hva reply in re nom for leave for direct appeal w exhibits 1787-2012

Appeal from Van Allen v NYS Board of Elections Index No.: 1787 -2012

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT -----------------------------------------------------------------------x H. William Van Allen in esse, CPLR Art 78 in Albany Petitioner, Index No.: 1787 -2012 -against- PETITIONER REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; FOR LEAVE FOR DIRECT APPEAL TO THE COURT Respondents. OF APPEALS -----------------------------------------------------------------------x STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ULSTER ) Accordingly, I, H. William Van Allen, being duly sworn, depose and say under penalty of perjury:

1. Petitioner, H. (Harold) William Van Allen self-represented without an

attorney, hereby replies as a matter of clarification to the Response dated September

14, 2012 of Appellant’s Counsel ANDREW B. AYERS, Assistant Solicitor General in

the office of Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of New York, as to

Petitioner’s Notice of Motion with Exhibit A through H for Leave for Direct Appeal of a

constitutional issue where the construction of the U.S. Constitution and precedents of

New York Judicial dicta as to use and definition of the term of art “natural-born

Citizen” (NBC) are involved and controlling of resolution of ongoing matters below in

four (4) Trial Courts and two (2) appellate departments.

2. Petitioner contends that this Court may grant permission to appeal

under § 5602(b) only in two situations, both of which exists here. The first is when

petitioner seeks to appeal "from an order of the appellate division which does not

finally determine an action." CPLR § 5602(b)(1) which this Court in the Second

Petitioner REPLY in support of leave for Direct Appeal of 3


Appellate Department in reference to Exhibit E has done must “necessarily affect” the

final order or judgment herein too; and,

3. That in addition Section § 5602(b)(2) applies only in "an action

originating in a court other than the supreme court [or other enumerated courts]." Id.

§ 5602(b)(2); and that as this proceeding originated as a result of the Administrative

proceeding at the NYS BOE with a Determination issued February 28, 2012 shown as

Exhibit H and whereby Petitioner standing accrues as of that date with the September

5, 2012 Certification of BHO challenged by Petitioner for Ballot access at the

November 6, 2012 General Election (see Exhibit I). Thus, § 5602(b) does allow this

Court to authorize an appeal as must “necessarily affect” the final order or judgment

herein too.

4. Petitioner also references CPLR § 5602(a)(1)(ii), as that section applies

only "where the appellate division has made an order on a prior appeal in the action,"

§5602(a)(1)(ii), which this Court in the Second Appellate Department in reference to

Exhibit E has done must “necessarily affect” the final order or judgment herein too.

5. That among the cases listed by the petitioner in his Memorandum of Law

and for the convenience of the Court during its review, Petitioner provides the Record

on Appeal for the case LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) March Term, 1863

(see Exhibit J) wherein the matter of what constitutes a natural-born citizen in New

York as ratified and adopted by the U.S. Constitution in Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph

5, the Plaintiff Anna R. Ludlam, the daughter of Richard L. Ludlam (deceased) father

and Carmen W. Ludlam (widow) mother, was born in New York City is a NBC in that

her father Richard L. Ludlam a natural-born U.S. Citizen had not relinquished his

U.S. citizenship when residing in Peru and when upon marriage to Carmen W.

Richard L. established Carmen W. Ludlam’s basis for naturalized US Citizenship


http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=6&k2dockey=14120214@COLL41


status; and as the citizenship status of the children and wife follow the citizenship

status of the father according to Congress and common law.

PETITIONER REPLY IN CONCLUSION

Preliminary to the perfection of the issue on appeal from the order shown as A,

Petitioner wishes an order of the Court granting leave of direct appeal to the NYS

Court of Appeals on the U.S. Constitutional Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 5 “Natural

Born Citizen” term of art meaning that based upon the Court of Appeals own holdings

will decide the status of the cases below in trial court and pending to be filed at the

Court of Claims as against the New York State Board of Elections and John Does and

Jane Does, and warrants for other and different relief as the Court deems necessary

for justice herein; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters

therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe

it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information

and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge.

___________________________

H. William Van Allen Sworn to before me This ____ day of September 2012 _____________________ Notary Public



Petitioner Motion for leave for Direct Appeal

Exhibit I

Perkin~lCoie700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600

Washington, DL 20005-3960

PHONE,202.654.6200

FAX, 202.654.6211

www.perkinscoie.com

September 5, 2012

New York State Board of ElectionsATTN: Anna Svizzero40 North Pearl Street, Suite 5Albany, New York 12207-2729

Dear Ms. Svizzero:

Please find enclosed the official Certificate of Nomination of President Barack Obama asthe nominee of the Democratic Party of the United States for President of the United States andof Vice President Joe Biden as nominee for Vice President of the United States.

If you need any additional information, please contact Kip Wainscott, Counsel at Obamafor America, at (312) 985-1459 or kwainscott(a)barackobama.com. Please confirm as soon aspossible with Mr. Wainscott via email that you have now received all of the necessarydocumentation to place President Obama and Vice President Biden on your state's generalelection ballot for November 6, 2012. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

llL L--

Robert F. BauerGeneral Counsel, Democratic National Committee

Enclosure: Official Certification of Nomination

ANCHORAGE· BEIJING· BELLEVUE· BOISE· CHICAGO· DALLAS' DENVER· LOS ANGELES, MADISON· NEW YORK

PALO ALTO· PHOENIX· PORTLAND· SAN DIEGO· SAN FRANCISCO· SEATTLE· SHANGHAI WASHINGTON. D.C.

Perkins Coie LLP

@)DEMOCRATS

;-0 I: 06

OFFICIAL CERTIFICATION OF NOMINATION

As Chair and Secretary respectively of the National Convention of the Democratic Partyof the United States of America, having assembled in Charlotte, North Carolina on September 4through 6,2012, WE DO HEREBY CERTlFY that the following are the nominees of said Partyfor President and Vice President of the United States respectively, and that the following arelegally qualified to serve as President and Vice President of the United States respectively underthe applicable provisions of the United States Constitution:

For President of the United StatesBarack Obama

5046 South Greenwood AvenueChicago, lllinois 60615

For Vice President of the United StatesJoe Eiden

1209 Barley Mill RoadWilmington, Delaware 19807

(Ja<M !--1fLt"'b<bf.L'<"<'-":::<~~--><--v--'------Alice Travis GermondSecretary, Democratic National Convention

Anto io ViUaraigosaChair, Democratic National Convention

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Signed and sworn to before me this day by ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA and ALICE TRAVISGERMOND.

Date: September 5.., 2012

My conunission expires: __ 7--'<{'---<Db'-"'~"'-1;...,..5-'----

430 SOUTH CAPITOL STREET, SE, WASHINGTON, DC 20003 • T 202-863-8000 • F 202-863-8174 • DEMOCRATS.ORG

00<,

IV

0.0 LBS LT-R---I-O-P-1-O 2I

OFA130 E R.••.NDOLPH STI CHICAGO IL60601

I SHIP TO:

I A.NNA S\'IZZERONEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECfrONSSTE.540 NORTH PEARL STREETALBANY NY 12207-2729

UPS NEXT DAY AIRTBACKlNG #: lZ 104 lAY 0191020358

BILLING: PIP

Reference#l: Ballot Accessins 14.5.29. WNJNVSO OO.OA 07/2012 ~TM

LO:I ~ld 9- d3S ZIOZ


Petitioner Motion for leave for Direct Appeal

Exhibit J

CARMEN M. L

ANNA R. LUDLAM, DUCEABED,

I I

I AGAINST I I SILAS LUDLAM, EDWARD LUDLAM, WILLIAM I I H. HEWITT and MAXI310 M. LVDLAM, i I

- - .- - - . . . - U A S m

OX APPFAL FROM SUPREME COURTSECOND DISTRICT.

It INGRAHAM, Att'y for Prf, AHC#,

C. J. & E. DEWITT, Att'ys for Deft, Bespandent,

MAXIM0 l f . LCDLAM. I i

GEO. G. REYNOLDS, 1 I

A tt'y for Dcf'ik' Respondc.nt+s, 6. d: F, LUDL.LY and W. H. IIEWITT. i I

B R O O K L Y N : BKK)KLTN CITY N e w 8 PRINT. 868 FTXTON 6 T R m

0

1862.

SUPREME COURT.

-~

ANNA R. LUDLAM, P l a i n t i f ,

against

SILAS LUDLAM, EDWARD LUDLAIVI, WILLIAM H. HEWITT, and MAXI- MO M. LUDLAM,

Defendants.

Summons for 72 -

l i e f .

To the defendants above named :

are Ilerebe ~ u n t n t o n e b and required to answer the complaint in this action, which will be filed in the office of the Clerk of the County of Kings, a t the c i t y Hall, Brooklyn, Kings Cou~ity, New York, and to serve a copy of your'ansmer to the said complaint. on the eubscriber, a t his office, NO. G Court street, in said City of Brooklyn, within twenty days after the service of this summons on you, exclusive of the day of such service ; and if you fail to answer the said complaint within the time aforesaid, the plaintzf in this action will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the complaint.

Dated, February 8th, 1859.

R. C. UNDERHILL,

Plaint(ff's A1 forney,

No. 9 Court street,

Brooklyn, L. I.

KINGS COIJNTY.

ANNA R. LUDLAM, against

WILLIAM H. HEWITT, and MAXI-

i SILAS LUDLAM. Eowaao L I J D L ~ M } Case.

MO Bf. LUDLAM. 1 This action was commenced on the 28t.h day of Feb-

ruary, 1859.

The pleadi~igs in the act ioi~ follow, to wit. :

KlKGS COUNTY. 4

ANXA R. LTDLAM, Plaititif,

against FILAS LLDLAM, EDWARD ~ A U D L A ~ I , Com~zaint*

WILLTAM H. HEWITT, and MAXI- MO M. LITDLAM,

Defendants. , I

' Tho plaintiff, Anna R . Ludlam, shows to the Court : That she, the said plaintiff, and the defendant Maximo

5, M. Lndlam, are the only surviving children and descendants of their father, Richard L. Ludlam, who, as the plaintiff is informed and believes, departed this life on the third day of April, in the year 1838, having duly made and published his last will and testament,

bearing date the fourteenth day of October, in the year 1837, wllcrcin he appointed his brothers, the defendants Silas Ludlam and Edward Ludlam, and his brother-in-law. the defendant William H. H e ~ i t t , and tlir survivors and survivor of them, to be the executors and ex-cntor of liis said will. aud guardian and guardians of the 1)crsons and estate of liis aid children, rcspectivcly, during their minority; and tha t said will was duly admitted to probate, and recorded as a mill

6

of real and personal estate by tlie surrogate of the city ant1 county of n'ew Tork, on the fourth day of May, in t l ~ c year 1538.

Ant1 tllc plaintifr fhrtlier s l~ows, that the said de- fentlnnts so appointed guardians in and by said will, acceptetl said appointment, and entered upon the exe- cution of tlie trusts so assumed by them.

'. And tlie plaintiff' further shows, that she attained the age of twenty-one years on the eighth day of De- cember, in the year 1656, and that the defendant, Max- irno 31. Ludlam, :tt,tairled such age on the eighteenth 7 day of R'ovember, in the year 1852.

I ' And the plaintiff further shows, upon her informa tion and belief, that Thornas R. Ludlam, a brot,her of her said father, Richard L. Ludlam, on the seventeenth day of March, in the year 1847, a t the city of New York, died intestate and without issue, (never having been inarriotl,) and being seized in fee, a t the time of his dcatli, of several parcels of land situate in the city of New York, and of a parcel of land situate in Queens county, in t l ~ e State of New York, and leaving him surviving his mother, Rebecca Ludl.,m, three brothers, t,wo sisters, and such clescenda~~t or descendants of his

8'

deceased brother, Richard I,. Ludlam, a s were then entitled, by the laws of this State, to take land by descent, his only heirs a t l aw; and tha t such descendant

o r descendants of said R ic l~a r t l L. Luclla111 thereupon became seized i n fee of v11c equal uildivided s ix th p a r t of said parcels of l and , subject to the life es ta te tllc?rc- in of said Rebecca Ludlani, who depar ted this life on the t ~ v e l f t h d a y of Ma!, ill tllc year 1849.

'. And the plaintiff f ' r~ r t l~vr ~ I I O W S , upon h e r i i ~ f h r r n i ~ tion and belief, tliilt l l ~ e clet 't~l~dant, 3laxirno i\l. Lud- lam, was bur11 o u t of t l ~ e jar is i l i r t io i~ of tllc U l ~ i t r ( i S ta t e s , to wit., a t Linla, ill I'errr, Pout11 ,4merica, :111cl a t the time of t h e d c a t l ~ of said Thomas R. Lrlclla111, and u ~ ~ t i l thc y1.ar 1855, was ti11 al ien, i111d not e i ~ t i i l e d to take by d e s c e l ~ t l a i ~ d s \ v i t l ~ i l ~ the S t a t e of n'ew Yorli, lwcause Ile was 11ot a c i t ~ z e l ~ of the U11itt.d F t a t ~ s , nor of the S t a t e of Ke\v J'ork, nor otl~er\vibc qun1ific.d lly

l aw to take suc11 1a11ds by descent.

" A r ~ d the plaintiff fu r t l~e l - R ~ I O W P , t l ~ a t s11c is :I n : ~ t - nral-born citizen of t l ~ e United S ta t e s , a l ~ d t h a t 111)olr the dea.th of h e r said ~ ~ n c l e , Tllornas R . Lndlanl, onch

10 equal nndivided one-sixth ] ,art of tllt1 several parct>ls of land whereof he died seized, a s aforesaid, tlesccndc~tl to h e r in fee. su11jec:t t o said lif'e cs ta tc of s:lid I i ~ ' 1 ) e ~ c a J,udlem, w h i c l ~ tel.l~riil:rtcd olr t l ~ c t ~ v c l f t l ~ (lay of 11;1y, in the ycar 1549.

.' And the plaintiff furth(br s l ~ o w s , 11po11 her illforrrla- tion alld belief, t h a t the defendant$. ill tlle montll of F e b r u a r y , i n the ) e a r 1850, presented t l ~ e i r pstitio11,ill d u e form of law, to this ('ourt, :rt a special term thereof, held in the couty of Kings (tllc said t1efclidant.q Silas Ludlam, Edward Ludlam, and IVilliam H. Hcwi t t

11 se t t ing for th in aid peti t ion t h a t they petitioncad in behalf of the plaintiff), wherein t h e y applied to this C o u r t for sa le of the in teres ts of the plaiutiff and the defendant Maximo M. Ludlam, in the several piuccs of land whereof sa id tho ma^ R. T,udlam died seizcd, a s

above ~ i ~ e n t i o n c d , and for the appointment of the de- fcnt ln~l t S i l i l ~ 1,udlarn as the guardian of tlle pltiintiff ant1 said JIaximo JI., i n relat ion to the proceedings on ~ u c l ~ application ; wl~ereupon t h e Cour t appoiilted uaid Silax Ludlain such guardian , who du ly executed a n d tile11 n bond a s ~equiribcl 1)y the Cour t , and in pursuance of the s t a t u t e ill such case made and provided ; t h a t s11c11 ~woccc( l i~ ips mero thereupon had upon srlcll appl i - cntion. t l ~ a t tl1i.s C o r ~ r t , by i t s order made o n the t n e n -

12

t y - s i s t l ~ (lily of Fclhruary a n d tire second day of PtIarch ill t l ~ e year 1850. ortlercd : I I I ~ (Iirected a strle a n d con- \-ey;~iicc of the i~ r t e rcs t s of said J l a s imo AI., aiid of the ~ ) l i i i ~ ~ t i f f , in s)ii(l parcels of land by said g u n r d i a ~ l , a n d sac11 sale i l n d c o n v e p n c c ~ v c r c accordingly made l)y h i ~ n .

" Anrl t l ~ c pli~i~lt ifT i 'ur t l~er s l lo~vs , upon 11er information ill111 \)olief, t ha t tile n e t proceccls of s:~itl sale, r e - c~ ivec l by si i i~l guarrlirtn, aniouutcd to s ix t l i o ~ l s a ~ ~ d one liundrcd :uicl forty-ciglr t dollars and e i g l ~ t ~ - o ~ l e cen ts ant1 \vol.e by lii111 paid aud transferred pursuant to said 13 or( lcr of J l a r c ! ~ 2d, 1850, to the t c s t a ~ n e n t a r g g u a r d i a l ~ s irforcs;iid, a n d tha t <:lit1 prnceccls, wit11 t l ~ ~ nccum~ila- t i o n of tlic i~~coln:: t l~c reo f no\ \ ' ill tlrcir har~t ls , nrnclul~t to tell t l ~ o u a ~ i l d folir 11undl-cd n ~ l d t l ~ i r t y - e i g l ~ t dollars n:l~l se\-ei~tg-two cclits.

'. All11 tilo p! i~i~\ t i f f t'nrtllc;' sllows, t h a t ~ i l l c e slre at- t;iiueJ I1c.r ~ i ia jor i ty , hlic a l~p l i cd to tlrct soid testa-

mllntitry g l~ar t l ians t o :tccouiit t l~c re fu r to he r and to uvcr a ~ ~ d transfer to ! ~ e r s t i d proceeds, \\.itll the

a c c ~ ~ n ~ n l a t i n n anrl incrcwbc tllc~.eof. itrid t h e securit ies in wl~ ich the s u ~ n e a r e illvestecl ; b u t t ha t t h t sa id 14 J I a s i m > Ji. Ludlanl c la i~l ls and insists t h a t 11e is enti, t led tu part icipate io said proceeds, a n d the accumula- tion :ind irlcruasi: tliereof, equally wi t11 the p l a i l ~ tiff, a s one of tlie licbirs a t . l aw of said T l lo~nas R. Ludlam.

deceased or otherwiue, tlud insist8 that said testameu- tary guardiau shall accoutlt for a ~ ~ d pay over one equal half part thereof to l i in~ , and, us slle is informed and believes, :hreatellri to 1)1.osecu te said testalncntary g:.nar- dianu tl~erefol., iu cuso they sllall pay over and transfer the whole of tiaid l)rocecds, wit11 t l ~ c accunlrila(io~~ and irlcrease tl~ereof, tu Ircr. ox this plai~ltifl i i~sis ts glle ~ I I I R

15 a lawful right to tleu~alld, and said tcstarne~ltary guar- diana are bound lo (lo : and that said testamelltary guardialls trre u l r ~ \ i l l i ~ ~ g alltl rcfuse, 011 a c c o u ~ ~ t of sucll nufounded c1lti111 c111i1 pi.etenhiolls of said 3laxii11o 31. Ludlam, so to accou~rt, pay ovcr, crntl transfer t o her. said proceeds, with the accun~ulat ic~~i and illcrcahc thereof, and the ~ecuri t ieu tl~erefor, wit l~out the ~ n c - ti011 and clireotio~l vf this (-'ourt.

