursements and commissions, to the amount of §1200 07 like money, leaving in his hands, subject to the legal claims against the estate of the deceased, the sum of 811,892 61 current money. The defendant then gave in evidence, that the testator, in his life time, duly executed certain wills and codicils, which were made and executed respectively, at the respective times and places therein respectively stated, viz. “I Michael Augustin Terrier de Laistre, aged 61 years, generally resident in St. Pierre, in the Island of Martinique, but now at Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, one of the thirteen United States of America, being desirous of making known to my children my final intentions, have made and written, with my own hand, this my last will and testament, to which I particularly enjoin my eldest son to manifest his respect by an exact performance of its contents,- hereby revoking all former wills and codicils by me at any time heretofore made, and declaring this to be alone good anil valid.” The bequests material to the question in controversy, are the following: Ttii. “I give and bequeath unto my natural son Chery, now aboii't twelve years of age, and raised from his childhood at St. Pierre', in Martinique, by Madamé Duquesnay, the siini oí fifty thousand livfes, colonial money, payable on the partition of my eátate, unless it should please better my heirs tó ádmit him ás co-héir, conformably to the tenor of the acts passed by the national assembly in faVour of: illegitimate children; then and in such case, I will and direct that he have liiS proportionable ’shard,' according to tlie right vested in hini by law, if my lieirs do not choose rather that the said sum of 50,000 Jivres should be paid him out of tlie surplus of my estate; after páymerit of debts, &c; Enjoining” him moreover to continúe to bear tlie ñamé 'of Chery Terrier.” 10th. “I hereby constitute and appoint Jlnthony Viuu, my agent at present in Martinique, executor of this liiy last will and testament,” &c. “And in case of the death or absence of the said Jlnthony Vtau, I constitute and appoint, in ids place, my friend Mr. Crassous, merchant of Martinique, begging him to accept this charge, with the same indemnification as aforesaid, and thereby give me this last mark of friendship.” 11th. “As to all the rest and residue of my estate, whether real or personal, debts due me, &c. which I may leáve in America, I constitute and appoint Messrs. De Saa, father and son, executors thereof, to administrates on that property only of which I may die possessed in America, conformably to my intentions expressed in this my last will and testament, of which I have left them an authenticated copy.” 12th. “I hereby nanie and constitute my eldest son, Lewis Augustin Blaise Terrier de Laistre, as an heir in my succession; and I also will and direct, that after my decease, a true and faithful inventory be made of all my property, out of the amount of which property, all the bequests generally expressed in the present testament shall be faithfully discharged; and in case Anthony Mark Terrier de Laistre, younger brother of my said eldest .son, should not please to divide with him the estate of their mother, conformably to the schedule I have annexed to this my last will and testament, in which schedule his moiety is clearly designated, but should choose rather to recur to the general inventory which will be made after my decease, then and in such case I will, and most expressly direct, that Ihe sum of 40,000 livres, reserved from the portion brought by me in my marriage contract, and also the sum'of 2,000 livres, which 1 am entitled to claim and receive from nvy wife’s estate, by virtue of the said marriage contract, the said sums amounting in all to the sum of 42,000 livres, be deducted and reserved for my grandchild, Augustin Paul Emile, son of my eldest son, who shall possess and enjoy the same on the surety of his judicial oath, until his said, son Augustin Paul Emile attain the age of 21 years, or be married; and in case this reserve should give rise to any legal difficulty, Í then give and bequeath, purely and simply to my said grandchild, the sum of 42,000 livres, to be employed and disposed of as above directed, and payable out of the surplus of my estate, after all my debts, and the bequests herein contained, shall be discharged. Authorising, moreover, by these presents, my eldest son to renounce my succession, and retain the portion brought by him in this marriage contract, without returning any dung to the general stock; he also claiming from my estate all that I lawfully owe him, whether for the different sums which, on my last voyage, he caused-to be paid me in France by Madame Aitbin, or, for the four domesticks Í gave him by the said contract, and which, before his departure from Martinique, he delivered for my account and risk to Mr, Viau my attorney. 13th. ‘•I constitute and appoint, as heir of my succession, my youngest son, Anthony Mark Terrier de Laistre, whether he prefers to rely on the partition of the property possessed in common by his mother and myself, according .to the statement f have subjoined to this my last .will and testament, in which bis portion of the maternal estate is distinctly marked out, or chooses rather to recur to the general inventory to be made after my decease, out of which his portion will be ascertained by law. I also will and direct, that the share accruing to him from my estate, shall consist of immoveable property, and my will and meaning is, that the said immoveable property be not aliened by him under any pretext whatever, in order that it may descend to his issue, and in default of such issue, be equally divided among the children of his elder brother; this disposition not being regarded as an entail, but as a prudential • and safe mode of securing some part of my estate to my grandchildren.” 14th. “As the laws recently promulgated- by the republic on the subject of inheritances,' restrain the testator from the free disposal by will of more' than one sixth part of his possessions, and allot the residüé, the remaining five-fifths, to his natural heirs; and as it is impossible for me to ascertain at this juncture the amount Of my property, l will and direct, that id case my two legitimate sons, or any one'of them, should choose to adheres to the precise letter of the law, in opposition to the dispositions contained in this my last will and testament, then and in Such case, that my natural son Chery, already a particular legatee by these presents; and my four natural daughters called Adelaide, Mariette, Rosette and Marguerite, also legatees as aforesaid, be all five called in as co-herrs tn my succession, each respectively renouncing- to bis or her respective legacy, and drawing from my estate such proportionable share’as the- law allows. And, as for the one-sixth of my property,- of which I may freely dispose, I will and direct that as soon as it is determined by the inventory, the’amount of the bequest made to themestive Sophia, be deducted therefrom, and paid her in fully, with all possible dispatch, which bequ'est I hereby confirm and ratify. And I also will and direct; that the surplus-of the one-sixth, after such deduction made, be divided among the other legatees namdd in this my last will arid testament, such share accruing to eách as is proportionableto the ámoún't of his or her respective’ legacy. ” “Sucháre my last desires clearly expressed in the present testament, Written: with m'y own hand, arid which I fully confirm and ratify, after having attentively perused and reperused the same. JDone and signed by triplicate, and one-copy to be deposited with Messrs. De Saa, father and son,, appointed by these presents my executors for the administration of that alone of which I may die possessed in America', a second transmitted to Martinique, to betheredodged with a notary; and a third enclosed in my portfolio, all-three copies being scaled with three seals, bearing the stamp of my cypher, as may be seen in the margin, at Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania, one of the thirteen United: States of America, this first day of April, in the year of our Lord 1795.” A coAcii, revolting the legacy to Sophia? confirming and ratifying all other parts ofhis will. Signed 29th of June 1796. “Terrier de LaistreJ*
