Marshal's hands a sum of money which had been recovered in the last Circuit Court by a British subject whose estate had been confiscated. It was granted with a demonstration to me of these facts; that the Premier (Jay) aimed at the cultivation of Southern popularity; that the Professor (Wilson) knew not an iota of equity; that the North Carolinian (Iredell) repented of the first ebullitions of a warm tempter; and that it will take a score of years to settle, with such a mixture of Judges, a regular course of chancery."[1] At the next Term in February, 1793, the Court, having decided the Chisholm Case against the contentions of Georgia, was evidently reluctant to rule against her a second time; hence on Randolph's motion to dissolve the injunction, while holding that Georgia's claim to the debt was a right to be pursued at common law and not by bill in equity, it decided to continue the injunction until this right might be determined at law in a suit by the State. Accordingly an "amicable action" at law was entered in the Court, and the case was tried before a special jury, in 1794. On the questions of law, the Judges united in the charge, which was delivered by Chief Justice Jay. The jury found in favor of Brailsford; and the State's claim was denied on the ground that a sequestration law did not operate to confiscate the debt or to vest title in it in the State.[2]
- ↑ Omitted Chapters of History Disclosed in the Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph (1888), by Moncure P. Conway, 168, letter of Aug. 12, 1792.
- ↑ The following account appeared in the American Daily Advertiser, Feb. 17, 1794: "On the 4th of Feb., 1794, a special jury was qualified to try the cause, which, during four days, was argued by Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Dallas for the State of Georgia, and Mr. Bradford, Mr. Tilghman and Mr. Lewis for the defendants. As we understand that a full report of the record and the pleadings b preparing for the press, we shall only add on this occasion the charge of the Court which was delivered by Jay, Chief Justice, on the 7th of February." For Chief Justice Jay's charge in full, see New York Daily Advertiser, Feb. 11, 20, 1794. Two other cases were tried by a jury in the Supreme Court—Oswald v. New York and Cailin v. South Carolina. See History cf the Supreme Court, by Hampson L. Carson, 169. note; see also New Federal Judicial Code, in Amer. Law Rev. (1912). XLVI.