.' 'l'l~e plailltiff t11erefol.e prnys, illat mid tc.stnrnen- tary guardians may he ordi~red to accou~lt to this Court for said proceeds, and t l ~ e accumulat io~~ and illcrease

16 thereof, trud way l ~ e ordered and directed to pay over, and t r a n ~ f e r to the plailltiff the aulount which may be aecertained to be iu their I~ands , after deducting their fees, commissions, and expenses, tugether wit11 the BC-

curitiee, in w l ~ i c l ~ the same may he illvested ; and thtrt. the plaintif?' may be adjudgeti to be entitled tllcroto ; and tha t the defendant Maximo 31. Ludlam n1ay bc adjudged not to be entitled to ally share, right, or. ill- terest therein, and for such furthar or other relief, or both, as to the Court may seem proper.

17 R. C. UNDERHILL,

Plai~ltif l 's Attorney.

X, Y. H-LTI-.l.C-I.:;)tllE COURT.

ICINGS COUNTY.

I AXSA R. I ~ I ~ D L A ~ ~ ,

against I

,. r ] .I](: 9 dcfcllcln~rt JI :~si i~lo 11. Ludlam, ans~ver i~ lg

t o tlrc ~ o l ~ l l r l i i i ~ ~ t , :itlinits that he. t l ~ c said Jlnsii~io, and i 1 1 ~ 1)lniiltif'f :~r(! the o111y snrviviilg cl~iltlren :111d tlc. scc11(!;111ts of I l ic i~ ;~r ( l I,. I,ut?l:~~n. tlccc:tsetl, in t l ~ c corn- p l ; ~ i r ~ t ~~nrnc t l , 1,iit w! cb111c?1. or not 11c, t l ~ c saitl JIasimo, \\.:IS 11or11 out of tlrc j~~ristlictioil of ( I N Cnitcd Ptatcs, 19 or :it I,~III:I. ~ I I 1'~~rii . S1-111t11 Ai~i(~rica, or i!:c said plaintiff is :L i~:ltni.:~l \)or11 citizvi~ of t l ~ e Uliited Ft:ltcs, he I ~ n s 1 1 0 knowlctlgr. or ii~forl~ratiorl ~lifficicmt. to forin a \wlicF, ;111cl t l~c!~~sf i~rc Ic:~vcs the pluii~tiff to ~naltc such proof of 1110 ; ~ l l o g ; ~ t i o ~ ~ s of llrc coml)lail~t i l l tlrosc re-

"A~rd tlro said tlcf(.~~clnrl t , fiir t l~cr a r~awcr i l l~ , says,

lipon iliforniatinn : ~ ~ : t l I~cliclf, that tlic said Richarcl L. I,udl:in~, tlcccascd. as ~vell at the birth of this dcfend- ;\11t as a t Ilic I ~ i r t l ~ of the plaintiff, was a citizen of the TTi~itctl Sta11.s. c:lpal~lc of taking, h o l d i ~ ~ g , and trans- do n ~ i t t i i ~ g 1)y clescciit. and devise real estate witliin tho State of Xcw York ; and he clcnies, that a t tho time of the death of Tl~oinas R . I,udlam, in the conlplaint nn~nc>~l, or until t l ~ c year 1855, or at the prcvcnt time,

Ile, t l ~ e said JIaxi~no, was, or cvcr hat11 been, an alien, or for that or any other cause iucapablc of taking by clescunt t l ~ e lands and real cstrrtc iri t l ~ e comp1:iint spe- cifically ~riuntiolred, ur 1a11ds \ \ p i thin t l ~ e Statc of Kern Yorli ; or that tlie plaiutiff, u p o ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ (feat11 of the said Thon~ns R. Lodla111. Li.cilllic. seized or entitled to one equal a~rdivitled six111 part of the F L ' Y C ~ ~ I parcels of

21 land, ~vl~ercof lit!, t l ~ u wid 'l'honli~s l<. Lndltlm, died sei7~.cl. 01. ir; r~ow cctitlc*(l 111 rc-ccivc. r ~ t fl~c? l~nrlcls of said d e t k ~ ~ c l i i l ~ t ~ Silils T,udli~nr. Rd~vartl Lodlanl. and Willialn B. licwitt . t l ~ u ter ; t :~me~~tary g ~ ~ i i r d i w ~ ~ a of t11e said plaintiff and this tlefendal~t, in thc c o m p l a i ~ ~ t namt?tl, thc nett ~~rocee t l s of the sale of the said undi. videtl sist11 lmrt of sirid ~cverirl parcels of land, with the nccurnl11:~tions c~f tlic inco~nc tl~ercof now in their hantls, 01. itny nt:cou~~t tlrerc!of, except as to tllc snm of $3,0'i4.40 ( t l~ ree t l ~ o r ~ ~ a ~ i d ;111t1 seventy-four dollaru and fort?- cents), hthing tlrc r~~oic.ty or l~illf \)art of said proceeds 1)y illem, as I ~ e r g~ilr(lia1lP. rcccivcd in virtne of,

23 and pnrsnant to tlie ortlcr and directions of illis Court, in t l ~ c procccclir~gs for, ant1 const~qncnt 11po11 tllc said sale rl~atlc.

'.An(l the snid tlrftkn(lant \ I :~s i~nn bI. Lltdlam, further rtns\vcri~rg, RayH. t l ~ i ~ t 111)on tlle death of t h e snid l ' h o ~ . R. L~~t l lwn~ . as i l l tllc corl~plitint stntvtl, l ~ c , t l ~ c said Maxin~o, iind sr~id ~)lili l~tilf I)rc.alne seizod in f'ee a8

tenant$ in comlnon. cwcll of' one ~ir~cli\itlerl 11illf part. or moicly of said Inntl:: a1111 real vstiite, \ v I~c r~of the said 'I 'l~o~nas It. Ludl:rr~~ tlicfl scizetl ;IS ;~forer;i~itl, sub- jcct to the life estate t l~c rc . i~~ of 1tt.l)ccc;r 1.ntllani in

23 tlie complaint oarne.:. ant1 upon tile s:llv of tlrc mid undivided &st11 part of the sirid lands a1111 real estatu in said coii~plirint set forth, lie, t lic said Nirxioro, be- canie the owner of. a r d entitled to one half part of the procertls of said sale in sevorality, and the dcfv~ldatite

S i l a ~ Ludlam, Edward Lndlam, and William II. Hewitt being his testamentary guardinns as in the complaint stated, received the same, then amounting to $3,074'40 (tllrco tlloassnd seventy-tbnr dollars and forty cents), in virtue of, and pursuant to the directions of this Court in tllc proceedings for, and conse- quent upon eaid gale ~ni~r lc : nnd he admits and states that Ile, mid dcfcndant Masimo M. Ludlam, claims and 34 insists, and a t a11 times sir~cc t l ~ e defendants Silas Lud- lam, Edward Ludlarn, ancl William R. Hewit censcd to he his g i i a r d i a ~ ~ ~ , to \\.it, since the eighteenth rlny of h'oreml)er, A . n. 1852. llath claimed and insistcd upon, and nt varioi~s times requested. a t the Ilands of Ilia said late guardiano, tho surrender of the mid moneys, \\.it11 tllc i ~ l ~ r c i i s ~ t l ~ ~ r e ~ f ' , to him, so far as ill tllcir custody, and so far as by tlic~rl investetl upol~ sccuri- tics, of all proper sccilrities taken tllcrcfor, wit11 latr- ful transfer 01' tl!c snuic, aild an account of tllcir gliur- d iu~~s l l i p ns lo the stlit1 morloys, as of right 11e l a ~ ~ f u l l y 111iglit (lo, b(:i11g t11e al)solute and sole orvncr of tlle 25 same ; yet , thii t the &:lid de fe~~danf s , his lato gni~rdiune, llave llitllorto \\.l~olly clisreprded liis said clain~::. n l ~ d fused, alld atill (10 ret'uhe his haid reqllehts, 011 ~ L ( : C O U I ~ ~ , a s they allego, of t!lo clai~u of the plitirltiff ill the corn plltir~t set forth.

LbWllerefore, lie, tlic said defendant Mauimo N. LuJ- law, asks that as to t11e &aid lnoneys alld t l ~ c illcrease thereof, uild the securities upon whicl~ tlie same may be i ~ ~ v c s t e d , the prayer r.f the c o m p l a i ~ ~ a l ~ t may be de- nied, aild the defendants, his late gm,rdians, adjudged 26

to surrender to llim, tlie said hIaximo, the same, with eucll transfer of all proper securities by them held 011

accourlt of the said moneys and the increase tliereof, as will vest lliln with titlo to the samc, alld account to and with h im of aild c011cerlliog the g~lardialisllip of

the said inoneys an11 the increaao tllercof, and in defidult of such siirrenrler of said nloneys, and tlic illcrcasc thereof, or of proper securities representillg the same a s aforesaid, judgment against the aaid defendants Silas Ludlam, Edward Lndla~n, and William IT. Hewitt, in the amount of such rlehult.

',And he furtlier asks j u t l gme~~t against the plaintiff 27 for his costs, allrl chargcs by llinl about illis suit ex-,

pended and incurretl, al1c1 fbr sucli otlier a11r1 f'nrther relief iir tlie premises as to this Court fillall scAcin proper.

C. J. cFt E. DEWIT'I', Attor~teys for Deujcndad,

11. 31. ~ ~ v D L A ~ ~ .

28 --

ANNA R. LLDI~AM, - \

Pla in i i f , against

FILAS LUDLAM, EDWARD I,LTDLAM, ) WILLIAM H. HEWITT, aiid 1 1 ~ x 1 - MO M. LVDLAM,

Dffe?i dants. i

Tlle def 'endn~~ts, Silas Ludlam, Edward LutIt;~m and William 11. Hcwitt, for :llts~t:r to t l t ~ coml) Ia i~~t of' tile plaintiff, sity, that they arlnlit tlie I allogntiol~s

29 of tlle complaint. rxcept such a s are theroil1 mcltlc co11- cerr~irlg the respective r i g l~ t , title and interest of the plaintiff and of tho defendant, Maxima M. Ludlam, in and to the funds and securities, l~e ld hy these tlcfcnd- ants as testariic~~tary guiirdisns. as i11 the coniplaint

set forth, trs to wliicli tlicy priiy tlic decision and dircctioli of this Court ; an(l thi\t they arc? llrcpnrcd to subrnit their accouiit US 811~11 g~iardiaiis wlicn B L I ~ ns

t l ik Court sliall order ar,d direct.

Jltt 'y jor Def ' t s .

Aftcr\\.i\rcls, t l l i i t is 1 0 st\)., 0 1 1 t l ~ c l G t l r clay of Jnly, 188'3, tllc izs~lc.s tlrrlv juillc(1 i l l tile actioll came ~ I I to be tric(l i\t t l ~ c (.'irc.r~it Court, i l l all(] for the said coui~ty ot' I i i l~gs, t l ~ c ~ i Ilcl(1 a t tlic City 1I:lll ill tlre city of 13rc)oklj11, \!c!f'ure Jolr~i A . Lott, Kscj~iiro, ollu of t l ~ e Justices of' tllc Sullrcnlc Clourt, ~ ~ i t l l o u t i l jury, (ir jury l l n v i ~ ~ g , 113' coi~sellt of tlrc l~art ics , \)cell wai~e t l , ) and on suoll trial tl~crcof, tllc' p l i~ i~ , t i f l ca.llc(l ;is a. \vi t~li?as i l l Iribr be11aII'-

('ARLI>:R \\' . I , ~ I ) L A M , ~ 1 1 0 (in llar eaami~~nf ion-b- ch ie f ) tcstiiictl : I ill11 t11e \vi(lotv of I i i i - l~t~r( l 1,. IAl1(l- 31 Iillli . t1e~~'iised. i\11(1 11rot11er of Anna 13. 1,udliim, the plnintiff, ia11(1 JInsiu~o 11. I , ~ ~ d l a m , one of t l ~ o tlefeild- allto ; Ricliard L. Lutlla~n, my h ~ ~ s l ~ i ~ n ~ l , IYRS tllc i'irtlicr of snit1 l i n ~ i ~ 11. ant1 Jiirsi~rio BI. L u d l i ~ ~ ~ i ; I first be- canic ncquiilntcd wit11 ruy llueband a t Lima, ill l'cru, Soutli Amcricn, ill 1826; Ilc was then a clerk tlrcrc ; I was 111urriutl to Ir i111 Fc'I)I.II:II.~ 5tl1, 1828, : k t 1,ilun ; Jiaximo W H Y bur11 ilt L i~~ l i l , XOYC~I I~ ICI ' 18111: 1831 ; Al1:ia R. \Vil.? borli ill S e w York city, I)cce~ilbcr 8th, 1837 : my I ~ ~ ~ l ) i i ~ i t l , Hicliartl I,llcllnr~~, \ V ~ I I t into bnsi- ness O I I his O W I I aco~)uut at Lirlii\, ill the year 1828 1 Ile 32 wuu a tobacco I I I C I ' C ~ I ~ L I ~ ~ , iil~d ill ~ ' ~ l . ) i ~ r t l ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ l l i p 117itl1 one Jiilcs 0. 'F. F l i l ~ t ; \vc kept Ilouso i ~ t Lima; lily Iius- Galid left l'cru i l l ld36 , Sovcml.,er 1 Sth, \\.it11 his family, for Sew Y11rk ; tllc oulise o f Iris I c a ~ i ~ ~ g \\.as

he was sick a d mishctl t o ocli~cato Iris children licre ; I ~ i s doctor atlviaed lrili~ to lei^\.^ for tlle benefit of I I ~ H 11ealIlr ; IIIS 1111~bii1id ~ a r ; 1~)1.11 Jlurch 17111. 1804 ; I was borir a t ynll);hraiso, C'llili, H I I ~ \velrt to I'eru wliei~ I \vaH tr fc\v rlrontlrs old : I I I J H C ~ ~ L L I I ~ h~i td)a~~el , and family arl-ivcd ill S e w York Al)ril, 1837 ; I \\.as never before ill tlre U~liteil Statths: never before o11t of South

$3 America: 1 I~ave lruver \ . )o t r r~ ~ ~ i i t ~ ~ r i ~ l i ~ c d as a ~ i t i m ~ l of the U~~itccl Stutco; 11i.v I I I I S ~ ) : I I I ~ I ICVCI ' left S o ~ ~ l h An~cric;i. until Ire Icst't wit11 his f'alr~ily for Scbw York after 1 first lille\v 11iln.

Cross-erami?~ed:--My I I I ~ S ~ ) R I I C ~ ' B ptrrtl~(>r lrow riwides in Nontgonrery con~rty, l'cn~~sgl\.anitr ; he came to th is co1111try \a :llr 11s. i l l 1837 ; they hroke up busi~lcsn with the i ~ ~ t c ~ ~ t i o ~ ~ of corni~lp 11crc.; III?- hliaband ~aegltrdcd this colll~try its lris 11o11ic. : 11c corrcspo~rdcd wit11 lris brotlrers, wistcrs, alrtl ~rrotlrcr j 11c wrote to t11c11r t h ~ t he ii~tcnilad to re turn : Ire 11i1d ill) il>ti!rc.r;t i l l his fatllcr's 1,rol)orty htbre; I I C Ilctvchr left Yeru to go to

34 Bolivia or ('hili.

D'rrct clrnvrtitrntion res111rrct1.- -XI? Ilufil)i~~rd nI\vap intendt?d to rctllr~l her(? to educate I ~ i s children : and his ill-lrc~altlr :ind tlrese \vrrcA tllc renNnns that he do- cided to colllr at t1r:it tir~rt. : 1 llcvor s n w n11y lcttcr i n whicl~ 11c said that hca wtrs c o ~ l l i i ~ ~ I I ~ I I I C . and I co~iltl lot

read his letters. 1~1.cal1sc~ t11c.y w r e i l l E11glir11 : 1v11ei1 we were nbont to lboinr 1ro111c hc. wrote to 11;s I-~rc~thcrs to receive US ; t l~a t \vas \v\liit I 11rea11t 1)y writing Irome ; I don't know what brother : 1 nevrr hearc1 a ~ ~ y t l r i ~ r g of hi8 pllrl)08tA to leave Peru l)c!fore I lnarricrl hiln ; I

55 never heard ailythilrp of tlla t kind un ti1 the birth of my cllildrcn ; T had other children before Muximo ; some of them died here ; solnc in Yeru.

SILAS LUDLAJI, who (011 hi8 examiitnlim-in-chief) tea-

tiiiud : 1 aln 0110 of tlie clufell(la~~ts, and a younger brother of Richard R. Ludlam, spokerl of by t l ~ c Inst

witllcss ; Ricliarcl \\'as a native of this country ; mas boril Jlrircll l i t l i , 1801, and left in the latter part of tllc year 1822, for tlic! purpose of seeking emploj~neat , a ~ l d bettering 11is co~ltlit io11 ; his intention was to go to Cndiz, and t l ~ e ~ l to Lima : Ile must I~ave nrrivcd i ~ t

I,ima witllili a fow u lou th~ ; the ul~ip l i~ i~dc direct p ; ~ h a g e ; 1 ~ic?~ctr l~eurd of l ~ i s lcavillg Peru af'tcr his

38

arrivill at Lilll:~, ul~t i l IIC I ' U ~ U ~ I I C ~ ( ~ 11o11ie s ick; I uccil- wio~~iilly \v~+oti. I l i ~ l ~ (1111 illg t l i ~ titnc 11e wau tlierc ; i t \\.;is tli llicillt to co~i~~lil~triccitu with Lima t1ilb11 : not n~ore ~ I I R I I OIIC'C "r t\vice a yeilr ; notl~illg ill Ilis letters refers to tt retru.11 ; tllc lcttcrs \verb a frie~ldly corscspolld- ellce : ~ ~ o t l ~ i ~ l g nf i~ b u s i ~ ~ c s s cl~nriicter ; t l~c re wiis 0110

lcttcr t11i11 relc:tsc.tl t l ~ c i~lconic of illy fatllcr's estate to lily nlotller ; I \\'a8 not ia\varc of his i~lttbntiol~ to retrir11 t o tllis coiir~try nutil 11c nrri\-ccl 1 1 ~ r e ; I 11ud all the tilue lived ill S e w York, ar~t l lived tlieru until after Itis d c s t l ~ : 1 su\v Ilis fiiinily on his arrival ; t l ~ e boy 37: 3liisimo could not talk E~ lg l i s l~ ; they arrived a t Boston a ~ l d welit to Pl~i la~lr lpl l ia , ttrld wrote to one of m y brotlicrs tl~;rt 11e wits very sick. and for one of tllcm to come O I I : a~lt l Illat \\.:is the first l i~~owledgu \ve had of his I)c?iiig ill tllo cnnlttry.