^Lasl will and testament of Michad Augustin Terrier ée Laisfre, done in the presence of Messrs. Cicerón fy Le JSlanc, notaries of St. Pierre, in the Island of Martinique. On this 14th day of April ÍT9T, about It o’clock in the morning, we the undersigned notaries attended B'lichael Axegustin Terrier de Laistre, chevalier, &c. resident in the city of St. Pierre, &c. aged 64 years, lawful son of, &c. who being confined to Ins bed„iniinn of body, but of sound- and disposing mind, as it hath appeared to us by his seve-. ral questions and observations, and wishing to arrange his temporal affairs before the moment of his death, which is ■uncertain, requested us to receive the subsequent codicil and expression of his testamentary desires, which he dictated word for word iu the following manner:” The bequests material to be mentioned are the following: Stii. "The said testator gives and bequeaths unto his natural son Ckeri, about 15 years of age, and raised from his infancy iu this island by Madame Duquesnay, the sum of 50,000 lit res colonial money, to be appropriated to his subsistence and education; begging his executor hereinafter named to transmit the funds requisite for the payment of the said sum to Mr. Benjamin lie Sobry, merchant of Baltimore, who has had the goodness to act the part of a father towards him daring the absence of the testator; entreating him therefore to continue the same parental care, and with the sum which he bequeaths to the said Chen, to place him iu a situation that may ensure to him a life of tranquillity and ease; enjoining moreover his said natural son to continue through life to bear the name a f Chert Terrier. The said testator also' give;: and bequeaths to the said Ckeri his wardrobe, rings, jewels and private fire arms, which shall be found belonging to him after his decease; ieserving only from the number of his jewels his diamond cypher and repeating watch, of ■which ho has disposed by his will of the 1st of April IT95. Hereby ratifying and confirming the said disposition. R-11th. ‘"The said testator gives and bequeaths unto his friend Benjamin Be Sobry, merchant of Baltimore, all his moveables and effects, of what nature soever, of which lie may die possessed in America-, and also whatever he may discover to be due to him; charging him, however, by these presents, with the payment of his debts iu the said continent, [dans le dii contineaf,'] if any there be:- Hereby als®. fully empowering him, as well to recover whatever may be due to him, as to discharge his debts aforesaid, without being held accountable for the said effects to any person whatever.” 14. “The said testator names and institutes, as his heirs in his said succession, his eldest son, Levin Jilaise, as well as his younger, called Jlnthony Miare rJ¡errier de Laistrei hereby constituting and appointing the in his universal legatees for equal shares in his said succession; strenuously recommending to them to preserve harmony between themselves,' and respect for the present codicil, which the said testator wills and directs should be fully executed in all and every part. And his will and meaning also is, that the part and portion of that one of his said sons, who shall first die without issue, shall remain to the survivor.” 15th. “The said testator hereby constitutes and appoints, as his executor, Dominick Pcschier, merchant of the city of St. Pierre, of whom he earnestly requests this good office. And in consideration that the function of executor js necessarily attended by some trouble and derangement, he begs him to accept the bequest which he now makes him, of the sum of 13,200 livres colonial money, which said sum he may take before the delivery over of his succession to die heirs; the said testator dispossessing himself of all his estate, in order to invest him with the same, from the day of his decease, conformably to custom.” 16th. “The said testator revokes all other wills and codicils by him heretofore made, declaring this alone to be good and valid, as well as his will and testament, written with his own hand, of the 1st of April 1795, fully ratifying and confirming the same, and all the gifts, bequests, matters and things, therein contained, except only the changes made and designated in the present codicil; and the said testator also wills and directs, that the said testament shall be joined to the present codicil, to be returned into his hands whenever he shall please to demand the same, which has been regularly marked ne varietur, by the above mentioned notaries.” “Done,” &c.
Signed, Terrier de Laislre.
Cicerón 8,~ Ze Blanc, Notaries.
Collated, Cicerón.”
Other codicils of the 14th April 1797, 25th of April 3797, and 10th July 1797, making some trifling alterations, and confirming other wills and codicils not altered, &c. The defendant also gave in evidence., that the executor testamentary therein named, that is to say, Dominique Peschia', residing in the Island of Martinique, did take upon himself, after the death of the testator, the burthen of the execution of the wills and codicils, according to the laws of the French government, in force and effect in that island; and that he did on the 24th of July 1787, write to the defendant a letter, and send the same with a copy of a certain part of the will or codicil, dated the 14th of April 1797, to enable the defendant to carry into'execution that part of the will in which the defendant was interested. The defendant also gave in evidence, that Peschier did, on the 4th of January and the 15th of December 1798, write letters to the defendant, and send the same, of which the following arc true translations: That of the4th of January 1798, is as follows: “1 am glad to see by your’s that ■you hud duly received my letter'of the 24th of July, which informed you of the death of Mr. Terrier de Laistre, (of whom I was the executor,) and forwarded you a copy of the articles of his last will and codicils, which concern you, and his son Chery, whom he recommends to your good cares. An inventory has been made, in legal forms, of all the credits and debits: But the latter cannot be perfeotly known, because the deceased had.many friends in France, with whom there are accounts to settle, and which cannot be done by reason of the war, It results, that the net amount of the estate cannot be ascertained, of course the inventory is imperfect, and cannot be rectified till after the war. Messrs. Terrier de Lmistre have taken the quality of conditional heirs, and have lately applied for a delay of six months, which has been granted to them. Afier its expiration they will probably ask for more time, which will also be granted; and this will go on until the return of peace. Until they take a determination on (he subject, I cannot dispose of any thing. All the furniture and effects which are coming to young Chery, have been inventoried and shut up in a cupboard. Whatever may happen, the estate is good, but the heirs wish to be perfectly acquainted with it. They have told me that they are well disposed to fulfil the will of their father, if they are not too much injured. The law grants them the option to have the community of their mother continued to the death of their father, because he had not made a legal in ventory; they wish to know which is more advantageous, to them, either to have the community continued, and to. receive their legitim, or to take the quality of heirs. This . , & ’ , , . t . ... is the actual state or the business. I am going on \yitlt. the liquidations in collecting the debts, and paying what is legitimate.”