(308s-exclmined :-Jly father was possessed of real esttrto ; i t was the ~ I I C O I I I ( : of that real estato I refer to, that I I C released to my mother; upon my mother's d*atll that real estrrt!9 was divided among hie brot l~ere silcl sister^, and JIasilno and Anna R.; Maximo received all equal share wit11 Anus R. ; these were the otlly two 38, cliildre~i then living: no objections were then ruade to that dccisioli ; my father having died before my brother left the country, was my reason for ~iupposing he, Maximo, mas entitled to the share he got ; the father

of tliese cllildreil devised all lris prol~erty to his wiclom and clrildrelr ; the pro pert.^ was sol11 witl~out a suit, i~nde r power of sale ill the will.

Wherchupoil, after l l e a r i ~ ~ g coul~sel for the respective parties plaintiff s i ~ d defei ida~~ts , t l ~ e issues aforesaid were fiublrlitted to the said Circuit. Conrt, so held by tlle said Justice, who nftor~\~ards: to \!,it, on tllc 22cl day

39 of July, 186'3, gave Iris tlccisio~l of tlrc raid issues ill lvriti i~g ir, tlre wortls a11d figures f o l l o w i i ~ ~ , to wit :

FII.AS LUI)LAM, :\1rC1 o t l~ers .

40 - - - . . .

I . .- -. - I

T l ~ e issues ill this actioil having I~eretofore bet!i~ t r ied at a Circuit Conrt held ill ni:tl for Kings coul~ty, before the 111iclerxig111~tl Justice oi' tlre Sopreme Court! ~vitlrout a j u r y (a trial by jury having, by co~~seu l . of partios, bee11 \viiived), a ~ l d tlle allog;rtio~~s a ~ ~ t l proofs of the respective prrties havir~g beerr curlsidered, I rlo find and decide in favor u f tlle pliii1:ti R; a ~ ~ d direct judgiucnt to '

he entered accordii~g to t l l i b l.)i'ayer of tlre coirll)lai~rt, and that the dcfer~clauts S i l ~ s Lncll:rin, E t l ~ v ~ r t l Ladlam, a r ~ d Willia111 H. IIewitt, 110 ~ l l o ~ v ~ r l , RS part. of their expeiraes, their costs and reasonable cotrllsel fees of this

a - a c t i o i l . Dated Jilly 24d, 1859.

JOHN A . LOTT,

Justire r l f the Suprcme Court.

W l ~ i c l ~ decision was after\rttrds, on the 23d day of July, 1850. filed witlh the Clerk of said Supreme Court for t l ~ c said cou~lty of Kings. upon whicl~ decision j n t l g ~ ~ ~ e u t was tl~creaftcr. and on the 8th day of Eeptc~rrber, 1859. rendered in this action ill the wordu ant1 ligurcs following, to wit :

011 filing tllc tlecision o f the Circuit Court upon the triill by s l id Court of tlre isouc.s in this action, before 43 f l o~ l . Jollr~ A. I,oLt, wit l~o~lt , a jury, which clecision bears date the twenty-seco~~d day of July, in tlie year 1859, an.1 on motion of R. (j. Underllill, of coul~sel for plai~ltil'f, i t is considered and adjudged tlrat the plain- tift' iu this action is enti tled to the proceeds of the sale of tlle 1111tlivided one s i s t l ~ part of the real estate rrllcl 1 ~ ~ 1 1 t l x ~l~clrtiol~ctl i l r t l ~ c c o ~ t ~ p l a i ~ ~ t , u11d of w l ~ i c l Tlronlas R. Ludlam tlicd seized, as tl~ereiu statccl, and wllicll proccctls \\.ere paid over and transrerred, by the orc1c.r of this Court, to t l ~ c cleferlda~lts Silax Ludlarn, E:d\\-iird Lucllani. and iTillialtl H. Hewit t, testarnc~ltary g u i l r d i i i ~ ~ ~ of said plaintiff, as t l~ere i~r set forth, and is

44

also elltitlet1 to tlie accun~ulation a ~ l d increase tlrcreof, ~i11cc: tllc same were so recc'ived by said gui~rtliaus, and to the. secilritics i l l which l l ~ c sanle, or a n j part thc.rca,f,

may be invested, and that tllc dcfcndant Blaximo 11. Ludlsm is not entitled to any share, right, or interest in said proceeds, or i l l the accu~rr i~ ln t io~~ or il~crcnsc thereof. or i l l said securities. And i t is fiirtlrcr ordered, cu~rnidcrctl. u11d adjndged. illat there be allowed to the d t? fe~~cl i i~~ts Siliix Lltdlani, 15clward Llid1s111 and W i l l i 1 H v i t tllcir few, commissions and ex-

46 P enses :is sl1c11 teatame~ltary guardians of the plaintiff, ~nclnding, irs s part, of such cxpeilses, their costs and reasonable counsel fees, comit~i~sions a r~d expenses, by tbe \\.rittci~ c o i ~ s c ~ ~ t of their attorney, u ~ ~ d of tlrc attorney of the plair~tiff filctl l~e rcwi t l~ , are adjustc?tl and r t l l i ~ ~ e d at tht: i lggreg~tl? sun1 of t\vo 11u11dred all(] seventy-nine dollitrs and tl~irty-eight cents.

.4nd i t is furtiler urtlareti autl adjudgetl, (tlrc plai l~. tiff wa i~ i l l g u forri~rrl a ccouu t i~~g to the Court.) that tho defendants, Silas Ludla~n, Edward Ludlttn~. and Wil. liam H. Hewitt, after deducti~ig from the f u ~ ~ d s i n their hands, ad such t e s t a ~ u e ~ ~ t a r y guardiirns, the itfc~rcsaid

46.eum of two hui~dred and sevesty-nine dollars and thir- ty-eight cents for their fees, cun1mi8sions, a11d expenses, pay over, transfer, and deliver to t l ~ c plaintiff the full balance of the aforesaid proceeds, and the accum~ila- tion and increase thereof, together with any and all securities in which the same, or any ( , a r t thereof, may be invested.

September, 6th, 1859, Granted,

C . W. THOMAS,

Clerk.

q2* And the said Justice doth now here specify as tbe facts by him found upon the proofs and allegatious in this a c t i ~ n , the following, viz. :

FACTS FOUND BY THE COURT.

That in the year 1847, 'l'l~omas R. Ludlam, uncle of the plaintiff a ~ ~ d of tlie defendant, Naxirno Ji. Ludlam, died seized in fee ol certain lands and real estate mentioned in tlie complaint, and intestate, and without issue, luavirig Ilim survivi~lg the persons in that behalf named in t,lle colnplaint as his only heirs-at-lam.

Tlirtt. tlw plsii~tiff and her brother, the defendant, 48

Msximo Y.: a t the lirne of the death of said intestate, were thc only surviving children and descendants of Richard L. Ludlam: t110 intestate's Irot,her, who died before liim ; and t h i ~ t wid intestate also loft him surviving tlircu brothers and two sisters.

Tha t proceedings were bad, as stated in t)ho complaint, for the #ale of the interests of the plaintiff and of Maximo M. Ludlam, in the lands and real estate whereof said intestate dicd seized, and t,he proceeds of e n ~ h sale were paid over to the other defendants, who are the testamentary guardians of plaintiff and said 49 lfaximo If. Ludlain, and they still hold such proceed8 with t,he increase thereof.

That the plaiut,iff mas born within the United States, and that t,he definda~it , JIaxi~no M. Ludlam, wtas born a t . Lirna, Peru, South America, and was never naturalized au a citizell of the , nited Statou, nor ever qualified as ~aaquired by law of resident aliens to take or hold lands within the State of New York.

l'liat Eicha~'tl L. Ludlanl, father of c aid Maximo M. Ludlurn, and of t.11~ plaintiff, in the lat ter part of the year 1823, voluntarily expatriated himself from the 6g. United States. where he was a nat.ura1-born citizen, for the purpose of becoming a permanent resident of Lirna, in Peru, South America, and of es tah l i~hing his permanent domicil there, and, in a few months thereafter,

did Lccorlle such pern~arlellt resident i l l such last-na~~icd place, s 1 ~ 1 tllcrc cstabl is l~c~l liis p~.r~~lai~c!iit dulliicil.

That in tlic year 1828, thc!rc 1n;rrrierl s natnral boru citizen of C.'l~ili, 1~1lo Ilever becarnc :i citizcii of the Ullitetl States, and of t l ~ i ~ t 1narri:~ge tlie y la i~~t i f f slid s:titl 31asilno L ~ ~ I I ' I ~ its i~f'orc ~ t i ~ t ~ ' ( l .

61 All11 as co11~1nsio11.s of liiw upon 111t. Si~cts ~o fo1111c1 aid J~is t ice clct( .~ '~~~i- ied :

That the plai i~~il l ' is :L 11aturu1 burn citin!~i c,f t h e United States.

That the ticfentl:t~it. l i i i ~ i ~ n c ) JI. IAutlla~ii. is liot i~ nt l t -

ural bo1.n citizen of the U~li t rd Stat(-s, 1,lrt :it tlic time of the death of his uncle, l 'l~omas I<. Ludl:1iii1 \\.as a111

alien, iucapable by la\\- of taking 1a11d or r12;rl e s ~ a t c , by d e s c u ~ ~ t , wi111i11 tlie State of S e w Yorli.

52 l'liat the larlds and real estsle mentio~retl ill tlic corii-

plaint, ant1 whereof' Thomas It. IAu t l l i l~~~ died rc.izcd, upon his death descended, as to orlv n~~tlividecl one- bixtl~ part thereof, to the plaintiff in fcc, as [lie rcprc- pentative of liar father, to the exclusio~i of said d u f ~ u d - ant , \laxinlo M. Ludlnm, and tliat p la i~~t i f f is c*ntitled to t l ~ e wl~ole of the proceeds of tile aalc tl~ureof, acl mentioned in the complaint, with the accurnulstio~~ ;rud increase thereof, and that the defendant, J Iux i~ i~o 11. Ludlam, is not entitled to any riglit, share, or il~tcrefit therein, and tliat the other defenda~its s l~ol~l t l account

@ to the plaintiff therefor as provided ill tlic judg~ncnt.

To which said several conclusiolls of fact autl law above specified, th~! said defeiidallt Y a s i ~ n o 31. Ludlam doth except.

And forasmuch as the said Maxilno 1,udlam hath ap- pealed to the General Term of the said Supreme Court from the said decisiou of the said Justice a l ~ d the judgment therein rendered in this action, this case is certified to tho said General Term of the said Supreme Court, wit,h libert,y to any party to the action, upor) the decisiorl of the said Gel~eral Terni, to turn the same int.0 a special verdict or bill of exceptions. 54

ANNA R. LUDLAM, against

SILAS LUDLAM. EDWARD LUDLITM WILLIAM H. HEWITT, and MAXI- aro M. LUDLAM.

Sir-Flease take notice that the defendant, Maxim0 M. Ludlam, hereby appeals to the General Term of this Court., from the judgment entered in this action on the 8th day of September, 1859.

Dated, September 28th, 1859. Yours, &c.,

C. J. & E. DEWITT, f l t torneys f o r A ~ ~ p e l l a n t .

To R. C. UNDERHILL, Esq., 66

At torney f o r Respondrnt.

CHARLES W. THOMAS, Esq.,

Clerk, County of- Kings.

SUPRESIX: COURT.

A t a General Term of the Sn- preme Court, held for the State of New York, a t Pough- keepsie, in the county of Dutchess, on the 22d day of May, A. D. 1860.

Present-JOHN 8. LOTT, JAMES EMOTT, JOHN W. BROWN, and WILLIAM W. SCRUGHAM, Justices.

__- -_ -- __ __-. - -- _ ANNA R. LUDLAM,

Respondent, against

S I L A ~ LUDLAM, impJd, &c., Appellant.

58 Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with cost8 to abide the event ; opinion by Judge Emott, Judge Lo t t dissenting.

Copy decision. WILSON B. SHELDON,

Clerk.

At a General Term of the Su- preme Court, held a t the Court House i11 tlie City of Poughkeepsie, i n the county of Dutchess, on the twenty- eeco~id day of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

Prosent-Justices LOTT, EMOTT, BROWN, and SCRUG- 59 HAM.

- - - - - . . - - - - -

ANNA R. LUDLAM, against i

SILAS LUDLAM, EDWARD LUDLUM WILLIAM H. HEWITT,, and MAXI- MO M. LUDLABI.

The appeal of the said defendant, Maxinlo 11. Lud- lam, from the judgment of the Special Term of this Court, rendered in this action, the eighth day of Sep- tember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-nine, coming on to be heard, and due deliberation boing had, it i8 adjudged that the said judgment of tlie said Spe- cial Termof this Court, in this action be, and the same is reversed, and that a new trial of the action be had ;

60

costs to abide the event of the action.

[Signed ,] C. W. THOMAS,

C l e ~ k .

SUPREME COURT.

P/ait~tif, against I

SILAS IAI.I)LAM, EDWAHI) L ~ D L A M , ) WILLIAM H. HEWITT, a11d NAYI- MO M. LUULAM,

Dejendanfs.

To Messrs. C'. J. & E. DEWITT, attorneys for tho defendant, Maxirno li. Lildlan~ ; G. G . REYNOLDS, Esq., a t tor i~ey of the defendants, Silau Ludlam, Edward Lud-

62 lam, and William H. Hewitt, : and CHARLES W. THOM- as, Escl., Clerk of t,l~t! C'uu~lty of Kings :

You, and each of ynii, are hereby ~ot.ified that the plaintiff in the above entitled action, appeal8 to the Court of Appeals, from the judgment of the Supreme Cnurt, a t General Term, entered therein with the Clerk of the Coul~ty of Kings, on the ninth day of July, 1860, and entitled as of the twenty-recond day of May, in @aid year' and from the whole of said judgment : whereby the judgment of said Supreme Court, a t Special Term, in this action, was reversed, and a new trial or-

63 dered, with costs to abide the event of the action.

And the plaintiff hereby assents and stipulates, pursuant to the Eleventh Section of the Code of Pro- oedure, t,hat if said judgment of the Supreme Court at

Gcnernl Torm, 1)o aflirmc(1, j l idgment ~ b s o l a t e .sI1ii11 l ~ e rendore<l against her.

Dated, September 19th, 1860.

Yours &c..

I t . ('. USPERHILTI,

,41'fy. for P l y . Appe/ ' t -

State of New York, K,i,bgs Col~nty. ss., 6 4 I, C1i:trlce W. Tlionlas, Clibrk of t!ic Count,y of Kings,

(lo l~creby certify, that t11c I'vregoing lias bee11 corn- parcrl wit11 t l ~ e original Juclgme~l t Roll, and nolicc? of

appeal on file in my office, and that they are trill: trail- scripts thereof, and of the whole of s11c11 originals.

I n testimony whereof, I harc hereunto set I:I:: 11:tnd and affixed the seal of said county, [L.s.] this 15th day of December, 1 SCO.

[Signed,] C. W. ' J ' l !O~l~~S, Cde I*/<.

65

Respndent , I OPi.i(. OJ. sU- agtriuat 1 V e r n e Ctrurt at

SILAS JAu~)~aal, irnp'rl. 'kc.., I General Terns-

. , ~P /J I : ! /u )~ / . 1

EMOTT, .Jur tice :

Tlre plaintiff t)ronglrt tlris actiou agaillxt the defendants, Sil:rs :ind Edward Ludlam, ancl Williain R. Hew- itt , who are tllc cbxtlcurors of her Ibtlrur, Richard L.

6 7 Lutllam ; a i d agililr~t Sf;rxri~~o 31. r , l ~ d l t t ~ ~ ~ , \\~IIo is her 0 1 1 1 ~ .*ur\,iving Ibrotl~t'r. t t ) co1111)el thv fornlcr to account for a ~ ~ d pay I)vcbr to Ircr. to t l r c b eucl~lxiol~ of' tile latter, :ill t l ~ c ? prc,c:c.c.cJs c)f tllr salt1 ot' ccrt;ii~i laiicls in ctlu c o ~ l r ~ t g uT Q ~ i ~ o n s , a114 tlrt. city of Sow York. T I I ~ ~ N ~ lnntls \$-ere o~v~lc.tl ' l ' l rowa~ R. rlutlliiln, 8 bro t l~cr of lticllirrd L. I.lrcll::n~. t l l c s ltlai~~tifF's fi~tlrer. Kicb::rd 1,. I,udlar~l diet1 i l l 1838, arrrl 'l'lrornas 11. Llidlan~ died i l l

1S47, irltcst;lttl: and tl~uv the ollildron of KicIrard L. Ludlarn, wore among t11c Irc.ir.-.tt 'aw of t 1 1 c . I;rrttnr, alld one sixth of his lands descended to tllern a s rcpnlst.lrt- iilg their father. Tlre defendant Siliis IAiidlarn, \\.a8

6s appointed by this Court the special gi~i irdial~ of both the ~~la iu t i f f arid the dcferltlant, Mlaxiulo 11. Lutllem, for the ~ ~ u r p o w of joinilrg ill ti sale of ~ I I U S L ' lalltls. alrd one.sixth of thc pl.occotls nafi paid o\ur to 1110 c?xccu- tors of' Richard L. Ludlam. who arc the testamelitary

pilardii~ns of I)fi)tli his child re^^. These children Ilavc now both attailled lawful age, and the plaintiff has brought this action, claiming the wi~ole of the proceeds which were thus received by theexecutors of her father, to the c~xc l i~~ ion of her brot l~er , hIaximo 11. I,udlam, on the gro1111rl tlrat Ire was art irlier~ at tht. tirne of the de

acent. and t11ert:fi)r.c co~llrl ~ i o t inherit to his mlcle. The-

Judge Leforc \v l~o~n 1I1(. callscb was tried, tlecided that 69 Marinlo I l l~t l l i t~~i WIN ari alien i l l 1847. ~vlien t l ~ e de-

R C ~ I I ~ . \\'as caut by his uncle's dr:ttlr. a n d therefore, the plaii~tiff wax cl~t i t led to the \vliolc proceetls of thc lands in qnestion, i r ~ ~ d this is the only que.stio!l in the case.

Richard L. Ludlam, thr* father of these pariics. was a cit,izen of this conr~trp, born herc iu 1304. In 1822 he wen: to Peru to seek ernploylnel~t and bettor his co11ditic)n. Hn became a cle1.1; in a mcrci~ntile I~ouse, in Lim;~ ; and ill IS28 married n wolilan ~ v l ~ o was a na- tivc of ('hili, but $her1 a resicic?rit of l'eru. AIasirn,) Ji. Lutllaln is her sol:, and was boru in Lima in 1831. I" 70 1828 Bicliiircl L. Lutllitm went into bns i~~esu 011 llis o\:.rl a c c o n ~ ~ t . ill Lima, iii~tl conti~~uccl to rcsitlc t l~cre until April, 1837. wlier~ 1113 left Pout11 Alnc?ric:t. and canlo back to rcsidc ill this con~i try, \\.ill\ his wife a l ~ d cl~i l- c l r e~~ . T l ~ e y Irad other rl~ildrcll Lcbides J1asi~no L~orn i n Peril, but they s ~ ~ L s e q u e ~ ~ t l y died i l l illis coillltry.

'I'hc plaintitl'was boru after- t l~c i r arrival i n No\\- York, in I)eccmb(~r. 1837. Tlrc m )tl:rl- of t l 1 1 . pl:~in+iE mas e s a n ~ i ~ ~ c d as a witness o n :11c trial of this cause, and tes1ificc-l l o t l ~ c facts just s tated, anrl a l so that they left Lima becnude hcr husband was sick, a ~ ~ d \\-as ad- vised to leave that country, and becanse he wished to

'i 1

educate 11i~ children here. She also stated tlrat after the birth of their children in Peru, he always intended to roturn to this country, and expressed that intention.

Silas J4~~(11u1~~ i ~ a s .illso SL;\VOTII i~ t tlie trial, bu t his tea-

ti~nolly. csc'l-llt t l l c ~ ].,rc!trt' of' S O I I I ~ ~ u ~ ~ i l i s l ~ ~ t . ~ c ? t'ilcta, \ras

clli\.fly 01' 21 ~~c,g;itivc. clri~rirc:hr : that cu~rl~nilnication ~ I < ! ~ \ V W I I I I I ~ $ ~ ~ 0 1 1 1 1 t l ' ~ ti11cI l'clrll L;\fZiIS :it tIIi1t tilncl very i~ l l ' l ' c c l~~~ :~~ t it ' 11ot tlillicul~ : [!:at l ~ u t littlu correspontl- elll:cs took 11lacc. l)e t\\.c.c.i~ !~i:: Lrotl~or i111cl t l ~ c f i ~ ~ n i l y a t I I I I I I I I . . i 1 1 1 1 1 t l ~ i ~ l 111cy n.c?rch I I ~ . J ~ itware of any pur!)osu OI!

c, ) 11is 1)iirt 1 0 r1.111r11, 1 1 1 1 t i l I : < , I . V ~ I C I I C L ( I t l ~ c Cnited Status 1 4

i i t i I . I t Illa). 1~ adclucl that t!~e wii'o of Riellard Llirllu~l~ lii~s I I ~ \ cr beall ~~atnrnlizccl ill this country.

Upon this e\icleucc the J ~ ~ d g c found 1 1 1 : b t Ricl~artl L. Ludla~n, ia 1828. ~ u l u ~ ~ t a r i l y expatriated l~imsulf from thcs U111ted >taler. for t 1 1 ~ . l,u~posc: of' l ) e c o ~ n i ~ ~ g n pcr- I U ~ L ~ I C I I ~ ~c.s iCi~~ll of' L i ~ u a , i l l i ' e l . ~ , ;lad ot' cstuhlishing his perrnallellt domicil there, a1111 in a f ~ w inont11.s thereafte1., did lrecon~e such permanent resident, and establish his j ~ e r l ~ ~ a l ~ a l ~ t domicil i n Lima. If tho

7 3 irjrd e ~ p u t r i u f c d is t n be nntlerstoud here in its proper seas1.. I should Ije u~uihlc to agree to this part of the decisioll as a question ot' f'itct. Tg expatriate i~ to I C R Y O one's coilrltry, and rcJllounce allegia~lce to it, with the purpo-e of makilrg a Ilo~ne and becoming t i citizen of a111,tller co1111t1.y. It i n c l ~ ~ d e s more than n pnrposcr of cl,ange of donlicil, : \ t i t1 i t is not an :iccur:ite Ilsrh of tcrlnb to $a;\. t11at a nlan ~ I R S expatriated himself with thrt design $ ) f c l~a~ lg ing 11is residence. He might more correctly be said, in a gi\.c~l c:~.~.. to cl~nngc his domicil with a view to expatriation. Rut I do !rot dis- cover in the evidence in this case, anything to show

14 that Richard Ludlam ever intended to expatriate himself, to renounce his American citizenship, and asoume allegiance to a foreign power, while i t will be observed tha t he is not found or decided to have act i~al lp done so. He neither became, nor declared any intention of

l w c o ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ g , :I I ' t ~ r u v i a ~ ~ citizen. Nor dill l i t . i l l ally way I I ~ ~ I O U I I C C i s A r ~ i ~ I ~ z I I : ~ . TIl! le f t his ~ ~ u t i v e c o ~ i ~ r t r y i n thc sc:ircl~ of' (-111111oyri1r11t ; L I I ~

f u r t r ~ ~ ~ t . . l ie i i ~ u r ~ t l c lnp!oy~nc:~~t , :i:rtl at I l t i ~ ~ i l ~ cs tab-

l i s l ~ e ~ l lri~llsclf iu I ) u s i ~ ~ c s s . 111; iii:l~i.idcl !1i1t1 c l ; i l~ l - r en , o ~ ~ d af tcr t h a t 11c looict?ci I'I)I.\\.:LI.I~ c.ol~.t:~:ltly to $1

r e t u r ~ ~ t~ t l~ t : United St:~:es-::o i ~ r !C;IJ! ; 1.:':1:! t i i ~ cvi-

tlc~rcl:. 'L'ircl.i: is 110 tluubt t l r t i t lit: ;rccl~:ii.cil ;I. c!oliliCil -- l i)

ill Idillla, t I~ii t lit: w e ~ ~ t t l ~ e r c : L I I I I rcllii~i~lctl ~ ! I C I . U , \ V ~ I 11 nd) lixetl l~u rpose of a r c t u ~ . ~ ~ i l t ;L I IT c l c i i t~ i l~ ! ~ I I ) c .

Tlliit \\.:I..: I:is rcsitlencc ~ r r t i l ile \w.i l ~ ~ . ; l l ~ ~ ! l ) ! y cll.iv,:ll

:in.;~y by t l ~ e fai lure of Iris I lc. ;~l: l~. Sti l l . ti^:^! Iic n.;ls a n A111erica11 c i t izer~, L L I I ~ a11 ;~1ii,11 in I ' < ~ ~ I I , : I I ~ I I ~ ) I I ~ I I a r c s i ~ l c n t tllctre a:: a ~ n e r c l . ~ a ~ ~ t , i111(1 for t l ~ e ~ J : I I . ~ ) I ) s c : of

tr:rcIc, ; I I I ~ t l ~ i l t I V I I ~ I I 11c r t : t u ~ . ~ ~ c t l T I ) tiris c o ~ ~ t ~ t r y Ilk+

was as cutnplctc!y vt:xtv(l wit11 a l l t i l t : ri:.;lr LS c.i!izel~- ~ l l ~ i ! ) :IS if 11e 11:t:l I1cbvcr lcl't i t , i s . 1 t l i i~~ l ; . c x c c e d i ~ ~ g l y

- . pI:ii11. .!I:IS~[IIL) SI. I , u~!~LI I I . is ~11t:rci 'or~ t i te so11 of a11

iI111cric111 c i t i z ~ i ~ by ~ L I I a1ic11 11rot11cr: bur11 :L ia,)l,cigr1

COIIII t ry wl~ilu 11iu fatller was tc111p~)ri)l.iIy r~lsi(\(-tl t tllcre. i(; 1 sa? L1oi.11 1~11ile> liis fibtiler \\Jii* lc!u!) ,~ra~.iIy x s i ~ l c i ~ t ~ I I C I - t . ;is i111plyi11~ ~ l ~ i ~ t t l ~ i s r,?si(lt?~lc:; \V;LA I I O ! I I C ~ I L I ~ I I -

cnt. tha t i s [ ) u r p c t ~ ~ : i l , ci l r ~ e r i l l I':lct 01. i l l i ~ ~ t c > n t i n ~ ~ . I set! r!o reason to d o u b t that I t ic l~ar t l 1,11i11:1111 i : ~ t ~ ~ ~ t l e d to rcaturn to America bcfort: !I(. ti;c:tl, ; L I ~ I I O I I ~ ! I ht!

protjahly did 11ot i n t e ~ ~ t l I O r - ! t l ~ r ~ ~ I)l:ti)~.c I I I I I I , ~ years, an11 ~ ~ - ! r l ~ n l ) s no t as SOII:I :IS hc: tlitl. Sciil. t lie :1ct11:\1 o r intt:nd~.rl l e t ~ q t l ~ of his r e s i r l t ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ill l'~11.11, i~ 110t illate-

r i : I f he made his clo~nicil i l l t l r i l r c*!)lllrl~.y. ;is I1e xrl~nittc?rlly tlid, i t is u ~ ~ i r n p o r t : i ~ r t t'or l ) ~ c s t ? ~ r t ques- ti011 ~ v l ~ e t l r e r t11aI do~nic i l c c ) ~ ~ t i ~ r ~ ~ t ! t I t '~:. ~ I I I ~ , ~ L ~ L I ~ o r t e ~ ; .

He ivas not. :t t rnvelcr, b a t n r c s idor~ t , ari,l yc?t 1.c was 17 not. i l c i t i m n of Pe rn . nor cli~l Ile intcr~tl to Lcco~nc so, b r ~ t contir~ucr! a11 t l ~ e \l-l~ilt! a, citizeri of the Uni ted Sta tes .

l ' l ~ c c o u ~ ~ s c l for tlle p la i~l t i i r is r i g h t in supposing

that tl~crc' is 1111 Statilte of'the Ulritetl States I\-Lich will rcaclr t111' CilSC. ( ' O I I ~ ~ C ' S ~ ; ~1osse8st~s I I I I ~ I ' I . t l l ~ f ~ o l l s t i - tutiolr, csl,rc?slr a l ~ d c.sclusive power to est,il~lisl~ a uni form rillc of ~ ra tn ra l i a t i o r~ . : L I I ~ probably as incidental thereto, to declarct what sl~iill 111ake a liialr a, citiwn or I i . 'I'l~is power l ~ i r s 1)co11 repeittedly exercised. Tl~ca l i r ~ t Act filr this p l l r l ~ ~ c , was 1.)ass""1 Marc11 26tl1.

78 1790. \vl~icI~ \PUS silcceedrd :i~rd rcpoaled 1by a secoi~d. ~ ) B H * U ( ~ January 29tl1, 1795. I<? h , ) t t~ thenc statutes i t , was enactcc-i t,lrat all clrildl.c*~~ nt' citizens, bo r i~ c~n t of tlrc? limits of tlrl: United 5 ta tcl*. slro~lld lbc~ c.or~sitlered citizo~rs. If e i t l~c r o f t l ~ c ~ ' :nts \\.err i r r t'orc:c., it would probably deterrni~lc? tl~i. ~ I - ~ ~ Y I ! I I t q l l t~ s t i o~~ . RIII tlre Act of 17'35 ~.cyl'i~lcttl tl~c: A I - I 01' 1;:IO. irs I I~nv,. stated,

tlie act of 1795 WLS its;.l[ ~.t.l)t!alctl 1,y a Statute paswed April 1- l t l~, 1802, \\-lricl~ ollly providctl that t , l~e ch i l r l rc~~ of +; ptarsorls who no\v are or I I ;~v I : 1)c~eir c . i , i - Z ~ I I S , t11011~11 bt1r11 o l ~ t of thc .iilrisdictio~r of t110 Ullitefi state^, sl~al l llr cnn~itlurc:cl citizeiis." Richard Li~dlam

79 tlrc f'iltl~cr o f tile det'elrtlxi~t, w;rs not h o r n . nntil 1804, and 11t.11ce dill i ~ o t come w i i l ~ i ~ ~ the oper;~t ior~ I-)f this statute. 'l'llis contirruetl to l)e tlle only act of Corlg- r2ss ilporl this fiilhject, until 1855, w11e11 :III act was pnxsefl wliicl~ \\.ill avoid snc l~ qnrstions i n fut~irc CRReR. Rut as this d~lz(:~?nt was ~.ii*t in 1847, if Jfasirr~o L i ~ d - lam was then an nliei~, the la~rds passed a t O I I C ( ~ to tire plaintiff, R I I ~ her title cannot be divesbed by t l ~ u char- acter given to lrer brothcr h!- ~ l ibseqi~e i~ t . lepislntior~.

We are necessarily driven to the doctrines of' tlre Common Law, to determirrc the co~ldition of iL person

80 born under si~cli circnmstnrrces. For tire clr~cation must be decided by some rule .of law. Tlre tcbr~r~s alien and citizen, are legal terms, and in cases i l l wl~ich their proper applicatiorl is 11ot determined by poai ti vo legislation, we must get it from the system of l a w which

prevails ill tllc c o u ~ ~ t r y in ,which the question arises, a n t e c e r i c ~ ~ t to, o r irldcpendont of, legislntivs action, if t h a t body of l a w cor~tail l ally rule upon the sul)ject. Pe rhaps we might go to general public law. or the l a w of na t io i~s if i t d o not.

'I'llertt a r e no cases i n rhc C o ~ l r l s of this coun t ry in which this qnestion has bee:) tlecided, or tllc rule given by Cornrnon Ilatw in such cases, laid do\vn. T h e case 81 of Peck v. Young, 21 Wend. . 389 P. C., 26 Wend., 613, \v\lns decided in tlie Suprerne Cour t upon the Stat,.

I I ~ I ? of 1802, and ill t he Court of Er ro r s , e i t l ~ e r lipon tlic same ground, o r upon the effect of the Declara cx t ' ion of I l~dopcndence and the T r e a t y of Peace, 11pon persons d ln ic i lod and remitinil~g 11el-c a f ~ e r tlie war. It i s trui? t11at the ( I l ~ i t ~ ~ c c l l o r expl.esscs all o p i i ~ i o ~ l tliat the Stat ,nte of 1802 \\.as intended to clltilige t l ;c Com- lnon I,aw rult!, hy w l ~ i c l ~ lie snys the cl~iltli.t:n of a citizen, bol-11 a l~roi td , were a ! i e ~ ~ s . I3ut t h a t p o i ~ ~ t w:\s not p r e r ; c ~ ~ l c d fol. d c c i s i . ~ l ~ , and H con1 r a r y o p i n i o ~ ~ is in t i mated I>y t 1 1 ~ Chief Jus t ice wtler~ t l ~ e case n . :~ ill t he 83

S r ~ p r c r ~ ~ c : C O I I I - ~ , bi1t11 o p i ~ ~ i o ~ ~ s being ~ ~ l c \ r c l y o l ~ i t e r . T l ~ c casus i l l t l ~ e U11ite11 S ta t c s Courts (sw.1 2 C'~,t~ricIi., 64 : ~ r ~ r l 7 , W l ~ e a . 383) l~avc? p r e s c ~ ~ t e i l qr ics! io~~s i i~vo lv - i r ~ g t l ~ c c i g i ~ t of expa t r i a t io l~ a ~ ~ d cl~angch of i l l l ~ g i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t f , a11t1 so widely dist i11g~is11;i l) lc fi.0111 ~ ! I C P I Y ? S C I I ~ . I n Lynch v. Clurke, 1 S a l ~ d . , 011. R., 659, Vice (~11:~11collor Sai~(lfort l cs1)resses tlrc curlviotiu~i t l~it t t l ~ c cl~ildl.c!r~ of o u r O ~ ~ X ( ! I I S I ) U ~ I I ill)roild \ \ .~IY: ~ ' i t i x e ~ ~ s L1y fol.cc of the ( J o n ~ n l o ~ ~ 1,11\\., u l ~ d e r wI~icIi 11,: sup1)oses tha t c l ~ i l d r c n 8 3 horn a l ~ r o t ~ d of Eng l i s l~ paren f a \\.ore a u \ ~ j ~ ' c t s of' the Crown. 111 his o p i r ~ i o ~ ~ will he found a refel.enc.e to al l the Al~ le r i ca r~ decisions, ill n o w of wl~icli l lo~vever i s the pui~l t . d is t inc t ly passetl upon. 111 England, also, while t l ~ c r i g h t of pit izunsl~ip of cliildrell born under such circumstances has been c o ~ i s t a i i t l j ~ asser ted , i t has

never b c e ~ ~ esl)vcssly clccicletl wl~etlit~r that right was

tlue to the ( 'OII.IIIOII 1.;1\\.. or to positive Stiituttts. AS early as i t Locan~t. i~ frc~clricl~t or f'alniliirr thing for Engl i s l~r~le l~ to lcilve t l r c x l i i r~~rloru with t l~uir fatniliea. either for ~ ) u r l ~ ~ s ~ s u f tr;,vcl or trade, we iilltl l'arlia. rnc111tary nctio11 to retilove ;ill ditficulty or doubt ill the c:ise of' clliltlrcll who I I I ~ ~ I I I- 1)t: h r11 to ~ I I C I I I abroad.

gp:Thc pal-liest I';rvli;~r~ic~r~:a~~y i\ct is what is ~ I I O \ \ . I I as

the Statute d c tratis ultru /tru,-e, ~)irsst.tl i l l t l l c . 35t11 year of I r e of' 1 I . I . 1 'l'llt: esis- te11ce of' this c..arjy S I ; I ~ I I I ( : 11;~s I I I I ~ ~ ~ I C ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ P I ~ pre- vcl~te(l it cle:ir c .sy)o~it io~~ Ity sul)sc:quclt~t ju11~t.s of t h e pri~iciples of tile ( ~ ' O I I I I I I O I I L a w I IPOI I illis q~testion. BII: i t is III;I!,.:.~;LI to asc~i.!:lil~ \ v l ~ t ~ t l ~ t ~ ~ . the Stctlzrtum de ?~rc:is rtltrci mc~,.c.. lil;c- all O I . ~ ~ ~ I , ; I I . ~ S t n t ~ ~ t c of the preu- c ~ l t (lay, ~rratlo atril i ~ ~ t r o ~ l ~ l t r e d i l l t o tltc Iilw a I I C W r~ l l e , or ~vl~ctlrc~r it \\.i~s riltl~er R tleclaratioll of t l ~ e opir~ion of' the I';r~.lii~rnz:!~t I r l , o l i t l ~ e Iirw ;IS it tl~etl \\':is, Inore r~c:arly R I I R ~ O ~ O I I S to wl~ii! i l l 11!o(l~r11 tilr!cs is c:illed a

85 dt:cli~r;ltor~ act. 1 t \\rill 1)c sctel1 that this is a question o f 110 S I I I H I I i ~ ~ ~ l t o t . t : i ~ ~ ~ , h i l l I I I C dispositioi~ of' the present casth, in c o ~ ~ s c q ~ ~ c : l ~ t ~ - o f t l 1 c 5 peculiar cor~dition of

A ~ n e r i c : ~ ~ ~ i ,eg is l :~ t io~~ I I I ~ O I I t i l e s111)jcct.