- The letter of the 15th December 1798, states that the inventory, on, account of the war, had not been completed; and it also stated, that “the heirs moreover, (one of whom, Mr. Terrier de Laistrs the younger, is. now here, and represents his brother, who is on your continent, and who has sent him his power,) being desirous to administer their.properties themselves. These considerations, and the impossibility to know how long it will require for the liquidation; I say, that actuated by all these reasons, I- have rendered my accounts to the heirs, who from that time, administer-, their properties themselves. I-have already informed you, that these gentlemen oppose the execution 'of the will, so far as regards the legacies, and that the suit is going on, Mr. Duquesnay has by a decree of the court, been, nominated guardian to the young Chery, and defends his interest in that quality. It is necessary to go on with the suit, and wait for. its conclusion, in order to abide by the judgment. He also gave in evidence the proceedings in the orphans court of Baltimore county, upon the exhibition and proof of that part of the codicils and wills of the testator, being the 8th and 11th clauses in the will or codicil of the-14th of April 1797, as herein before mentioned, with a direction thereto annexed by the testator, requiring certain persons, in whose hands some of his effects were, to deliver the same up on notice of his death, to thq defendant, and proof thereto, and to the extract of liia will annexed, of the hand-writing of the testator. Upon, which letters testamentary were granted-to the defendant on the 15th of November 1797, and, which letters testamentary the defendant also gave in evidence to the jury. He further gave in evidence, that the testator was a native of the kingdom of France, and for many years before his death was a citizen of the island of Martinique, and resident of that Island, which was, during the whole time that he there resided, until his death, and at the time of his death, subject to, and governed by, the same laws as the other Is- • lands of the West Indies dependant on the government of' /'ranee. That the testator came to the IT. S. on the 6th of November 17"93, and left the U. S. to return to the Island of Martinique, mi the 6th of (September 1796, and that having arrived ct that Island, he departed this life, at that pírre, on the 19th of July Í797. That the sum of TS 2,900 livres, money <>f the islands, which constitutes the firsi charge in the plaiufilFs account, is the estimated value of four slaves, which were delivered by the testator to bis son, the plaintiff, as a part of his marriage portion, and which were, by the plaintiff, again returned to the testator, some time about the year 1792. That the plaintiff was not entitled,by the French laws regulating this question, to claim either that sum, or interest thereon, or any part thereof, as the creditor of his father, or of his father’s estate, unless be absolutely and entirely repudiated and delivered up the succession, and his right as heir, after his father’s death, and renounced all right in, and claim to, the succession of bis father; and that the plaintiff had not so done. That the sum of 12.000 livres, in the account mentioned, was lent by the plaintiff to the testator, and at his instance received by the testator in assignats, at their nominal value, and not in specie, and that assignats at that time were only in comparison of specie, valuable in proportion as 44 to 100; and that the sum of 28,000 livres, in the account mentioned, was lent by the plaintiff, in France, to the testator, and by him received in France in assignats, and not in specie, at the nominal value of assignats, and that as-, signats, at the time of this loan, were only of value compared with specie as 33 to 100, and that the sum of 12,000 livres were advanced to the testator on account of the plaintiff, the 21st of May 1793, or thereabout, by Madame Jlvhhi Blamprea, and the sum of 28,000 livres by the same lady to the testator, on or about the 1st of August 1793; and that the plaintiff did afterwards repay the same, advances to her in assignats, at their nominal value, and not in specie. That according to the French laws operating upon and regulating the said loans, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive interest of any kind thereon, or on either, except from the time of bringing this suit. And as to the claim in the account of 3,440 livres, the defendant gave-In evidence, that one Moiey, being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of §170, drew a bill in favour of the plaintiff upon Ms, the drawer’s correspondent, in Havre-de 'Grace, to bé there paid in assignats, at the exchange of 20 livres for each dollar, and that the same being indorsed by the plaintiff, was delivered to the testator to be remitted to his correspondent in France, to receive from the person upon whom the bill was drawn the amount thereof in assignats, and that for want of proof being furnished by the plaintiff, that he had left France with proper passports, and had resided constantly in the United States, and that the plaintiff wás not subject to the laws of the French government against emigrants, the correspondent of the testator never received any payment of the bill, and that the testator received no part thereof, but that the bill yet remains unpaid in the hands of the person to whom it was remitted. lie further gave in evidence the settlement made by him in the orphans court of Baltimore county, whereby it appears that he charges himself with the receipt of §13,092 68 current money, received of the effects of the testator, and credits himself with §1,200 07 like money, for disbursements, debts, &c. by him paid, and for which he is allowed, leaving the sum of 811,893 61 like money, in the hands of the defendant, and which he retains, being left him by the deceased’s will. That the sums with which he charged himself in the account, proceeded from the sales of divers goads, wares and merchandizes, which were .in the U. S. when the testator died, and from certain debts which remained due in the U. S. to the tesiator, and from remittances of property which lv* made after his arrival at Martinique. That several claims of considerable value which the testator had against persons in the ü. S. when he departed therefrom to return to Martinique, and which the defendant was authorised by him to receive, were afterwards paid to or settled with the testator himself, after he went to Martinique, and therefore did not come into the hands of the defendant, but went to increase his estate in the Island of Martinique; and to establish the same, the defendant offered in evidence, a letter written by the testator to the defendant, bearing date at Martinique, on the 20th of March 1797. The defendant also offered in evidence, the different rembfances- and funds remitted to the testator while in the U. S. including the. merchandise received by Anthony Butler; the remittances made by him to his creditors while in the U, S. his expenditures while there, and the sum-he carried irom heneó when he left the U. S. and to show and prove the same, offered in evidence certain extracts from the memorandum book produced by the plaintiff, in the handwriting of the testator, viz:
“My general account in the continent Dr.
1795.
June 25. Balance of 4 Bills of Exchange for my adventure, $3,198 T*0^
1796.
June 18. To Duvall Monville, received for his account by a bill of Mrs. Jlu-
guart, his sister, 792
July 23. To Viau, net amount remitted by
him as appears, &c. 4,586
$8,576
1795. Cr.
Dec. 31. By 13 months expenses, as appears
■ by the particulars. 21,225
1796.
Sep. 30. By 9 months do. do. 936
For 22 months expenses, $2,161
By remittance to St.
Claire, 800
By do. to Ollie, 2,400
By do. to Eyma, 800
By do. to Dancernont, 124 .rv%
————— 4,124 tVs»
For advances to divers,
To Deville, junr, 370
To Mrs. Luppi, 533
--— 903
Furnished to divers,
To Chery, 593
To Be Laislre, 722
--- 1,315
For my passage 50, for my
expences 3 T3/-0- 53 T3^y
Carried with me in specie 20
—-- 73 38
28,576
Concluded at Baltimore, this 5th Septem; 1796, until the end of September.”
The defendant also offered evidence.to prove, that there was a debt due from the plaintiff to the testator, at the time of his death, amounting to the sum of 111,537 livres, 13 sols and 4 deniers, money of the Island of Martinique, . which sum of money, at the time above, mentioned, was of the valué of 813,519 63 current money of Maryland, which ought to be deducted from and set off against any thing which might be due from the testator’s estate to the plaintiff, even if hé had any claim which as a creditor he could sustain or supptirti He further gave evidence, that Pechier did, on or about the 7th of July if 98, deliver over to the plaintiff, and his brother* Marc Anthony Terrier de Z>aislre¡ as heirs of the testator, thd succession of the testator, and the papers relative thereto* and that the plaintiff, and his brother* have since had the same under tlieir matiagement, and in their possession* and that the plaintiff hath intermeddled with the estate, and acted in respect thereof as heir; and also that the succession of estate of the testator is not insolvent. He also offered evidence to prove, that the acknowledgment entered in thé-books and papers of the testator, produced by him, of the sums for which his succession ought to account io the plaintiff, or in the French language iidont ma succession doit lui teñir (oufaire) compteonly admits that such sums aré to be settled with the plaintiff out of the estate real, personal and mixed, which he should leave at the time of his death, according as the laws of France, regulating' the island of Martinique, and there used and in force, authorises arid directs. He also gave in evidence, that the devise to him is not expressed to be under any secret trust. That to' prove a devise to be a secret trust, by the french laws, the testimony of witnesses cannot be admitted* but that the' supposed secret trustee is to answer, upon oath, whether he has lent his name or not, directly'or indirectly. That according to the French laws, regulating this case, the plaintiff has no interest or rights against the defendant, either as a debtor or legatee of the testator, or as debtor of the.testator’s estate, which he as a creditor, or in any manner, can enforce, unless the plaintiff had' first solemnly repudiated and given up his right of inheritance to the succession, and had renounced all right as heir to the succession; and that the term “succession,” in the French laws, means the whole estate real, personal and mixed, of every nature and description, whereof a testator dies seized or possessed. That the Island of JMdrtinique, and the citizens thereof, are subject to, and regulated by the laws mentioned in the execution of the respective commissions which issued in this cause; and that the law is as stated in the respective' commissions, by the witnesses examined on the execution of those commissions upon the. legal interrogatories put to them on the execution of the commissions respectively; which interrogatories and answers thereto he offered in evidence. He, also offered evidence, that theplaintiff, soon after the death, of (he testator, went to the Island of Martinique, and was. residing there about a year. That no insolvency of the succession of the testator can be proved or.established, so as. to admit suits to be supported upon the grounds of an insolvency, unless the estate has been liquidated and settled by regular judicial proceedings in a court of justice, where the accounts are settled, and the insolvency shown, and. that any person, who is to be affected by the insolvency, may, upon suit being brought against him, to be supported, in consequence of that insolvency, contest the same upon the trial, unless he vvas a party to the judicial proceedings, establishing the insolvency, and had there an opportunity qf being heard, and of contesting those, proceedings. That the testator was indebted to divers persons ip France, for. debts contracted, in assignats, and otherwise, which were, in his power to repay in assignats, which had become greatly depreciated; that in order to pay offhis debts aforesaid, with the least sum possible, and thereby render his succession the more valuable to the plaintiff, apd his oth.sr son, his heirs, he solicited the said remittances to be made, to him, while in the U. 8. and endeavoured to have property transferred to him, to employ the same, as far as there should, be a surplus after, his own support, to make remittances to France to pay apd discharge those debts;, and that the said remittances were not endeavoured to ba„ procured, or his property sought to be transferred, to the. U. 8. to dispose of it contrary to the laws of Frame. He, also gave in evidence what were the remittances the testator received in property7, or other ways., while in the U. & and that they were expended in the support of himself and family while in the V. S. and in remittances for payment ^*s debts. That assignats was a species of paper mo-Be^’ or PaPer currency, issued under the authority of the French government, since the commencement of the French revolution,, at different times, and which, when issued, ■were, or since being issued became, of much less value than gold or silver current coin, and that rating the value of dollars with livres in specie, the dollar in specie is equal to five livres tournois and five sols; whereas the dollar in specie has been, and is worth much more than the same number of livres tournois in assignats, according to the different state of depreciation of assignats. The plaintiff then, to prove that the French laws cannot apply to, or operate upon this cas.e, gave in evidence, that the defendant took out letters testamentary in this state upon the estate of the testator situated therein, and that the money received into his possession, as above set forth, and belonging to the estate of the deceased, was money lodged by the deceased, in his life-time, in the U. S. and that the money, or goods and merchandise, from the sale of which it arose, was withdrawn from the French dominions by the testator in his life-time, and lodged in the U. S. for the express purpose of evading the laws of Trance and Martinique, and of disposing of them by his will to the prejudice of tjie plaintiff, and in such a manner as those laws expressly forbid. And the plaintiff also gave in evidence the will of the testator, proved by the defendant in the orphans court of Baltimore county, on which letters testamentary were granted to him by that court. The plaintiff, to prove that the debt for which this action is brought is an American debt, and not subject in any manner to the operation of the French laws, gave in'evidence, that the two sums of 12,000 livres and 28,000 livres, amounting to 40,000 livres, received from the plaintiff by the testator, through Madame dlubin, in Bourdeaux, were obtained from the plaintiff by the testator, under an expectation held out by the testator of his employing them beneficially in the purchase and exportation of merchandise for the benefit of the plaintiff, and that the sum of S4,925 livres, part of the 40,000 livres, were actually invested in the purchase of merchandise, by the testator in France, on the 29th of December 1793, and that the merchandise was on that day actually shipped by the testator to Fhiladel phia, and did arrive at Amboy, in the state of 'New Jersey, on or before the 22d of May 1795, and were there received by the testator into his possession, and sold and disposed of for his own use and benefit, about that time. lie also offered in evidence, that the. sum of 40,000 ] ivies, lent by him to the testator, were by him received with a view to the removal of the testator, and oí the plaintiff, to the U. 8. and to the repayment of the loan in the U. 8. And for that purpose he gave in evidence a part of the will of the testator, made at Philadelphia on the 1st of April 1795. He also gave in evidence the aforementioned memorandum, bearing date on the 30th of September 1795; and proved that it was made in Philadelphia, in the U. 8. and that at the time of making the memorandum, and also the will of the 1st April 1795, the plaintiff resided within the U. 8. and was then known by the testator so to reside. And also to prove that the debt due to the plaintiff by the testator, as acknowledged in die will of the 1st. of Apiil 1795, and by the memorandum of the SOdi of September 1795, was on the 14th of April 1797, a debt due in the U. 8. within the legal meaning and operation of the eleventh clause of the will of the 14th of April 1797, and therefore-chargeable on the legacy left to the defendant by the eleventh clause, the plaintiff gave in evidence, that from the 1st of April 1795, until the 14th of April 1797, and on those days respectively, the plain-till' constantly resided within the U. S. and was on those days, and during the whole of the period between them, known by the testator to reside in the United Status; and that die words “in the said continent,3’ or “daws le dil continent,” in the eleventh clause of the will of the 14th of Apiil 1797, mean and were intended by the testator to express, “within the United StatenThe plaintiff to prove that by the Presidí laws, if applicable to this case, he cannot lie prevented from recovering in this action, gave in evidence, that, by the laws,‘‘as no man can bestow on another that which does not belong to himself, therefore every species of debt due by a testator, even ¡hose least favoured, is preferred to every species of bequest by will;” and that by those laws an heir, with benefit of inventory, who is also a creditor of the deceased, to whom he is an heir, may recover his debt, ami also receive his portion of the estate; and that the children of a deceas ed person, or any of them, may by the said laws require that' an inventory of the estate be' made and completed, and that they be allowed a reasonable-time, to be settled by the courts of competent jurisdiction after such completion, to make qp their determination before they elect to renounce the inheritance altogether, or to take it as heirs with benefit of inventory, within which time' they may elect to take the inheritance as heirs, with benefit of inventory,^ whereby they do not lose their rights as creditors. And to prove that the plaintiff is heir of the testator, with benefit of inventory, and hath done no, act whereby he could be rendered heir puie and simple, according