' 1 1 ~ ~ reig1l "1' ~ < , I N , L I c ~ I l l , is 011u of' t11e i ~ ~ o s t irupor t a l ~ t eras I I I I ' ;~l~li>lr I l i a : u l ' ~Ol l Indlly accolr~~~ri . It was attei~tlcb~l w1l11 riorlie special c i r cu r~~s t a~~cev wl)ic11 lnay havc ~ i \ C I I clcvasior~ to quextiol~s likv the 1)resellt. It was the pt.riod of tlre ctj~r~!~ic.~:c.snrc.~~t of 111t. Frerlclt wars, which led to t h e re~lloral and se t t le lne~~t of I I ~ R I ~ J -

b l ~ g l i s l ~ sul;jvt.ts ill t~laces i l l F~AIICC., \vllich by the 86 cllangew of war and of' treaty were a t tiu~ex uuder

El1glis11 a1111 a t otliers under Freuclt do lu i~~a t i c~~ l . A t the rJalne tirne the E ~ ~ g l i s l ~ 11at1o:l was assullllllg a Illore influential position arnorlg Europeart, powers, and the illtercoursc aruoug all nations was gruwing illore fre-

quont. Instailces of leaving the kil~gdolli for the purposes of coll~n~ercial, rnilitt~ry or public illtercourse with o t l~e r natioi~s, must have heen becoming more frequent. and qncstious as to the rights and privileges of childrcn bo r l~ abroad to subjects thus absent from the realm were more likely to bc agitated. I t may also be ~ ~ o t c d Illat I'l~ilipy:r, t l ~ e Queen of' Edward 111, was by birth all alien to the rea lm, and that a large 87 portion of t110 life of Ed\val.d, t l ~ e Blacli l'rince, was spent abroatl. IIis son n!:o afterwards came to the throne as liicliard 11. was known from the place of l ~ i s birtll as Iticl~artl of' Bordeaux.

Wl~en we find tl~ilt Parliament interposed to settle a question whicl~ l ~ a d arisen or rnigl~ t arisc out of such cir- c u l r ~ s t ~ ~ i ~ c c a as l~nve been alluded to, we are not to pre- Nume as we migl~t in col~ei(lering a Statute of tlre present day, that t110y i~~terltled or mere understood to inlrke tlie law ~ L I I ~ to introduce a new rule. l'he con- stitutioll of t l ~ e Xnglisli Legislature a t that day is to mnle cstc~rt, a nl:rt:ur of d ispute , arltl i t s functions or the mnlluur and extent of their exercise was certainly 88

much more limited than they afterwartle became. The o r g i i ~ ~ i ~ a t i o n a r~d manner of session of tllt. Coinmons as a separate or coristi tuted part c>f' the Legislature mas n s yet ill defined. Tllc1.e is I I O record of a Speaker of tile IIouse being c l~ose l~ , u ~ ~ t i l a t least as late sa tllc f i f t ie th yea r ot' Edward 111, ulld probably etill littei.. 'I'l~e I'arliament was first and xsually called together to grant taxes, and ont of the clcinalld for tl~crie all11 thc: po\ver to in~pose corlditions upon granting tl~eln, grew milch of its authority. The Commons s~ aeserted t l ~ e right to petition for the redress of griev- ances, and their petition formally assented to by the King and thc Council was in many cases the form of Parl iau~cntsry action. T l ~ r ~ s the Statute of Treasoils

passed in the same year mitll the law me are consider- ing, and which is to this day one of the fimdamental Statutes in English criminal law, is founded up011 tho petition of the Commollu. The Cornmolls pray t t a t whereas the King's Justices adjudge p e r ~ o i ~ s to be traitorous for varioi~s matters not known to be treason, i t would please the King by his Clouncil and the great

go and wise men, to declare what shall he treason in this present Parlionlrnt.

The answer to this petition contains the existing ~ t a t u t e . It is material to notice that i t was co~isidered no light matter to rnake a 8t:itutc wllicll s l~oi~l t l introduce a new rule of general lii\\., to be forrvcr incorpo. rated with the law of England. Air. Bnllam says that i t was a common arlsm7er to.the petitiuna of tho Corn- monu, that it could not be granted \vitllout making a l~ewlaw. And tllis ruluctal~ce led to the distinction between Statutes \vhicl~ were perpetual, and ordinailces which were temporary ill t l~e i r nature. I t seems also

gi tha t the Assembly of the different estates of fhc realm was not looked upon merely a s such it body as i t came to be afterwards, acting only by and through thc form^ of legialutioo. I t was also a Irigl~ Court in which in- justice was to be p~in is l~ed , and gri t .va~~ccs redressed, not indeed so much upon thc complaints of individual suitors, ns upon tllc pelitiolla and complaints of the representatives of the C'on~nlor~u of E n g l a ~ ~ d , ill behalf of their wllole body. I ' l~e oldinary ('ourts of Justico were neither sufficiently s t ro l~g to protect the weak against the po\verful, nor snfficien tly known alld re- spected to make their diacussionr as j e t , tile aut l~ori- tative expositio~ls of the law, which they afterwards grew to be. In the reign of Edward 111 i t war: or- dained that the King ' # should hold a Parliament once, and if necessary, twice, every year, that the pleas

which have been delayed, and thosd whereill tho justices have differed, may be brought to a close." And thus in the present statute it appears that the question which i t waa passed to settle, and which was a queation as to w l ~ a t the law was. had been before Parliament in a previous year of the reign. I am not aware that legal liistorial~s or autiqnaries. have considered the exercise of these powers by the Parllarnent, as coo- gg fined to the couacil, or in tliitt way strictly analogous to t l ~ e preri~nt appellate juristliction of the House of Lords, hon~evcr, on the suhscquc~it growth of the Con- s t i t i ~ t i o ~ ~ , i t may have terminated in an appellate jurisdiction confined to that body exclusively.

The Statute de natis u1tl.a mare begins by reciting that, " because ~oxlle people be in doubt if the children born in the parts beyond the sea, out of the legeance of Eng- lanrl, should 1~ able to demand any inheritance within t l ~ c Pame legeanc- or no:, whereof n petition was pu t i n the Parliament, late liolden a t Ivestminster, the gq 19th year of this reign, etc., and was not s t the time wholly assented. Our Lord, the King. willing that all do l~bts and ambiguities filiould be put away, and the lam declared and put in a certainty, hath charged the Prelates, Earls, Barons, and c~lher wise men of his conncil, assembled in this Parliaruent. to deliberate on this poi11 t."

I t the11 dcclaras that these, all of one accord, have wid that i t is, and always has heen, the lam of the C~OIVI I , that t l ~ e children of the King, wherever they may have been, may inherit. After this the Statute 96 proceeds to declare certaiu persons to be denizens, who are named, and wlio we may presuule were the only persons concurring, whose denizenship rr questinn had been brought to the notice of the I'arliament.

Then follo~rs tlie part of tl~ia Statute to which tlie present question refers, which is to the effect that. the Barons, etc., a i ~ d the C'o~t~rnons aswmbled " he of one mind accorded that id1 tile children ii,hcritors, which from hencefort11 stiall be bur11 witl~out the legeance of' tlie King, n,l~ohc! fatlicrs aud ~nothern, a t the time of their birth, be a t the faith and Iegcance of the

96 King of England, shall lriarc ;ant1 c~!jo!-, etc.: so always that the iuotl~ers af-suc11 cl~ildren d o pans t l ~ e sea by the liccl~sc and wills of tlieir I ~ ~ s b i i ~ l t l ~ . ' '

I t wil! be observed that the i~nturnl imr~ort of this language is, tlrnt hot11 the pare1:ts itii~st 1,e ~u\?jects, to nlakc thc i*sne i ~ ~ h e r i t : ~ l ~ l e . I t was 1:ot until firr more recent times t!~at any csprecs s tatutory sat~ction was giveo to a 1xicl.e lenient rulc, f ~ ) r it 11~5is not until 7 Anne, 10 Anne, 4 George 11. s l ~ d 13 George 111, that very Act of I'nrliamer~t declarcd t l ~ a t t l ~ e child of an Englishman born abroad, should iuhcrit, although the

97 inother wi~s au alien. 'I'l~ere is iinotl~er Statute, passed in the 42(1 year of t l ~ e r e i g ~ ~ of E d w a ~ d 111, 1vhic11 may be cited as to sorne extent cxplartntory of that which we ere cot~oidering. 'I'he Act of tile 42~1, Edmtrd 111, is to this effect : 0 1 1 the petition " that c l r i ld re~~ born beyond F W ~ . ill the legnoricz of Calias, Guinnc, and Gascony, and e l s c~ r l~e re in the lands ancl liegl~orics t l ~ a ~ h e l o ~ ~ g to our lord the Iiiug, bcyortrl sea, sltould be i n - llel.itable, ctc., ' i t is agrewl :111(1 assented that the Com- mon law and the Statute on this point, sllould he kept nnd observed.'" Tlle ~nea i~ ing , obviously, i~ to asfiert their del~izensl~ip, al~cl this is refcrre~l i ~ o t wltollp to

~g Statutz, l>nt to botlt Common Law aiid Statute. The Act of 25, Edward 111, is expressly declaratory as to the children of the King, anrl this has bee11 nsetl alr an arghment, as for itlstatrce, hy Barrington, ill his comment : Obs, on Statutes 209, that in the carte of a com-

nlon ~ i ib~jec t , the law was apprelieuded to be otherwias. Thero is, of course, a certain degree of force in the ark gument, but I think i t is couritervailed by the whole forin and 1angu:tge of the Act, and by the reasoning of the subsequent decisions. as well as by the course of legislation. The Statiite recites that the question as- to the children of subjects born under such circumstances, llad bee11 discussed, but not decided, and was gs in doubt. The law was, tl~erefore, riot agaillst their denizensl~ip, and we map decide tlie quefition upon principles, and may call to our assistance, to ascertain these principles, tlie subeequent as 1%-ell as prinr cases in the Court.

T l ~ c Year Books, which coi~ttrin the earliest reported casea i r i the English Courts, begin with the reign of Ed\vard the second ; and there is nothing before that. except a few scattering cases, in the time of Henry the third, and Edward thtl first, ~ rh i ch are found in F i t z I~erbert'rj A\)ridgen~ent. cr

0 0

Tile earliest case in wliicli ;I question like the pre- s en t occ:ilrs, is giver1 in Rrook~:'s Abritlgement, Deoi- ykn 6. The writer says, "Nofa per Hussey, Chief Jus- tic" .' if a ]nun be born beyond sen, wl~ose father and nlo!llc!r are English, he should be inheritable before tlie Statute, but the Statute make.: this clear.' " The date given for this, is the first year of the reign of Ricl~ard the Tl~ircl. The same, B~~oolru's l i l r idgeme~it , in the fiamo title, (21,) says : " If an E~lglishmau pass the sea, a l ~ d marry all alien woman, by this the wife is of the King's allcgiaiice. and the issue will inherit," f.)r which ,

0 tlit! author refers to thc Abridgment of Assises. I n r Colli~igwood vs. Pace, 1 Pentr, 422, Lord Hale as8er.t~ the coliversc of this proposition, that if an Englishmen go beyond sea, and lnarry an alien, tlie childreu are

aliens, for tile wife \r:rs subyotestate ri te. In tl!c first

of these statements, fro111 I<rooke's Abriclgc~~lcnt. t l ~ o propositiorl given, is citctl a s laid tlowlr Ly rlre ('ourt, to the same effect as declared by :he Statute. Tho second goes farther than the letter of the Statute , and depends upulr the settled maxirn of thc Cornlnoll Law,

a ~ l d of all free States wl~urc t l ~ a t law prev:iil<, t11:tt t h e +offspring follow tlre c o l ~ d i t i o ~ ~ of tllc f;~tlier, nlrtl 11ot tlru

rl nilothers, partus scquztur j~atrotn. 111 I,ittletor17s Reports, Rex vs. Eaton. 23, 2G 27, will bc* f'o1111d a 1'1111 and well reasoned discussiol~ of this sul>ject, ill t l ~ ~ nrgii11:errt and decisiou of the casc. It \ \as ir~sistetl tlre~l t l ~ a t a l leg ia~~ce wah ilot ~nercly loc:iI, t l ~ ; r t 2111 aliuri \ \as one Lor11 not 01113. O I I ~ o f t l ~ e k i~~g t lo r l~ , but untlrr il, f'or*.ign obedielrcc. Cases were J ) I I ~ , :"id citptl, anti tlistin- guishecl ot' a m:ll1 tra\elilrg, which, says tlre rcxport, the Corrlrl~om I,;LI\ t l i ( l forbid ; alld going out o f t h e realm illto tlre don~iiriorrh of arr :tlic.~r fricntl or all alien ellelily, ai~tl \vi t11 or w i t l ~ o ~ l t tile l i i ~ ~ p ' s co~lseirt, a~rd of

cr) o his cl~ildr(>ll 11or1i eit11c.r wlrllo si~cli corrse~rt continued rl

or after it was r e v ~ l i ~ d : L I I ~ I I V rtcnlled. 'I'lle laasirn, yartus, requitz~r patre?n, was cited. a ~ ~ d its appl ic i~~ion to cases n r i s i ~ ~ g ur~tler v i l l e ~ ~ i ~ g o i~oticed. '1'11(1 case in har~d was of all Err~lisll rnercl~ant, who lrad golle illto Poland, a l ~ ~ l lrlarried :r womiilr tlrc3rc. ; a11tl t l ~ e q~lcstion wae, w l~e t l~c r their child was all alien. I t \\.a< hvld that Ire Ira> ~ ~ o t , for w l~ ic l~ , Gelverto~l, J i~s t ice , gave for reason. t l ~ i ~ t tlle Father was ;I ~l~(~t .c l la r~ t . n n ( l went ahroad by licensc, and the son took tlre fatllcr's cao~ldition. Sorne of the otllrr .Ju(lges put thr case 111~011 the Statute of Edward 111, and held the wortls. T Y I I O R ~ - father and rnother, in tlre Statute shorlltl be read, fit t l~er

0 or motller. I confess this seenls to me I ~ I I I C ~ I Inore doubtful law t l ~ : u ~ the other doctri~le. 'I'l~e colrstruc tion is a violent one, and the doctrine of the c:isc ia

ulore c:~sily sustained upon tlie prir~ciples of the Com- nioli Law, a ~ l d as if they liad been declared by the Statute. If the Statute had ilot bee11 passed, the Corn- nio~i Li;\v, as foreign travel and con~mercial pursuits incrrilscd, ~v,uld have asscrted the rule which the Stat- ute d~ 'c la rc4 , 1)ut (1eclare;l i l l r e s p c t o111y to children 1v11oso fatllcrr; awl nintl~crs mere l.:~lglial~. The Com-

d loon T,arv, adl~cri :~g to t l ~ e doclril~e that t l ~ e condition of t l ~ c i*atl~cr c!c.ter~tiilled tllat of the offspring, would C" hnrc reucllc~tl caws wl~icll \vcire not \vi thin the letter of tllc Act. Tllis case in Littleton. wi~s decided in 2d l r l c s 1 . A casc is citvcl there 1v11icl1 will be found ill C'ro. Eliz., 3, that nhell baroil ant1 feme. English, go bc.vor1t1 scii \vithoilt license. or tarry there after tho tirl~c li~nitetl 11y t l~o l i c~ t l s r , tlre issue is an alien and ]lot il~llcritablc. 13ac01i US. IJHCOII, Cro. Cl~as., 601, is very si~nilirr t o the case citetl fl.orn Littleton : Thornas J?:;con W ~ I I ~ itl)ro:ltl to carry on trade, and married the tlnngl~ter of tl~:otllcr Englisl~ rnercl~ant. resident abroad.

b l'llrir cl1il11 bor11 ctbro;~cl, was held to bc a denizen - o

t a3 13r:rrupto11, Rcrl i lc~, aud C:roke. said t l ~ a t the father 11ring i l ~ n c r c l ~ a ~ ~ t , al~tl resitling abroad for purposes of tr:rrlc, Itis child sl~nultl ltc n dcnizen, and tliat. even thougl~ t l ~ c ~rlot l~er 11ad bee11 a n alien, for the cl~ildren follo\v the t'iither'r; cont l~t iol~. Bran~pton said t l ~ i s was by tllc ('o~nu~on 1,aw; b u t Uerklcy, by t l ~ e Statute of Ed\v:rrcl 111: and Croolie scelrls rather to have l~e ld wi t11 Bra~np to~ l . 'I'l~e casc reported in Li ttleton, mas cited. 'I'l~c case of Collingwood us. Pays, or I'HCC, i~ also repc~rtctl ill 1 Siderf., 193. 'I'he point decided in this case i l l the Escllequer Chamber T\,RR, that Ivl~ere an alien hat1 children denizens, they could inherit to one another. ' I ' I I ~ reporter notes what mas said apparently in a r g u ~ l w ~ ~ t , about the Stiitute of Edward 111, tliat a l t l~oupl~ this nxnies hilsband and wife, still i t snffices

that the husband should be a subject, thougl~ the wife waR an alien, for tlie wife was under the power of the husband, and so l i ~ ~ d e r the same allegiance as he ; a. rule, it may be observed, which does not make allegiance altogether R qilestio~l of plilce.