to the said laws,, the plaintiff gave in evidence, that he hath-not in any manner intermeddled .with the estate of the testatur in' the Island of Martinique, nor received any thing therefrom as heir, and that the administration of the estate hath always remained in the hands of; and been conducted by, Dominick Pechier- of that-island, the executor appointed by the will of the 14th of April 1797, who hath, made an inventory of the estate conformably to the laws of that island; and that the estate in the island is wholly ■ insolvent, and unable to pay the debts chargeable thereon. That by the French lavys, interest is chargeable on all mercantile debts and transactions, and on money lent for the purposes of commerce, from the time of such loans l-e.spectively. The plaintiff, ,to prove that the defendant, cannot be considered, as a legatee under the French laws, and tlxe lavys of the. sqid island, admitting those lavys to apply to this case, and to operate upon if, and therefore, cannot avail himself of the character of legatee by way of defence in this action,-gave in evidence, that by the said laws any legacy given to an illegitimate child, either directly or by a declared trust, to the prejudice of the legitimate children of the testatpr, is void, except as to such part of such legacy as the courts of the place sha.ll determine to be a reasonable subsistence for such illegitimate, child, in proportion to the extent of ¿he estate, and other circumstances; and that by t,he said laws all legacies given upon a secret trust, for whatever purpose, are absolutely void. And the plaintifi'also gave in evidence, that the legacy given to the defendant, in and by the will of (he 14fh of April 1797, was given on a secret trust for the benefit of a certain Cheri Terrier, an illegitimate son of the tes tator, ami to the prejudice of the plaintiff, his legitimate son. The plaintiff, to prove that the will of the,14th of April 1797, and the legacy claimed l>y the defendant under that will, have been and are annulled, and wholly set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in the Island of Martinique offered to read in evidence an exemplification of a judgment or sentence rendered by the supreme court of that island, which exemplification purports to be attested under the hand and official seal of the grand judge of the island, and is as follows: ,s7th of May 1801. George the third, by the Grace of God, King of England, &c. &c„ To all present, and to come, greeting. Bel ween Messrs. Terrier de Laistre, brothers, beneficiary heirs of their' father, appealing from the sentence rendered in the Sene* chausse of St. Pierre on the 20th March last, on the one paid, and Mr. Duquesnuy, as well in his own name, being a donatee of his late wife, who was a private legatee of the laie Mr. Terrier de Laistre, as acting tutor for the minor Chery, private legatee of the said Tenier de Laistre, defendant, on the other part, and also Mrs. Pigache, residing in St. Pierre, and Mr. Be. Sobry residing in the United States of America, defendants likewise, on the other part. And between Mr. Duquesnay in His quality of a donatee of his said wife, who was a private legatee of the late Terrier dc Laistre, appealing from the same decree, as to the main part thereof which condemns him to the costs, oh the one part, and the said Terrier de Laistre, brothers, defendants, on the oiher part, and also Mrs. Pigache and Mr. De Sobry, likewise defendants, on the other part. And also Mr. Duquesnuy, in his quality of tutor for the minor Chery, also appealing from the said decree, on the one part, and Messrs. Terrier de Laistre, brothers, in their said quality, defendants, on the other part, and also Mrs. Pigache and Mr. De Sobry, likewise defendants, on the other part. And also between. Mrs, Pigache, appealing also from the same sentence, as to that part which has condemned her to the costs only, on the one part, and the said Terrier de Laistre, brothers, defendants, on the other part, and also the said Mr. Duquesnuy, as well in his own name as in his quality of tutor for the minor Chery, and M. De Sobry, defendant, likewise, on the other part. Seen, &c. &c. The court having heard the king’s attorney general, acting in his ecneiusi* ons, and Mr. Ducaurroy, counsellor, in his report pronouncing upon the appeal of the said Mrs. Pigacke, and of Mr. Duquesnay, as well in his own and private name, as in his quality of tutor for the minor Chery, have annulled the said appeal with fine and costs. And pronouncing likewise on the appeal entered by Messrs. Terrier de Laislre brothers, have annulled both the appeal and the object thereof — enacting and stating, as well upon the conclusions taken by them in the main action, as upon those of the appeal — Declare the testament and codicil of the late Terrier de Laistre, of the 1st of April 1795, 14th April and IOth July 1797, to be null and of no effect; in consequence, reject the demand in delivery of the legacies made to them by the said testament and codicil, and the costs, notwithstanding, to be paid out of the mass of the estate. Ordain, &c. Done in the Sovereign Council of Martinique, on the 7th of May 1801. Delivered the present exemplification to citizen Dominique Pechier, merchant in St. Pierre, as executor of citizen Terrier de Laistre, at his request, on this 13th day of Germinal, 12th year of the French Republic, or on the 3d April 1804, (old style.)
liLe Camus.
“Sealed on the same day.
liDepaz.
“We, Grand Judge of Martinique, certify all whom it may concern, that the above signature is that of C. Le Ca-rants, Chief Secretary of the Court of Martinique, and that faith ought to be given to it as well in as, out of judgment. We certify farther, that stamps are not used in this colony.
Given at Fort de France, the 13 th Germinal, 12th (Seal.) year of the Republic. Sealed with our seal, and countersigned with our signature.
“Zc Fessier, Grand. Pres.
“By the Grand Judge,
“The Secretary,
Fouchey, Son.
41Louis Jlr caníbal, consul of France for the state of Maryland, one of the United States of America, residing at Baltimore, certify, that Mr. Le Fessier de Grand Pre, who has signed the above legalization, is Grand Judge of the Island of Martinique-, that the signature is truly his, and that faith ought to be given to it, as well in as out of judgment. Certify also, that the Grand Judge is the only ffuthoriiy existing in the French colonies for the legalization of judicial acts.
In faith of which we have signed these presents, and have thereunto affixed the seal of the consulate at (Seal.) Baltimore, the 6th Brumaire, year 13th, (28th October 1804.)
L. ArcambcdS*
The plaint iff, to prove that the attestation was in fact under the hand and seal of the .said grand judge, produced and. read in evidence a deposition sworn in open court, and admitted in evidence by consent of parties, so far as parol evidence is competent to prove the matters for which the deposition was so offered in evidence, which deposi’ lion is annexed to the exemplification, and is in the following words: ‘‘Personally appeared in open court, Antoine Batido uin, of lawful age, who being duly sworn, on bis oath did say, that lie is well acquainted with Le Camus, of Saint Pierre, in the Island of Martinique, whose signature is affixed to the paper hereto subjoined; and also with Le Fessier, de. grand pres, of the said island, whose signature is also affixed to the said paper, and is well acquainted with the hand-writing and signature of the said IjC Camus and Lc Fessier, grand pres, having seen them, respectively write; and that the name Le Camus is the proper hand-writing and signature of ihe said Le, Camus, and that t!ie na na Le Fessier, grand pres, is the proper handwriting and signature of the said Ae Fessier, grand pres. And further, that he is acquainted with the seal of office of the Grand Judge of the Island and Colony of Martinique, and that the seal affixed to the said paper, and purporting to be affixed by the Grand Judge, is the official seal; and that the said Le Fessier, grand pres, is now, and was, on the 13th of Germinal, in the 12th year of the French Tlapublic, Grand Judge of the Island and Colony of Martinique ;and that he the deponent being a French citizen, and a resident of the said Island of Martinique, he is well acquainted with the laws and constitution thereof, as far as relates to the powers and functions of the Grand Judge, Military Commander and Prefect; and that the Grand Judge is, by the said constitution and government, the supreme authority and chief of the government, as to all that relates to judicial papers and proceedings, and is the sole authority by the said laws and government whereby any judicial proceedings can be authenticated. Andl that he, this deponent, is not a lawyer by profession, but a merchant, and derives his knowledge of the said constitution and government from the common practice of the place, the general understanding; and his general information as a French citizen, and an inhabitant of the said colony. The deponent further says, that there is not any general seal for the said colony; the Captain General having one for all affairs relating to the military department; the Prefect one for all matters relating to the finances and supplies which belong to his department; and the Grand Judge one for all matters relating to the judicial department; hnd that he derives this knowledge from his own experience and transactions, and from his general knowledge of the said colony and government;” The defendant objected to the reading of the exemplification as evidence, because the same was not legally authenticated, and because it does not contain the whole proceedings, and is not a full record of the whole proceedings which was before, and which had taken place in, the Supreme Court of the Island of Hhartinique,
Harper and Boyd, for the Plaintiff,
contended, 1. That in proving a foreign judgment, proof of the seal of the court, and hand-writing of the judge, was sufficient. They cited Henry vs. Adey, 3 East, 221. Moises vs. Thornton, 8 T. R. 303. Church vs. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 238, Peake's Evid. 72, 73, (notes,) 49, and the act of 1785, ch. 46, s. 2. 2. That the record is full and complete according to the principles of the law of England — They Cited Peake's Evid. 68. 5 Bile. Ab. tit. Pleading, 323; and 1 Esp. N. P. 6.
Martin, (Attorney General,) and Fufviance, for the Defendant,
cited Peake's Evid. 46, 47. 3 Inst. 173. Glib. L. E. 17, 23. Melan vs. The Duke of Fitzjames, 1 Bos. & Pull. 141; and Talleyrand vs. Boulanger, 3 Ves. 448,
Chase, Cb. J. The Court are satisfied upon the sub«' ject, and are of opinion that the mere showing the seal of a court of our own state in another court of the state, is sufficient authentication of the judgment of the court it purports to certify. But if it is a judgment of a foreign court, the seal of the court does not prove itself, but must be proved by testimony. The court are of opinion, that ¡the testimony produced in this case is sufficient to prove the seal of office of the Grand Judge of the Island and Colony of Martinique. As to the record’s not being full enough, the court are to presume that the record produced contains all the proceedings in the court of appeals, and that it is a full record; and the court are of opinion that it is proper to be given in evidence to the jury. Besides, it is to be observed, that this record is not the matter in issue in this cause, but comes in collaterally. It seems to the court, that as this is mere matter of inducement the same strictness is not necessary; but upon this point the court do not mean to give an opinion. In the case of Henry vs. Adey, 3 East, 221, it was debt upon the very record produced. The court, however, are of opinion, that this record is sufficiently authenticated, and ought to be read in evidence to the jury. The defendant excepted,
4. The counsel differed in their ideas of the manner it) which they ought to proceed as to the proof of the French law.
Martin (Attorney General,) for the Defendant,
contended, that when it is disputed as to what are the laws of a foreign country, evidence must be given to prove what are those taws; and if there is a different construction put upon them by the parties, the court is to decide which construction is to prevail.
Chase, Ch. J. seemed to concur in this idea of the attorney general, and said that the court are to decide vvliat is proper evidence of the laws of a foreign country; and when evidence is given of those laws, the court arc to judge of the applicability of such laws, when proved, to the case before the court.
5. The defendant offered to read to the jury certain letters written to him by Dominique Pechier, (and admitted to be in his hand-writing,) for the purpose of controverting the testimony of the said Pechier, as returned with one of the commissions which issued in this cause; but the plaintiff objected to the reading of those letters, because the testimony taken was under a commission obtained by the defendant, and he cannot invalidate his own testimony,
Chase, Cb. J. The letters being admitted to be in the hand -writing of Mr. Pechier, the witness, the court arc of opinion they may be read to the. jury, for one purpose alone; that is, to impeach the credit of the witness as to what he has sworn upon his examination under the commission, contradictory to the contents of the letters; but that the letters are not admitted as evidence to prove any particular fact, which may be contained therein.
6. The plaintiff then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that a contract made in one country, with a view to the execution or performance of it in another, is governed in all things, both as to its essence and the mode of enforcing it, by the laws of the latter country.
Chase, Ch. J, If the contract is in writing it will itself show where .it is to be executed; but if it does not appear, by the face of it, the. presumption is that it is to be executed in the country where it was made. If it does appear that it has a view to be executed in a particular country, it must he carried into effect pursuant to the laws of that country. But if the contract is by parol, the party is at liberty to go into evidence to prove the intention of the parties as to where it was to be executed,
7. The second bill of exceptions. The plaintiff prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that if they are of opinion, from the evidence before them, that the testator of the defendant was, on the 1st of April and the 30th of September 1797, indebted to the plaintiff in the several sums stated in his account filed in this action, or any part thereof, and that the plaintiff at those several times resided within the U. S, and was known by the testator so to reside; and that he, on the two first above mentioned days, acknowledged the debts, or any part of them, and directed them, or any part of them, to be paid out of his estate after his death, and on the last mentioned day directed, in and by his will of that day, that all debts in the U. S. should be paid out of Iris property in the U. S. bequeathed to the defendant, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover the said sums, or such part thereof as were so acknowledged and directed to be paid, or the value thereof, in current money of this state.
Harper and Boyd, for the Plaintiff,
¡cited Thorn vs. Watkins, 2 Ves.36, 37.
Marlin, (Attorney General,) for the Defendant,
also, ciicd 'Thorn vs. Watkins. Bruce vs. Bruce, 2 Bos. 8p Pull. 229, (notes;) and Sinclair vs. Monsieur cle France,- Ibid, 563. •
Ohask, Ch. J. The court cannot give the direction prayed for by the counsel for the plaintiff. The court are of •opinion, that the facts stated, .and the acknowledgments, cannot change the nature of the contracts made between the plaintiff and the testator in Martinique, or prevent the construing the same according to the laws of France, so far as the same may be applicable to the contracts. If the contracts, by which the debt becomes due, were made in France, they must be governed by the laws of France. No acknowledgment of the debt due in this country can change the original nature of it. The great question depends upon what are the laws of France. If the plaintiff can establish his claim, according to the laws of France, no act of the testator can prevent his recovering it in this country. The plaintiff excepted.
8. The. third bill of exceptions. The defendant further offered in evidence, that the 34,925 livres and 14 sols, alleged to have beeu received by the testator in France, and invested in goods, and shipped as before mentioned, which goods were by the testator disposed o( in the U. 8. for his use, were, part of the sum of 40,000 livres, advanced by the plaintiff to the testator in May and August 1793, and by the testator received from Madam JJubin Blampre, and which are charged in the account exhibited in this cause, and constitute the two articles of 12,000 livres and 28,000 livres in that account, which are therein charged as received by the testator for the use of the plaintiff, and on which lie has charged an interest from the times he states the sums to have been respectively received by the testatorj and therefore, that the plaintiff had elected to consider the whole of the 40,000 livres as money due to him from ills father, from the respective times he received it; and that the plaintiff’did, on the 9th day of June 1808, file the following account in this cause, as specifying the claims which he had against the defendant as executor of the. testator, for which he had brought his suit, to wit:
“Benjamin Be Sobry, Executor of Michael A. Terrier de Laistre% deceased,
To Lewis A. Terrier de Laisire, Dr»
Currency. Dolls,
1792, Deer. 29. To 1236 livres, money of the Islands, being the price of 4 slaves, sold and delivered to the testator on my. departure from Martinico to Trance, as, by his written acknowledgment, dated. 30th Nov. 1795, equal to
£561 16 4 $1498 18
Interest thereon from this day till 21st May 1803, at 5 p. ct,
291 15 10 778 12.
1793,,May 21. To 12,000 livres tournois, received by said testator this day for my use, as per his letter of this date, equal to
857 5 0 2285 75
Interest thereon from this day till 20th May 1803, at 5 p. ct.