He proceeds that i t i~ not sufficient \vl~ero the wife oo only is4a ~nt! ject , and 11e rcfclrs to the cases in Little- 0 rc ton and Crokc, as deciding that the c l~ i ld re l~ will inherit

a8 before, if the father he ;I suL.j,ject. though the mother be an alien. Then the report proceeds to give the rule, that the cllildren will not inherit, altl!ongll Loth parents are subjects, if they tire born abroad after the licel~sc to the parents to re:lli&i~~ abroad ib determilled, which aga i~ i docs not go upon tile ground of lz lncrely local a l lcg ia~~ce . Finally the rcpvrtur adds quere of person&, not merchants, n.110 go b e g o ~ ~ d sea without license, and have child re^^, if their cl~ildrell inllerit. A question wl1ic11 p l a i ~ ~ l y did llot depend u p o ~ ~ tbe

o Statutes, which said ~ ~ o t l l i r ~ g , e i t l~cr of uuch lnercha~lts 0

or license to lcave the rcaln~. 'l'hese pr i~~cip les will be found collected in Corn. Dig. ,4lie11 B. but I I O o p i n i o ~ ~ is expressed, wlretller the Statute of Edn?. I11 n7as dcclara- tc~ry of tlie ( 'om~non Law, or first established the rule. In Biic. Abr. Alien A. the rule is give11 that if an Eng. lish n~e rc l~an t go beyond sea and take a11 alien wife, the issue wilI inherit him. In Gal\ in's case, or the case of the Post S a t i 7 , Co. Rep. 1, 2, State Trials SGO, the subject of allegiance was very largely co~lsidercd. The question upon n7hich that case t u r ~ ~ e d , was whether a man born in Scotland after the accessioi~ of James to the Crown of England, was an aliell or a denizen.

H I t n7as determined in fayor or' his denization, and a l - though from the existence of the Statute of Edward 111, which seemed to reach all cases of possible incony venience, and the comparative infrequency of journ

eys or rcsideoce i~brouil, tllu l~riilciplcs of tllc Colnmon J.ii\ry wcrc not npplictl to i l~s ta~lccs of clriltlrcn of En* ]is11 rcsidcl~t ill fore~g,n coul~trics for tl-iltlc, otc.. yet tlrc doctrillc 01' tllc 11aturc atld esscuce of allcgiallce was t l ~ n r l ) ~ ~ p l ~ l y tliscr~ssc~~l, a i d sorile cases cor~siclcrcd wl~icll n ~ u s t rest I I ~ J ~ I I S I I I I I I ~ of tllc: I ) ~ ~ I I C ~ I J I ~ ~ ~ a s s ~ r t ~ d by H O I ~ I ( ~ of t11e J~~t lg( !s ill 1 < 0 ( ' ~ 7 1 v. R(ICON ;i11(1 Rex vf Euton. 'I'l~us t 1 1 ~ casch o!' : I I I Al~ll)ase:i[lor ;\:is put and it \\.:IS :\greed that his cl~iitlreii worllcl l)c tlcnizeils, C1

tlloupll \)or11 ii1)roatl. \VII(:II Ii)reig11 t r a w l 1)ecaii10 I I I O ~ C f r c q ~ ~ e ~ r t , i t ~vollltl llavc 11cc11 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 , alltl ~ r o doubt clc.r.liirct1, tlrilt al~si.l~cc, tilr t~.;~tlch c:r t l . a~c l . n.;~s 1;1\vf'ul, a if i t r I : I I 1 11s i1s s . I t is trllc thiit tllc cloctritle of i i I l ~ g i : ~ ~ ~ c ( ? :is c ~ ) ~ ~ s c q n c t ~ t or clcl)clldaut U ~ I O I I the ])lace of birth, \\.:is i t l \ ~ i l ~ ~ strolrgly il~sistcd up011 1)y 1Soglinl1 (,'orlrts i111t1 lawyers i l l fi~vor ol' the I':llglisl~ ("0111111011. ;i~rd ii 1.igl1t to tllc. :iiI~~gi:il~ct: of every ~ ~ ~ F I I I I Lor11 \ v i t l ~ i ~ r tlre r~ ' : l l~ r~ . \vils s o t ~ ~ ~ ' t i l i ~ ~ s as-

sertc!tI, 110 ti-~iitter I IO\V \ l a a eiit~lc to livi! t1rt!re, or \vIlo

wl!rcb Ilis olarisllts. Iili4. t 1 1 ~ 11c~ilri11p or l i ~ ~ ~ i t i ~ t i c > ~ t of L

this cloctl.i~lc ill I ~ r t c r ~ ~ : i t i o ~ ~ ; i l I , i t \~ \\.as tlewr consitl- c m

eretl, i u~d I tl1i1:k i t is 1)Iiii11 fro111 \\']lilt \I:~s I)tlc:l cited, tlrat ' t l~e c o ~ ~ v c r x e propo+itiou was nevt!r corlccded, tlli~t. tlle ~ ~ l a c i ? of birth \voul(l ~ilake the clliltlrerr of' an Ktlglial~ su\),jcct L'rcc! l'ro~ll 11;s alltbgi:l~r~r. 'I'lris cle- ~ C I I I I I V I Itlmll tlrc circrlll~st:l~lcc ant1 tlit. conditiol~ of i s ~ t ~ e I t will I N . I ; , I I I I ~ . I al)l~t'c.l~c.~~d, t11:rt the q~wstiolr of i\Ilcgii\l~cc 1'1.0111 t l ~ e llrcrc 11li1r11 of I,irtll. 11;~s 111ct wit11 \-cry serious t~.viilnlcr~t i r r tllc: t l - i l ) i~tr :~ls of cbvclry couatry, accortlii~g l o 1111: as l~cct ill \vllicll it I ras beerr 1)resc:11tctl. I t 11a.q Lccu s t ~ ~ ! i ~ u o u s l y ii~sisted 11po11 \vI.~cru by birtll tlla 1)crson ill q l~c r t i u l~ \vould 1)e boaad 5

Cu to the country of tllc tribulral. while no country 11as ever bee11 a s ready to asert tile doctrine of allegiatlco by reason of tltc! place! uf' birth. \v l~cr~ i t woiilcl w ~ r k

n p i n s t itself. I t ci111 Irarrlly l)c sni1.1 to bc scttlib~l ils a i~niversal rule, certainly not witl~ont cscel)tions. 'l'l~t? prjncipli!s wonlcl ljrotcct tllc cllil(lrul~ of British sub ,jccts born al)roi~d c lu r i~~g i~ telnporirry irbsel~cc of' tho ~)arclrts, 1)11t t l ~ r Stnt i~tes \vl1ic11 wuri! piissc~l frolrl t i ~ n c to t i l l l c r , rel~~l(:rc(l their ul)l)licutic~~r ill 111ost (litse~1 11llncccssar.v. , I ~ : I I ~ ~ I I s i l l 11is ( ' i .11 t rlrics1 11. 3, ( ' i ~ s ~ ?(I.

2 s i ~ y s ( ~ s ~ ~ r ~ ~ s s ~ ~ t11;tt t i l t ! ( ; I I ~ ] I ~ ~ ~ ? I I ot' 11 I I I ~ ~ < ~ I I ~ ~ I I ~ , Irtiv- rl clilip i l l ;I I;,rcig:.11 ~ O I I I I I ~ ~ , 11y ~ L I I a1ic11 1110tll~r. 11iteI

1)or11 tlii!re sl~all 1)c l~( ! i~*s to t 1 1 1 h t'i~tl~ihr, for t11(! 1111si11ess of' a 11lc~rcl1i111t ~-i.cll~ircs ;I lung ~ I I I O I I ~ ! ;il)ri>;lcl. i l ' 11o will ~ ~ o t , tr11,~t his fo1.t1111c to fill-tors, ii11(1 this 1111 S ~ Y ~ I I I S to put. 1101 111)011 1111! S I ~ I I I I ~ C ' , 1)1it I ~ I C I I I '~ I I~ :~] ) ! ( 'S 0 1 ' t110 ( ' ~ I I I I ~ I ~ J I I 1Ji1 \v, '1'111-r~ iirih ~ I I I ~ ~ t \YO IIIOIY! rctbeIlt cirscx, wl~iclr rc.cl~lirc. ~lotictr. 011c ot' tlrc!*c is Doc. ile~n. Durroure Y ,101tc.s. 4 S. I{. :100. 308. 'I'l1i1 11oi1rt t l l e r ~ ~ u I c ~ IViIS t I l i11 tilt! SO11 Of i l l 1 i l I i t ? l l f i L t l l L ~ l ' :lilt1 :Ill 1:llg- li#lt I I I O ~ I I ~ ! ~ , 1)11ri1 O I I ~ 01' t I1(1 K i ~ ~ g s ~ I o ~ r ~ i ~ ~ i o r ~ , ~ - o i ~ l ( l 11ot~ i l ~ l ~ ( ~ r i l ~ i t 1 1 ~ ' r i i t ('11111111011 I 1 i i 1 ~ 111' U I I ( ~ C ? ~ 111~ St i I t I l t~ '~ .

La i s is i ! I i I I 0 1 I I1ii1111. by F'

i l l1 l l l t r chfli81.l 01' 1111: i i l ) l ) l i t + i t t i i ) ~ ~ of' t i l t ? r111(! I J U ~ ~ U J

s e q ~ ~ i f u s ytrtrc.t]c. 111 ruii~lil~g t11c ollirliol~ ot' the ,jn(lgew ill t11is ciistnI tile ~ I I I S I ! ~ V ~ L ~ ~ ~ I I 1v11icIl II:M 11ei!11 i~ l r i~ i~ ( ly ~ ~ r i l ~ l c , t l l i r t t l lu cxistcr~cc 01' t 1 1 1 b virrions ii11(1 G I I C I ~ C ' S ~ ~ V C

Acts 111' I'erlinlllc!nt olr this s11l\itb1:1. ~ I I - U V U I I ~ C I I ir clear R I I I I 11irt:ct clecisio~l of tlli? 1)oillt 1)y tile ( ' I I I I I I I I O I ~ Ilaw iLI01llh, ill illly 01' 1111~ cilrl i1.r CiLSllS, ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ ( ~ 1 1 0 1 \)e for- I . l l ~ l . K { ! I I ~ O I I o b s ~ ~ r \ ~ ~ ~ s i l l 11is o1)i11io11, t 1 1 i ~ t t110 ~:IliIl'a~tl!r ~ 1 ' $1 lli1.1llrill 1 ~ ) 1 ' 1 1 slll{i(!ct. i i~lt( ' l ' i~~l. 10 t l ~ e Stiit~ltc. illci(1c11t to I ) i r t l~ \vi t l r i r l tilt! a l l i ~ g i ; r ~ ~ c ~ ? of

w t 1 1 ~ Ki11g o111.v. ' l ' l ~ i ~ rih111ilrk i l l its Iwari11g I I I ) I ) I I the 51 pruwn t questiol~, sl~oirlcl bc' clilnl jlit:tl l)y tl~t: ;~( ld i tion

t,ll;rt iis tr:lvi?l it1111 t 'oruig~~ rcsieler~t:c hacir~l~c Inorc f'rs. qrlollt :irld ncccssary, i~ tc:1111)11rary i ~ b ~ d ~ ! i l l ik f;)ruign coulltry, was rcgardi~d by tllc' law 11s not \wing i i dcpar-

turc fro111 tlie Icgiuncc of the Sovereign, or as coiisti- tutiug an exceptio~i to the rule. The otlier judges certnililj saiictioned t l ~ c doctrine that the tlenizensllip of tile son of an Er~glisli lncrcl~arit by all alien ~notllcr, 11i11st l ~ e referred to the coliditiol~ of the father. iind liis la~vful a ~ ~ d tc~uporary abode in a foreign country, nii(1 110t to it \.iolent collstructori of the Statutc: of Edward 111, changing " and " into " or." TIlc case of Doe. dem. Thoma~ v. Aclam, 3 13. and C . -3

779, docs not clistinguisl~ between the effect of the Ftcttutc ;t11(1 tlle Commori Law. I t contains, ~~o\vcver , a v:llu:~Llc tliscnssiul~ of the subject in the argument a t t l ~ c D:lr 1)y Lindall v. Parleer, who were of coiinsel. Sil~gnlar!y eriorlgl~, their arguments arc cited by the latc Vice Cllancollor Sandford, i r i Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sancl., C11. It., 653, 678. as if they wcre opinions de- livered fro111 the Bench to which L)otli tljesc distill- guisi~eci c o u ~ i s ~ l weye afterwards elevated. Sir Charles Al) l~>t t , i i f t ~ y ~ i i r d ~ Lord Venterdell. was t11c11 Chief

C1 Juaticte, tint1 clcli vercd tile only opi~iion in tlie case. w 00

Sir Willisln Blackstono ill his Comment;trics inti, mates t110 opi~iioli that a t Common Law a man h o ; ~ ~ oiit of' t l ~ c rcal~ri, of whatever parents, was itn alier~ He scclns to co~isitler tlie esceptious Ivhicl~ must I I ~ ad nits 1x2 nladc to this rule as rtsulting from tlie $tat~itcs. Tlre clistingaisl~ed commentators, liko the English Judges was not driven to decide the quc.stic\n ;\s \lye are witlloot the aid of t l ~ e St:~tutes. If 11e had bcc~i , 1 an1 confidei~t lie would have arrived a t a differ- en t cor~clutiio~~. Rccve in his history of Euglish Law * C.l Vo1. 2, 1,. 400. says that the Statute of Edward I11 r ' w was inadr! to reiriove solno doubts which were enter- tained about the deuization of children born of Eng- lisli p i~rcnts out of the Kingdom, and Ch. Kent xocms

to l~avc? entcrt:iincd tlic siimc opinion. 2 Kent, Corn., 49.

Thc S t a t i i t ~ s of tlrc? $;':l~glish I ' a r l ia~~i i~r~t tn nlrich I havo rcfcrrcd \vcrc i l l fi)rce i l l tl~c! l'~.ovincc> of New York tlot1,11 t,n t l ~ c H(?voli~tion, and \rorc! cor~tir:irerl by the Cor~wtitiltio~~ of t l ~ c . Stiitr of NI.IV Pork , ildol)t(?(l in

0 1 Hut i r ~ l i Y b ' ( 2 I , ;LI~S S. Y.. Green'l. 116). i t was C'I V-I el~ac:to(l t l ~ : i t iiftthr t l ~ c 1st of' Max rrest. llorlc o f tlrn

Statutes of' Great 13ritair1, *Iro111(1 be c u ~ ~ ~ i d c r i ~ ~ l I,;Lw& of this Pt;itcb. 'I'l~c ciIibct of' tlris i111d of t11(! ~ I I ~ I P C ~ I I C I I ~ ,

I cg i s l i~ t io~~ of ('o~rgrx.ss I I ~ J ~ I I tlrc s~rl!jc.c-t of r~a t l~r ; i l ix~- ' ti011 11i1s l ~ ~ s 1 1 to l ~ a w I I I C vo1111itio11 01' ull tlrc cl~ilclrcn nf Al~~c!i.icar~ citizcris I ) I ) ~ I I aljroad 11utwee~1 1502 u ~ ~ d 1855. c . s c l ~ ~ s i v c ~ l to t l ~ c dcrisiorr of' \vl) i i t C : ~ I ' ~ I I . K~:II!, ? C ~ I I I ~ I I . 53, c;llls tl lc. clorlila~~t : i r ~ t l do~~ l ) t fu l pri~iciplcs of' tlrcb Co in~~!o i~ Law. I )or~~lnr ) t t llcbse l)rir~c:iplvs certainly Ir:rvc becr~ dnring the lorrg period i r r \ ~ l r i c l~ the neotl ol' tIrc111 lras been sol)l~lied by statutory rc!gnla- tic~~rs. l)ut I t l~ink tlrey Ci1.e 11ot illtogctlrcr tlo~~btf'ul. I c o ~ ~ c ( ~ i s c tlrat, first, 1)y tlre ( ' O I I I I ~ ~ O I I I,a\v, wlrclr a snl). j c c t is trilvclir~g or so,jori~.~ri~lg ;tbroacl, c i t l~cr 011 the ~)ul)lic. l~~~sirlc~ris, o r on 1:iwfnl * lccas io~~ of h is o\vrr, wi th thci csl)l.c?zs or implied lic.(?~hsc arld silrictio~~ of tho Posc~rt~igri. an11 wit11 t11c i l ~ t ( * ~ ~ t i o ~ ~ of ~ I ~ ~ I I I ' I I ~ I I ~ , ;is l ~ e con.tillrlc!s I I I I ~ I : ~ tlle protc!ctit111 of tlrc! Sovc!rc:ign powt?r, so I I V rctaills tlrc privil(y,re!: ; I I I ~ conti~iucs rirrtlcr tlre obligiitini~s of' his allrgiai~ccb. i ~ r r c l l i i q clriltlrer~, tllol~gh bnrrl i l l R foreign cou~rtry, are not born lunt-ler foreign allogic~rrcr!, :in11 iire :ill cbsceptiorl to tlre rr~lv wlricll urade tho 1)1ac(: of birth t l ~ c - teat of citizc~rsl~ip Seco~~t l . that as : I I C 11rriv(1rs~1 I I I H S ~ ~ I CF t l l c? Common I,;i\v is parim

r( sequitzis patren~, it is sunicicrrt fur t1rc application of tlie clnct1.ir1ca just slatcrl, tli:rt tlrc f i~ t l~ i l r sllo~il(l hc a slll!jec!t Iri~vfnlly nlld wi t l~or~t l)rc;~cli of l ~ i s allcgicnce beyolltl the Rea, no matter wl~at may 1)c tlit! cn~~d i t i on

of tllo motl~er. 'l'l~ird, t l ~ a t tllc cl~iltlren ol su1)jccts thus sc!jourl~ilrg or travcli:~; beyond the sc,as wuru recog~rizcd as t lc~~ixcns under Englisl~ law, wl~cn and as fbst us tllc occnsioli and instances of forcigrl t r a w l ii11c1 t c~ l~pora ry residerlcc multiplied, 1~1it1 ~ 1 1 e qucstior~ as p r c s c ~ ~ t c d to the Courts, and this was l ~ y the du~cl0~~111c11t and apl ) l ica t io~~ of the doctrincs of

Y tl;c Corn~~ lo l~ Tlicm. Eo11rt11, that the Statute of Ed-

0) marc1 111, was not intcl~tlcd, nor is i t to bo understood au nbrogatil~g esisting rule of law, and introducil~g :r now r~rle Ly t l ~ e will of' the Legislature merely, 1)ut was dccl:iratory in i ts ~ ~ i ~ t u r e , or a t least furrlislles evi- dcncc tll:it tllc rulc of tile Common Law was other t l ~ : ~ n that co111;iilled i l l its prb\.isious, but rather the contrary. 'I'lle denizarion of the children of a British father by a foreign mother, before the Statute of A I I I I ~ , must be attributctl to the Common Law, rather t ha l~ to

a strailled c o ~ ~ s t r l ~ c t i o n of the Statute of Edward, a11t1 is a11 i rnpor tu~~t irldicatinn of the origiri of the whole doctril~tr 011 this sui~,jcul. rr

p.3 * I t I I I ~ ~ Lc ob,jcctcd that the country in wl~ich sue11

childrclr itrc Lorl~, 1nig11t clairn them as cit,izens, 11y rotison of their birth ; but, I apprehend not, when tlre rersidcrlc(a of t l ~ c parents who merely temporary, and wllore t l ~ c cl1ildrc:11 were removed before their nlajority. Csscs migllt., ~)crhaps, be supposed when the cl~ilclrun woultl 11c to sonlo extent under both allegiances, or a t least luigl~t Lo entitled or bound to elect between the two. Llut ~vllcn, as in this case, the parent returns to liis ~rat ivc country, \\-llicl~ he had never abjured, nor pcrmiinc~~tly forst~kell, bringiug the child while still all , illfint, that country cannot be called upon to reliilquish 11i~ ~ l l eg i a~ icc , or that of his children, on accourlt of any possible conflict with the country of his temporary abode.