428 12 6 1142 87
Aug. 1. To 28,000 livres tournois, received by said testator for my use this, day, as per his letter of this date, equal to
2000. 5333 33
Interest thereon at 5 p. ct. till 20th May 1803,
980 9 8 2614 64
Í795, May 22. To 3440 livres tournois,, received by said testator this day for my use, as per his two letters, one of this, date, and the other of the 15th October 1795, equal to
245 14 3 655 23
Interest thereon at 6 p. ct. till 20th May 1803,
117 18 314 40
£5483 11 7 $14622 52
The defendant then offered in, evidence, that in consequence of this account so filed, the defendant had taken out the three last commissions which were executed, in order to examine into the justice of the claims in the account stated, and the operation of the French laws thereon; and he gave in evidence the commissions, the returns thereof, and the evidence obtained thereon, and prayed that the court would not permit the plaintiff to change the nature of his claim contrary to his own election deliberately made, asá contrary to his claims as exhibited by him io ihe defendant in his said account. The plaintiff also prayed the court, and their direction to the jury, that if the jury should be of opinion, from the evidence before them, that 34,925 livres and 14 sols, were, on or before the 29th of December 1793, received in France from the plaintiff, and to his use, by the testator, and were, on or about that day, invested by him in merchandises at Bounleaux, in France, for the account ami risk of the plaintiff; and that the merchandises were then and there, by the testator, shipped to the U. S. for the account and risk of the plaintiff, and that the merchandise did arrive in the U. S. some time in or before the month of May 1795, and were then and there received by the testator into his possession, and sold and disposed of for his own use and benefit, and the price thereof paid to the testator in his life-time, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of money which the jury, from the evidence, shall believe that the testator received for the merchandise.
Ciiase, Ch. J. The court cannot give the direction to the jury as prayed by the plaintiff. The court are of opinion, that the plaintiff is precluded, by his account filed, from going into evidence to establish his claim for the money had aud received by the testator for his use, in a manner different from that in which he has elected, by his account, containing a notice of his claim, to consider the testator his debtor for his use. The plaintiff' excepted.
9. The fourth bill of exceptions. The defendant then prayed the opinion of the court, and their direction to the jury, that if the sum remaining in the defendant’s hands, and retained by him as a legacy, or any part thereof, is liable to be recovered from him, as a part of the succession of the testator, and to be made answerable for such debts of the testator as were contracted under the French laws, which have their force and effect according to the provisions of those laws, and which are to be paid out of the succession, according to the rules and regulations thereby established, the suit could only he prosecuted against him by aTid in the name of the plaintiff' and his brother, if they have both jointly taken upon themselves the management and administration of the succession, or in the name ofhis brother, Marc Jintkony, alone, if he has alone taken upon himself the administration and management, arid not in the nanie Of the plaintiff alone, as the suit is now brought.
Chase'; Oh'. J. The éourt are of opinion, that arty ere» ditor may sue the executor pro forma, as he is called here, provided he shows himself to be a creditor under the laws of the country where the contract was entered into, That as long as assets remain in the hands of the executor pro forma, he is answerable to the creditors; and if there is' :any surplus, it is to go into the mass _ of thé succession, there, to be distributed according to the laws of succession of the country where the person is domiciled.
The court are of opinion, that personal property adheres to the person; that wherever the person is domiciled, the property goes in distribution, according to the laws of that country, Whatever fund in this country is answerable for debts, is answerable to all creditors alike, (provided they show themselves to be creditors,) according to the laws of this country.
If our laws give a preference to our Citizens, the defendant should have pleaded that our citizens had that preference.
The plaintiff is to be considered as a creditor, and in no other capacity; and if he has not intermeddled, so as to prevent his récovery as such Under the French laws, he^ must recover in this action.
The court are of opinion, that if the jury should find, from the evidence, that the plaintiff, as heir pure and simple, or as beneficiary heir, has not intermeddled with the estate ot succession of the testator, and that the testator was indebted to the plaintiff, at the time of his death, that then the plaintiff has a right to support this suit. But the court do not mean to decide, that an intermeddling by the plaintiff in the quality of heir pure and simple, or as heir with benefit of inventory, would defeat his right of recovery in this action, that question being still open.
The court are of opinion, that the assets in the hands of the defendant, as executor of the testator, are liable to the payment of debts due to the citizens of France from the testator, contracted there, or in the colonies of France, and that the defendant will be only accountable to the testamentary executor, the heir pure and simple, or heir with benefit of inventory, for the surplus remaining, after payment of debts, which surplus is distributable according to the laws of France. The defendant excepted. 1
10. The fifth bill of exceptions. The defendant further offered in evidence, that the testator being a French citiy.en, and having his domicil in the Island of Martinique, died there, having first duly made the wills and codicils herein before mentioned and set forth, and that at the time of his death he was possessed of certain property in the U. S. and had certain debts due to him therein; that Perkier, in that Island, as testamentary executor, took upon himself the management and administration of the succession of the testator, according to the French laws; that the Succession, according to the laws of France, is the whole inass of his estate, real, personal, mixed, rights and claims, whatsoever and wheresoever, of which the deceased was seized or possessed, or to which he had right or title at the time of his death, and which, by the French laws, were answerable in the first place for payment of debts, and then of legacies, and after the payment of debts and legacies, the residue to be enjoyed by the heir of the deceased, if he had only one child, or if more than one, to be divided equally between them. That by the said law all the chii~ dren constitute but one heir, and are equally entitled to the residue, where there is a residue. That Pechier, by taking upon himself the management and administration of the succession, was the person whose duty it was to take into his possession, and to collect, receive and obtain, the whole of the succession, and to pay and satisfy thereout all debts due from and claims against the succession; and afterwards to deliver over the residue to the heirs of the testator, unless the heirs, or some one of them, chose to take the administration and management of the succession out of the hands of Pechier. That by the French laws the heir or heirs, or either of them, have an exclusive right, in the first instance, to take upon themselves the management and administration of the succession, and if they do not, and the testamentary executor acts, yet they may, whenever they please, interpose and take upon themselves the management and administration of the succession. That tiie testator left two sons, his heirs, both of whom are now living, the plaintiff, and his brother named Marc Jhithoiuj Terrier de Laistre3and that they, sometime in the month of July in the year 1798, did take upon themselves;' In the Islánd of Martinique, the management and administration of the succession; and that Pechier did then and there deliver up to them the succession as far as it had borne to his hands; and thereupon it Became the duty of ihe plaintiff, and his brother, to take into their possession the whole of the succession, and collect árid obtain the debts, &c. constituting part of the same, and thereout to pity all debts and legacies. That the debts and claims for which this action is brought; were contracted and arose in the government of France, and are subject to the operation of the French laws; and payable out of the succession According to those laws, and in such manner as is by those laws provided: That he, the defendant, according to the wills and codicils, and with the assent of Pechier, while he bad the management and administration of the succession, obtained letters of administration in due form of law, in this státe, to collect the debts and other effects, which were in the U. S. and which constituted part of the succession, in order to pay thereout the debts by the will charged thereon, arid to hold the residue agreeable to the dispositions of the testator, and the French laws operating thereon. That the sum remaining in his hands, after payment of the debts,- is retained by liirn, he claiming the same as a legacy given him by the testator. That no creditor of the succession, or other person, can, by the French laws, bring suit against, or have any claim against a legatee, who hath obtained his legacy for which he can prosecute any suit, unless the succession Is insolvent,- aftd that the insolvency must be established by judiciary proceedings in a French court, of competent jurisdiction; and that there was no evidence given by .the plaintiff of such proceedings having been had. The plaintiff further offered in evidence, that by the laws of France,- and her colonies, a co-heir of a person deceased, with benefit of inventory, who is also a creditor of the deceased, preserves' in all cases his rights as a creditor, anci may recover his debt out of the estate of the deceased wherever he can find it. Without prejudice to his rights as a co-heir; and that' the plaintiff in this action never did act as co-heir of the' éstate of the testator, nor in any manner intermeddle with his estate.- The plaintiff then, upon the whole statement in this case, prayed, the opinion of the court,- and their di« section to the jury, that if the jui’y should be of opinion, from the evidence before them, that the testator did purchase from the plaintiff, in the Island of Martinique, sometime in or before the year 1793, four slaves, the property of the plaintiff* and did also receive from the plaintiff, on loan, at Bourdeaux, in France, on or about the 21st of May 17PS, the sum of 12,000 livrcs, current money of France, and on or about the 1st of August 1793, the further sum of 28,000 livres like money, and on or about the 22 d of 'May 1795, the sum of 8170 current money of the U. S. to be employed for the benefit ofthe testator, and accounted for with, or.rcpaid to the plaintiff; and that the testator, at the time of his death, was possessed of personal property in this state, and elsewhere within the U. S. to the amount of S13,093 68, and bequeathed the same to the defendant by his will, bearing date at Martinique, on the 14th of April 1797; and that the, defendant duly proved ■the said will in the orphans court of Baltimore county, in this state, and obtained from that court letters testamentary on the will, and took upon himself the burden and execution thereof, and received into his possession, as executor, the personal property of the.testator, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover, as well the value of the slaves, as the several sums of money received by the testator, provided there be assets sufficient to pay the s.ame, and if not, then so pro rata.