I h;~vc ! nlr?ntly said t l ~ c greater or lrss duration of that nl~odc! d o o ~ n o t xecln rnnterial, so long nx i t is ill intention, R I I ~ i l l fact, tcmpor:bry and riot pcrpctual. I cnn rliscovcr no rule ~vhicll monld denationdizc this defendant, which would not be equally opcrativu if hie father'^ rcsidoncc in I'cru llatl been but for on(? year or two, provided i t Ilatl been an actual and legal clo~nicil.

w Alt l~onpl~ a do~nicil, i t YRR that of a mercllant tem-

porarily resident abroad, intending, a t some future time, althougll a t a time not defined, to ruturn to the U~li ted States, not cxpat.riatcd, and who liad never ceased to be n citizen of his nativo country. Undar those circnmstances, I think his son, though born in Lima, is a citizen of t.he Unitod States, and entitled to inherit here. My conclnsiou, therefore, is tha t the Judge before whom this cause mas tried, erroneously held to the contrary, and that his judgment must be reversed, aud a new trial ordered.

& Mr. Justice BROWN concurred ; Mr. Justice LOTT die- Ff

son ted.

Anna R. Ludlam, the plaintiff and appellant, died Feb- ruary 26th, 1862, and an order mas niade continuing the mtion in the name of her executor, as follows, to wit :

At a Term of thc Court of Appeals of the State of New York, held s t Capitol in the City of Albany, on the thirtieth day of September, 1862. m

Resent, Hon. HENRY E. DATIES, Acting Chief Judge, ' presiding.

Snu LUDLAM EDWARD LUDLAM, Wn~icwz H. hEwrrr and MAXI- I MO M. LEDLAM, I

I Dcfts, Respondents.

On reading and filing the petition of Carmen M. Lud- lam, showing that Anna R. Ludlam, the appellant in this 2 action, died on the 26th day of February, 1862, leaving a last Will and Testament by which she devised all her estate to the said Carmen M. Ludlam, and constituted her sole executrix of said Will. That said Will has been admitted to probate by the Surrogate of Kings County, in the State of New York, and letters testamentary issued thereon to said Carmen M. Ludla~n b j said Surrogate, and that said Carmen M. Ludlaln has duly qualified as such exeontrix. And on rending and filing a certified cop of said Will and letters, also a notice of this motion an d ad- mission of service thereof by tlie attorneys of the re- s ondents, and their consent in writing to the entry of &is order.

And on motion of John R. Porter, of counscl for the petitioner, it is ordered that this aetion be continued by 5 and in the name of Carmen Id. Ludlam as csecutrix, kc., .of Anna R. Ludlam, deceased, as plaintiff and appellant.

COURT O F APPEALS

STATE OF NE\V YORTC.

. -- .. - .- -. .. .

(:1\11.\LI<?r' 11. I.CL)l.h.\l, Executrix, 8(.., of] A S S A R. LUDL.\!.l. docei~scd, d I ~ ~ ~ r l l a n t .

ri:7cf.

SILAS LUI~L;iY, I.:D'VARD LUDLAhI, l \~II . l , l . i~I 11. l i I < i V I T ' ~ i111al M.ASl!,IO 11. J.I'I>LA 11. I:,.yi,,n,l..:,f.<.

.. - - . - . - . . . i Poi~ats lor Appellant.

I 1 1 ilr: :ICI ion vras brouglit by the testatrix, ~vllo is n llntive of t l~is S~:ltc. to catnl>lish lier riglit to the procccds of real estate of a C ~ I I C ' P ; I S C I ~ uncle, one half of which is claimed by the de- fcud:t~lt Mnsimo 31. Ludltlm, l ~ e r brother, a native and citizen of Sout l~ :\mcricn.

'.l'l~c ot l~cr (l~lc!id;uits were tbe testamentary guardians of tile tn-n cliililrc~~. . 7 . I . I I C f;it!irr of tlx rcstar ris, Itichard L. Lucllam, u-as born ill tiris co11ntl.t- ()::I tllu 1;ri~ of March, 1804. (1701. 33. 35.)

111 J>L''1. at t l ~ c nge of ~a i~ l~ tcc i l . lie e~:ligratecl to Limn ill I'criz. (E'ol. 35.) He was a c:lcl.k in that city in 1886. (Fol. :I I .) On the 5th of Fcbn~nry, 1828, lie mnrriecl :it Lima a 11at ivct of South America. (Fol. 31, 32.)

111 1828, he v-ent into busilless in tllnt city on liis own U C C O L I I I I ns tobacco mcrcllnnt. (Fol. 31.)

The defendant Maximo 11. Ludlam was born at Lima on the 18th of November, 1831. (Fol. 31.) The father mas a householder, and permanent resident of that city. (Fol. 32, 36, 50.)

I n 1837 he visited New York with h ~ s familp, with a view to recruiting his impaired health, and the education of his minor cliildren. (Fol. 32.) His wife, until then, was never out of South Amcrica ; and slic was never naturalized here. (Pol. 32.)

The plaintiff was born at New York on the 8th of Decem- ber, 1837 ; aiid her father died in that city, some four months after her birtli. (Fol. 5, 31.)

I n 1847, rluri~ig t l ~ e ininority of both the cl~ildrcn, Thomas R. Ludlam, an uncle, died, seized of real estate, one-sixth of which descended to the p1:iintiC or to her and her brother, if he mas not an alien. (Fol. 7 to 10.) This mas sold in 1860, and the proceeds merc recci\-ed and held by their testninentary guardians under tlie will of their filther. (Pol. 10 to 13.)

The fund remained in the hands of tlle guardians, hen the testatrix becanle of age, in Deccml)er, 1858 ; and in Febmar)-, 1859, she brought this suit. J utlgment was rendered in ]ler favor at the Circuit, but it was reversed at the general tcrnl, Lott, Justice, dissenting.

FACTS FOUND BY THE COURT.

1. That ill the year 1817, Thomas R. Ludlam, uncle of the plaintiff, and of the defenclmlt 3faximo 91. Ludlam, died seized in fee of certain lands and real estate mentioned in the complaint, and intestate, and without issue, lea~ring him snrviv- ing, the perso~~s in that behalf named in the complaint as his only heirs-at-law.

2. That the plaintiff and her brother, the defendant, Maximo M., at the time of the dent11 of said intestate, were the onlv surviving cliildren and desccudants of Richard L. Ludlam, the intcstnte's brother, who (lied before him; and that said

illtestate also lcft l~iiil survivilig, three brothers and two sisters.

3. Tllnt proccctlings were had, as stated in the complaint, for t l ~ c sale of the interests of the plaiiitiff~ and of lfaxirno M. Lncllnm, in the lands and real eestate, whereof said intestate dieil seized, a i d the proceeds of such sale were paid over to the otlirr clefcndants, who are the testainentary guardians of 1)l:iintiff a i d said Maximo M. Ludlam-and they still hold such proceeds with the increase thereof.

4. T1i:it thc plaintiff was born witliin the United States ; ant1 tliwt tllc defendant, Nicximo 31. Ludlam, was born at Lilnn, Pcru, South America, and was never naturalized as a citizen of tlic United States, nor ever qualifiecl as required by law uf resiclcilt aliens, to take or hold lands within the State of S e w l'ork.

5. Tlist Iticllard L. Ludlam, fitther of said Maximo M. I,ucllam, nncl of the plaintiff, in the latter part of the year 1S2.7. \-o1ullt:irily expatriated himself from tlie United States, wlicrc hc \\-as a natural-born citizen, for the purpose of becom- iug H 1)crilianci1t resident of Lima, in Peru, South America, a i d ut'cst;iblisliing his permanent clomicil there, and, in a few 111o11tl1s t11ero;~ftcr did become such permanent resiclent in such last limned place, and there establislled his permanent domicil.

6. 'l'l~at in the year 1828, he there married a natural born citizcii of Chili, wlio never became a citizen cf tlie United States, and of that marriage, tllc plaintiff and said Maximo wero borii as aforestated.

POINTS.

Flwr. The finding of facts is undisturbcd by the reversal, ant1 tlic respondent can only upliolcl the decision at general tcrlll, by showing that on the facts admitted in the pleadings a i d ibund by the Court, the original judgment was erroneous in law.

Case, fol. 59. Code, sec. 268

SECOND. Tllc capacity to take real cstnte by dosc~nt and; devise, has been d u i i ~ ~ e d auci liillitcd by tllc Rcvisctl Statutes nnd if the rospondcnt w ~ 3 an :\lie11 in 134.7, wlicn Tliomas It' Ludlam died, the estate clcsccnded to tllc plaintilf:

1. The preamble to tlie Act of Tcl.iurc, sI~o\\.s tile pnr- pose of the lcgisliiturc to nilopt lived ailll 11eii11ite rules of inclusion tun1 csolusion.

I Rcavilcd Sr:~totes, i l i .

2. " Every ' cil ize,~ of tlrc L7iitl.d S&afes ' is cnpal~le of 11vld- " iilg lunils i~i t l l in this Sti~tc, and of taking the sitme " by descent, devise or l)urcl~nsc. ' '

1 Ila:\.isud Statutes, i l 9 , scat. 8.

3. Subseqr~cnt sections of the Statute prc~scriLo tho con- ditions on \vliicli alo~:e, aliens can talie ant1 lioltl lnilds ~vitllin the S tn tc ; nn:.l i t is not claimed that \\.it11 these the respondent ever coiupliecl.

1 llcvised Stntutes, 720, sec. 15 to 1 7 .

4. The legislature, in pul-annnce of .this policy, ant1 in derogation of the Cumrfion la\\-, clec1:~red every devise to an alien void, and cast the descent lipon the heirs at law.

2 Revised Stntutes, 57, sec. 4.

5. The marriage by RicLnrd L. Ludlaln of an alien, did not under our law :tfYect 11er lwlitical s tal~is , ant1 she could not talie dower in his lantl, though here at the time of his death.

2 1 Vendell. 59. Conollr v Smith. 20 Wendell, 338, Pricst v Curnmings. 3 Denio, 220, Currin v Finn.

6. The respondent being found to be an alien by birtll, could not take by descent under our law, unless

in virtue of some federal st.ntute, declaring such alien, in rjrtuc of his pntcrility, a citizen of the United States, as well as of l'cru.

Tn~izu. l1ilr:re vas no feclertll st;~t,~lta in 18-17, whic11:nade the alic:i-bcin.~ so11 of an Aii~cric.:ui c:ll~igrn~it, by an alien wife, " a citizen of the Gliited Statcs."

1. 'lllle stattitcs of t l ~ ? Stiitc ;lo riot d c c l : ~ ~ . ~ ~ h o is '' a ~ i t izcn of tho Cui~cci States!" ancl tlint cluestion must be iletcrl~~inctl I.)?; ikllcri~l lairs.

2. It \\.as l)rol)crly nusilmcd by tlie lbdcral govcriiiricnt, that i l l tllc :L~)SCIIL'C ~ 1 ' n sl!eciIic stntutc, tllc children of citizclls Lo]-11 :lI.ll'i~;ld \ \ - u u ~ c ~ be ; I ~ ~ ( ~ ' I J ; and nccord- iilgly, i l l l;!'til, C'vi~;:;!.cs:: cll;ictc~l a ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ \ ~ i s i o n , after- :v:rril3 rcl,c:~lccI! tllat " 111c c:l~il~'lrc:~~ of ~ ' i t izc~is of the ';I:nitcd Stnt.cs, tllat nl;ly l)c lwrn bejoncl sen, or ': out of tllc lit~~its oSt11c L~iiitc~l St:itcs, shall Lecon- 'i siderecl as 11itt~1~:il 1)01'11 ( ' i t izciis."

1 Y. S. 8tiit:itcs nl Large, 103.

3. T l ~ e : ~ c t of 17'35, ~vllicli rcl)calc(l t l~n t of 1790, con- tained the t'ollowing provision, which wns rcpenled by a subscquciit. act : " 'l'lie cllildrcii of citizens of ;' ihc Cnitcd States, born out of the lirnits and juris- " dictioli of tllc Cllitell St:itcs, shall be considered as "citkcns of the Unitecl Stntcs."

1 r. d. Slatutcs at L:lrgu, 4.46, sec. 3 and 4.

1. Tile act of Id02 repcaled tlic prcvio~is Statntcs, and eiinctcxl a 11eiv r~ilc, l i~ni t i i~g its n!q~licntion to the cl~ildreii of tll0dC 11-liowcre then or 1.hcretofore citizens of tlie 'Liiited Stntcs, aiid not cnibraciiig the father

of the respondent, irlio was subsecyuently born. Tlie children of parsoils who now are, or liave

'. hecn citizcns of tllc I-uited States, shall, though '' born out of tLelirnitswld jurisdiction of the United " States, be collsiclered as citizens of the United " States."

2 U. S. Statutes as Large, 165, soc. 4. Cosc, Fol. 78.

5. This was the state of the law when this estate de- sccndecl; and clcnrly the respondent was not then " a citizen of the LTnited States," or entitled as such under tlle statc I:LTV to take land by descent.

6. I n 1565, the law was changed, and the wife and children though nlicn born, were declared to be citizens.

10 U. 3. Statutos at Large, 604.

7. This Statute of course does not affect the present question, as the desceilt was cast in 1847, and if the respondent was then an alien, the land descended to the testatrix, and her title could not be divested by subsequent legislation.

Case, Fol. 79. 10 Wendoll, 383, Mick v Mick. 2 Hill, 70, Peoplo v Conklin.

FOURTH. The State has made the caf~acity of the respondent to take by descent, dependent on his being '' a citizen of the United States "-a question to be tested by fccleral laws-and on these the Common Law llas not been engrafted ; and it has therefore no relevancy to the issue, as to the defendants status at the time the descent wns cast.

8 Peter's R., 591, 658, Wheaton v Potera 13 Howard's U. S. R., 664, Wheeling

Bridge Case.

'' The right of citizenship, am distinguished from "alienage? is a na/iotlc~l right or coi~dition. I t per- " tains to the cdnfedcr:ited sovereignty, the United "States ; and not to the individual States."

1 Sandford's Chy. R., 583, Lynch v. Clark.

FIFTH. But if the decision of the question depcnJed on the Common Lam of F;ugl;u~d, it n-ould nut aid tlic rcspond- eut ; as i t is conceded that it l~ns never been adjudged, either in England or iu tliis conl~try, that at Conlnlon Law, one occupj-iug the position of tLc clefcndaut: was either a subject or a citizen of either country.

Opinion, Fol. 80 to 84.

1. The only casc in ~vhicli even a kindred question arose, before thc stnt~ltc of 25 Etl\v., 3, is that referred to in tlie notc of Djcr : in wLic11 it was hcld that children born abroncl: of subjects in tlre scrt'icc: of the Kity1 were inlleritn\)lc-a casc analagous that of ambassadorq or thosc at S C ~ 1111der t l ~ e National flag and clearly this did nut cstcnd to thc children of those ,lot in the service of the I<iiig.

2. The follo~ring is tho note in Djer, on which in the xnsin! tlic ilssistant Tico Chancellor rested his dictum in 1 S311,ll: CHJ-. It., 653, cited i11 the Opinion at foL 82 of tlie casc :

('29.) ''Kz lIut Parl. 17, E. 3, resolved bj- a11 the .' lorlls and gmuclees, that chilclrc~i of sul?jcct born " be}-ond tllc sen: i)z the scrcice of the King, sllall be " inheritable. "

DJ-or, 2 2 4 a ; note 23.

3. Tliis czse lcd to n Petition to Parliament for an act on this sul)jcct, which as not then asscnted to ;

but the petition mas recited in and its policy inaugu- rated by the Statute of Edward, known as the act de natis ultra mare, which took effect in the year 1351.