ITarper aod, Bmjd, for the Plaintiff
cited 7he Dutch West India Company vs. Van Moses, 1 Stra. 612. 2 Huberus, B. 1, tit. 3 p. 26, cited in Emory vs Greenough, 3 Dall. Rep. 370, (note.) Melon vs. The Duke of Fitzjames, 1 Bos. & Pull. 142. Robison vs. Bland, 2 Burr, 1077, 1078, 1083. Imlay vs. Ellefsen, 2 East, 455. Negro Hector vs. De Kerlegand, 3 Harr, & M'Hen. 185 Wright vs. Nutt, 1 H. Blk. Rep. 152. Folliott. vs. Ogden, Ibid 123. S. C. 3 T. R. 734. 3 Bac. Ab. 30. Hunter vs. Potts, 4 T. R. 182, 183, 184, 185. Pigott vs. Mason, in Court of Chan. Sinclair vs. Monsieur de France, 2 Bos. & Pull. 364, (note.) Mostyn vs. Fabrigas, 1 Cowp. 174. Dixon's Ex’rs. vs. Ramsay’s Ex’rs. 3 Cranch, 324. Talleyrand vs. Bounlanger, 3 Ves. 448. Thorn vs. Watkins, 2 Ves. 36. 2 Fonbl 442; and Domat, 349.
Martin, (Attorney General,) for the Defendant,
cited Harper vs. Hampton, 1 Harr. & Johns. 453. 2 Huberus, B. 1, tit. 3, p. 36. Cumming vs. The State, 1 Harr. & Johns. 340. Melan vs. The Duke of Fitzjames, 1 Bos. & Pull. 142. Talleyrand vs. Bounlanger, 3 Ves. 441; and Vatell, B. 2, ch. 8, s. 110, 111.
Chase, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the court. The court are of opinion, that it is a general principle, which admits of a few exceptions, that in, construing contracts made in foreign countries, the courts are governed by file lex loci as to what respects the essence of the contract? that is, the rights acquired, and the obligations created by it. That the remedy or mode of enforcing the contract, is to be conformable to the laws of the country where the action is instituted, Dixon's ex’rs. vs. Ramsay’s ex’rs. 3 Cranch, 323, 324.
The exceptions to construing contracts according to the lex loci, which at present occur, are
First. Where by the terms of the contract it is to bq executed in another country? there the parties to it, by common consent, adopt the laws, of that country qs the rule of decision, ■'
, Secondly. Where the contract is. contra bonos mores, as for the price of prostitution — Such a contract, though legal in some countries, would not be enforced in England, or in .this state.
The court are also of opinion, that unless the jury should be satisfied, according to the laws of Fance, tbit a co-heir with benefit oí inventory, who is also a creditor, cannot recover in the quality of creditor, without renouncing, that then the plaintiff is entitled to recover whatever the jury may find due on the contracts made in France, according to the laws of France.
The court are also of opinion, that as to that part of the sum. which is claimed under the contract made in America, the plaintiff is entitled to recover, without any regard to the laws of France, whatever the jury may find due thereby.
The court are also of opinion, that upon principles of common sense and justice, no pavt of the testator’s estate is subject to distribution among his co-heirs, but the surplus or residuum which may remain after payment of all the debts and legacies; and that a debt due to one of the co-heirs is as much entitled, on principles of justice, to payment, as a debt due to a stranger; and that it is incumbent on the defendant to prove to the jury that there is a law of France which extinguishes the right or claim of the co-heir creditor, with benefit of inventory, unless he renounces as co-heir.
The court are also of opinion, that the laws of France arc matters of fact to be found by the jury, upon evidence to be produced to them; and, unless the jury find some law of France, which extinguishes the claim or right of recovery of the plaintiff', that the plaintiff’ has a right to recover in this case, whatever the jury may find to be due to him upon a full investigation of the evidence. The court also inform the jury, that it does not appear to the court that there is any law' of France which is a legal impediment to the the plaintiff’s recovery. The defendant excepted.
Harper, for the Plaintiff,
before the jury, upon the laws, of France, cited 1 Domat, 346, 347, 348, 349; & 2 Coutume de, Paris, 252, 299, 302.
Martin, (Attorney General,) and Purviance, for the Defendant,
also before the jury, referred to the testimony taken under the several commissions issued in this cause. 2 Pothier, 116. 1, Poth. 77, 2 Coutume de Paris, art. 300, 301, 252, 302, 303, 304, 307,309, 317, 318, 344, and the commentary of Ferriere on those articles. Serres, 304, S05, 400, 311, 312, 363, 309, 351, 393, 421, 315, 322, 323, 314, 308, 262. Ordinance of Lewis XIV, art. 1, 4. 1 Coutume de Paris, art. 179. 13 Vin. Ab. 50, 414. Peake’s Evid. 48; and Collet vs. Keath, 2 East, 260.
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant brought a writ of error to this court.
The cause was argued before Tilghmax, 1$ochavan, Nichoi sox and Gantt, J. by
Winder, for the plaintiff in error,
and by
Harper and Boyd, for the defendant in error.
faj Tin's part of tile court’s opinion was given by them after the argument cl' all tbe points of law in the cguse, and while the attorney general was addressing the jury.

Opinion:
. The Court
concurred in the opinions oí the General Court, in the first, fourth, and fifth bills of exceptions* taken bj the 'defendant in that court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.