4. The following is the Statute of 25 Edw., 3 Ch. 2. Because that some people be in doubt, whether

I' children born in parts beyond the sea, out of the " liegiance of the King of England, should be abie " to demand any inheritance within the same liegiance l1 or not, whereon a pctition was made heretofore in " the parliament holden at Westminster, the seven- " teenth year of the reign of our said lord tlie King, "and was not at tlie same time wholly assented ; " our said Lord the King, milling that all doubts " and ambiguities should be put away, and the l a r I L in this case declared and put in certain, caused the " said prelates, earls, barons and other wise men of ILlzis council assembled in this parliament, to be l1 charged to deliberate upon this point; a11 of l1 whonl with one assent have said, that the law of " the crown of England is, and always hath been " such, that the children of the Kings of England, ILin whatsoever parts they be born, i n England or " elsewhere, be able and ought to bear tlie inheri- L' tance after the dcath of their ancestors ; ml~ich law " our lord the King, the said prelates, earls, barons "and other great men, and all the commons

assembled in t l ~ c said parliament, do approve and a affirm forever.

" And in respect of other children born out of the "liegiance of England in the time of our said Lord 11 the King, they bc of one mind accordcd that Henry, l1 son of John Dc Bezumond, Elizabeth, daughter of " Guy de Bryan, sncl Giles, son of ,U,alpl! Dun-heny, l1 and others whom the King mill name, which were

"born beyolid the s.n, out of the licgiance of Eng- "land, sliall bc hwcefortl~ able to have and enjoy " t.lieir inhcritnnccs. ;~l'tcr t l ~ e ~leatli of t,hcir ancestors, ;' in ;ill parts withill tllc liegiance of H11g1atid1 as well " as those born within the same liegi;i~ice.

;' l lnd that all children inheritors: which hence- " fortl~ sl~all be born out of the liegiance of tlie King, 'I whose htliers and mothers at the time of their '' birth, bc: and sh:ill bc nt tlie faith and licgiance of '; the Ring of' I;;nglani.l, sLall have and enjoy the " same beticfit n~itl nrl\-fiutngc, to have and bear in- " heritance witliiu tllc same liegiance, as the other " illlleritors nfbrcsr.i~l in time to come : So always that " the noth hers of such children passed the sca by the "licc~lse sttd ~vill of their husbands"

1 English Statutes at Large, 566.

5. It mill be seen that this Statute has four marked features.

(1.) I t shows in the preamble that, as yet, no decision liacl engrafted into the common law tllc cloctrir~e, that, chilclren, born abroad! of sub. jects not ill t l ~ o service of the King, were in virtue of their lineage subjects of the Eliglish crown.

(2) I t tkt.ltcrc..s that "the law of the crown of 1:nglanil" is, and alzuays ?las been, that the cl~i l~lroi~ of English Kings, wherever born, are entitled as heirs, and successors to the tl~rone.

(3) It enacts that tliree persons named, :ind others whom it clothed the King with authority to name, born beyond the seas, shall bc lLence/orth ablc to il~llcrit from their aricestors. 2

NOTE. I t does not appear wbetlier these were children of Rnglisli parents, but they were of English Zi)lecc!ye ; nor does it appear where they were I)o~.n, except that it was "beyond the s a i ;" and it will be observecl on reference to the enacting clause, which is not tral~sril)cd above, tliat Edward 3, then claimed to he King not. only of J1:nglandl but of k'rancc.

(4) I t enacts that cllildreu, which " henceforth shall be born " abroad, whose fathers and mothers sliall l)c, at tlie time of such birth, of the lieg- i:ulc.e ntid faitli of England, shall be entitled to i~ i l~r r i t '' in time to come."

6. Under these provisions, n, persoii iheretofore born abroad of English 1,arents-not of the royal family- and not in " the scr\-ice of tlie King," could not inherit from tlie father, even though he died after the act.

7. If then, the cntirc statute could be rcgrded as cleelara- tory of the Co~nmon I,aw, it declares tlle law tobe, that no such person could inherit, irrespective of the enabling clause, wllich applies only to the alterborn ; and in respect to tl~ose theretofore born, i t clothes the reigning King with the prerogative of converting aliens, born abroad of English lineage, into subjects by royal grant and designation.

8. Tlie same statute may be, and often is, decZaratmy in some of its parts, and enabling in others ; and in this instance, parliament left no doubt of its purpose, by discl.itrti?viti?cg in dealing with the doubts if assumed to solve, between the cllildren of the King

and those of the subject, : tlef-lu~in!/ in thc one case, " in perpeluwn rei iestimott i l ~ l t z , " wllat t l ~ c law " is atxi ecvr Itath been !'-ancl in the otlier, ordaining a law to take effect in til~lc: to co~nc."

Dwarris (111 St:it~~t(,s. 637.

9. The respondent could not clailil tlic bellefit of this and the 1:iter English ~5'6atules VII this sul,jcct, as in this State they have all been rel~cnlccl.

2 Grect~lenf 'J Laws of Xew York, 1 16, sec. 37.

SISTJI. But if it ircrc oljen to clobnte, \\-l~etlicr thc Par- liament of Edward 3, legislated in ignorallcc of tllc Common Law, ulld p:issecl ru1 cual~ling act i~l~l)lical~lc only to tlic children of subjects to be tlicrcaftcr 11orn :d~roatl, oz.erlool.ing zvhal /he r e q ~ o i t d ~ i ~ l c.Ltitns 111(:1~ 7/31s1 trntl c.~.ct* had bec,n the luz1*, we insist t11:it tlie rescarchcs of live suc.ccccliug ce~it~~ries , have iiiilcd to disclosc any clecisiou ol' tlir: I.:i~glish courts an- tecede~it to tliat statute, sust.aining tllc rcs~~onclents' claim.

SEVEXTH. If however tlic spccu1:~tioiis ()fjurists at a later period, can pr01)erly be rcsortccl to fi lr tllc 1)url)oec of clisplac- ing an enabling clause in an act ol' 1':1rli:i111clit, an11 antedating the yro.yecticc ~.t~le it assumcd to inarrgurzitc~, we s111)niit that as between the English autllorities oil tllis s~i l jcct tlic prcpon- derance is decisive against the resl)ull(lcnt ; aiicl that thc con- clusioils of thovc wl~osc rcscarclics i1lt.l) the c:irlier history of tlle law were rnnclc a s~~ccialty, :lrc elltitlcll to far greater weight, than tlic occ:lsionnl and str:igglil~g dicta in cases where the rluestion did not arise, ancl 11po11 wl~icli tllc respondent mainly relies.

1. Littlcton, whose trcatisc upon the ('c~mmon La\\- of England was written i11 t l ~ c rcigi~ of Ekliv. 4, says he

is an alien, " which is born out of the li~qiance of our Sovereign lord the Ring."

Cokc's Littleton, 128, h. wc., 198.

2. Coke, writing in 1593, co~nr~lerits on this passage t l~us : " ~l l i sn , alienigc~ia, is derived froin tlie Lntin word.

alie~ius, and according to tllc etylnology of the " ~vorcl, it signilictl~ one born in a stran,gc c o u ~ ~ t ~ , " u ~ ~ d e r tllc oheilicncc of strange prince or country.

(:111(1 tlierefvr~~ nr;tct1)11 saith that this exocptiou i L p ~ * o p t t ~ . de$ectz~m ~ ~ a / ; o ) ~ i s , should rather be pl.opter

dr/;.ctunk s/~l~ec/iv~~l:Sj, c)r us Littleton anitli. (which " is the surest) out of tlic licginnce vf the Bing."

Coke's Littleton, 129, a.

3. 111 Cnlvi~i's case, clcailletl iu G James 1, and cite(] in the Opinion at fo?. 109, the Court held the follon-ing among other pro1)ositiolis :

LiA1l alien is a s~~l!jcct that is boru out uf the " lieginnce of the King, ant1 under the lieginncc of " another."

" Every mau is either alieniyenn, an alien born, or subdit~i~, n suhj ect b o r ~ ~ "

cannot be a suI,jcct of the I<il~g of England, "unless ( i t the time cf 1li.s birtlr, 11c was under the " liegiance and obecliencc: of the King."

7 Cokc'i; R., 31, 8.7. 36.

4. The cjbservations of Barrington on this statute, incidentally referred to in the Opinion at fol. 98, are these :

'I 'l'liis statute reci~cs a doubt." [The :lutllor here adds in a nbte: " Tllo French uspression in the original is en avere. and not en awerou t, which is always use11 in Littlcton, to signify a do& ;"I I i whelher children born of parents out of the King's

allegiance ellould i~:.licrit Innrle i l l I.:ngl:iiil.! : which iiuc.!stion, it seems. I~nn: been :!8.bfi!r4c t l ~ i ! l;arlinment in tlic c igl~teu~l t l~ ;;car of this King's rcign, but

.; rlutl~ing Iln(l 11cc11 (LC; i8ie;l. The Statute first de-

.- ckcres, that il is and alzcays has hcun the '. I:IW 01' t!i(r C;'O\YII a)f England," [Note : " This ia " ~llwiiys consit1crt.A ;I-; 11.lrt of the comlnon law, and s '! / (!) t t*s 1 ! 1 / t i 0 . 5 1 it! t~t:~.y rule 7'C!hl/il?~ to ;l, ./;,om ' . ~ f ' ! / t 1 / 1;s la, / . ijt the +r.se of n .szlbj?ject;] a~lrl hath .; i~l \va~.s 1.1t:cn SI I, tl~t.! 111e childrell, of the l i i t ?g . born '' in any ;~:irt of t'lc \vo~-lcl, have a right to inherit; '- U I I ( ~ this! :ii'~:i)rlling 11.1 the observation made in the * . I I L I I ~ ~ 111!Io\v. t i ct .~1.8.11ty uryuiitent to pvoue, t J l ! l / ;)L '. tt"~: (:!is# ! l C ~ ; ; I ~ ) ~ L ~ I I : ~ ~ ~ j ? j e c t ~ h e Zazti z c m ! ~ ~ j / ~ t ~ t ~ / / ! ~ i ~ , l -

. .. - tri to be ( . /kl / . ~ ! . l . . , c .

Barrington on Statutes, 209.

5. .I rase was ~:it~:cl in tl~l? opinion fi.01~1 jcnkins Century It.. rrt fi.)l. 114: \1;!1il.~> \\.e tliink mas misapprehended. I t KLLS not t l ~ c l ir';n!.i l~,~l fi1se, ~vllicli wns one of dower- L I L ~ a c:rel: ~ ~ : i t ~ : l . l ill tlie observations of the author, alltl ilccidtt~l in 16 Charles, 1 ; long after the Ytat~lto d i s I 7 . : . Ho does not refer at all to the comlnon l i ~ \ v . He states it thus :

.. A mcrci~n~it tracliug in a foreign country mar. sics ail alicn tl1c.r~ ; the issue shall be heirs to his

'. fathcl-. altliongl~ him mother was not an English " WoIniln."

This IVRS in accordance with the other English cases on tlic Statute of 25 Edm. 3, holding that the words. ': fatller and mother " in that Statute, ehould Ile construed. "father or mother," as the wife is '' ,q1Jt j i t . , ( , . . ~ [ ~ ~ t , : tqiri."

But Judge Jenkins precedes the statement of thir (.fist? \vit.ll t l ~ c i;~llon.ingobservations, ~ r h i c h we clnim to be ~tt ' f iny ( ~ ~ t ? i o i ~ i / ~ / in our favor, proceeding from

one of the most profound lawyers of England, whose researches in the earlier common law had been a s~~ecialty.

" The Statute 26, Edw. 3, Ch, 2, de nath ultra I' mare, was made nine years after Edw. 3, had sub- " dued certain parties of France ; many English then [' dwelt in those partr ; this statuto was partly Is temporary, for it required a continuance of the "allegiance of llusband and wife ; that the wife went, 1; over sea, with tlio consent of her husband ; that the '; issue should be born during the continuance of " their allegiance ; mllich points have relation to the "time ; and the books of the law which found an " opinion upon this Statute, mistake the l a x ; for 'I tho bein.9 born beyoud sen under the allegiance of ''anotller King--or in Scotland before the time of " King James-is the touch.stone to try whether alwn w not. See a ful l discourse of this matter in my

Ii repertory, title, Alien and Denizen." Jenkins Century R., Page 3, Case a.

6. The same rule is recognized, on the authority of Hussey Ch. J., in Judge Brooke's abridgment, published in 1576.

Title, Denizen, Pl., 6. Title, Descent, Pl., 47.

7. I t is conceded that in thecnsc of Bacon v Bacon, cited in the opinion at fol. 106, the exception in favor of the children of an English merchant, temporarily abroad for the mere purposes oC trade, was sustained by tile majority of the court on the authority of the statute 25 Edw. 3, and not on the common law.

Croke's Charles, 601.

8. I n Hyde v. Hill, it was held, even under the Statute: of Edw. 3, that "if baron and feme English go beyond

" sea without license, and have issue, tlirrt the issue Itis an alien alld not inheritable, contrary to the " opinion of Hussey.

Croko's Eliz., 3.

9. The authority of the judges in Duroure v. ,?ones, decid- ud in 17'91, is direct ail11 explicit against tbe claim of the respondent.

Lord Kenyon Ch. J. said: 'I ?'lie cha)tzctcr of a Li natzlral-borti subject, (~)ltCrior to any of the statutes,

was illcidentnl to birth only. Whatever were the '+situation of liis parents, tllc being born .lui&?~in the ~iall~yiunce of thc hi'tzg, constituted a natural born I' sul~jcctt '

As?iu.rst, L, said : I am clearly of opinion against " the lessor of the plaintiff on both points. By the " circumstance of his being 1)orn out of the King's " liegia~lcc, Itc ijprintu fucic an cilien ; ant1 q h c have " uny inheritdle blood, it snltst be zbizder the 25 Edw. 3.

4 Ilurnf. k East. 308, 310.

10. It is conceded that the authority of' Blackstone is eciually explicit, against the clainl of the respondent that by the Colnlno~i Lam he would have been a citizen.

1. Blackstono's Com'a. 372.

11. The authority of Chitty is no less decisive ngainst the theory: that by the colnllion law the foreign born son of an liuglisl~nlnii woulcl Lo ii Uritisli subject

1 Cllitty's Comn~. L w , 1 li, 119, 130. 1 Cllitty's Black. 273 [305,] note 2.

12. In Stanley v .Bemest Sir ,John Niclioll says : ;' llllc gwel:il and primary rule is, that the national

" charactor of tlie person is acquired from the place of birth ; though some exceptions even to that

rule have been framed, not by the common law, but "by special act of parliament ; a.s for instance, in " favor of persons born abroad, but of natural boru " British parents."

5, English Eccl. R., 140, 169. 3, Haggard 373, 436.

SEVEXTH. The weight of authority in this country is equal1~- decisive against t l ~ c clai~n of tlle respondent, that though 5orn in Peru, he ~v:w a citizen of the United States because his father was a citizcii.

I. In Peclz v You.ng! Chnncellor \Valwarth, in rlelivering the prevailing opinion, states that the object of the provision in tlie act of 1802, was l i to change the " comT)ton laro ~ u l e , that t?la child of a citizpn, if born " in a~bre iyn coza~t~*y, was a n ctlieiz."

26 Wendcll, 623.

2. Chancellor Keat, who is relied on as an authority against us, s : ~ j s in tlio test of the commentaries in treating of i l l iet~s and nlafiues: *' Xatives are all " persons born withi11 tllc jurisdiction and allegiance " of the United Stntcs." Hc adds in a note : " This

is the rule of fhe co)n~lLbiz lazu, without any regard " or reference to tllc political condition or allegiance i L of their parents, with tlic exception of the children "a~nbrrssndors, who are i11 theory born within the " allegiance of the foreigli power they represent"

2 Kent's Comm., 39, and note.

3. A child Lorn in this State of alien parents, during " its moth el.'^ telnpolxly sojourn-here, is a native born L L citizen."

26 Barbour, 384, Munroe v hlerchaut.

i. CLliItlren I)orrl iicru are citizens, without any regard " to tlie politic.al condition or allegiance of their ' i t . C l l i l d r~ '~~ of d,nbassn(lors are, in theory, " bor~i witl~in tbc nlkgia?zce of the sovereign powcr " represented, and clo not fall within this rule."

I Saudf. Cliy. R., 584, Lyncl~ v Clarke.

5. " Ainbassndors and other fi~reign ministers retain their "domicil in thc countrr ~vhich they represent, and " to \vliich they belo~~g."

Stu~.y's Conflict o f Laws, sec. 48.

6. L'Yersons who are born in a country, are generally " deemed to be citizens and subjects of that cou.ntry. " A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem "to be, that it shoulcl not apply to the children of '; parents, who were in itinire in tlie country, or who "were abi(li11g there for temporary purposes, as for

hcilltl~, or c:~iriositj-, or occnsional business. It \C.(:)IIICI bc dillicult Ilotvever to assert, that in .the l!rcscl~t statc ui' public law, such a qualification ir uuivel.snlly established. "

Story on Conflict of Laas, sec. 48.

7. Foreig~lers, who reside in a country for permanent or " indeJinite purposes, a~zimo mane)tdi, are treated uunivcrsally as inhabitants of that country."

Story on Conflict of Laws, sec. 48.

8. Li The moment a foreign donlicil is abandoned, the " native domicil is reacquired. But a mere return

to his native country, witl~out an intent to abandon I i his foreign donzicil, does not work any change of

his domicil." Story on Conflict of Laws, sec. 48.

3

9. Tlie foreign bur11 cllil(lrc~l of citizens, are aliens a t cornmon Inn..

3 Ur;iclli~rti. 131. 136.

2 S\vir~'s Digest, l i l b .

23 Vcr~no~it, SlG, L ~ I ~ I ~ O I I v P:IIIY~IIP,

10. In t l ~ c recei~t cl:ll)orntct ol)il~ion of the ~)rcscnt A tt,or- Iley (;cucrtll 01, r'/'/,'z!.lr.~lrip, oflicially communicnted to the Sccrct:u,y o S t l ~ c ' I ' I ~ c L s L I ~ ~ , IIC hacl oclc:isiou to examine tllc 1~11c,stiun : and the following extracts show the trouctl I I R ~ O ~ I . ~ a t ~vliic11 he :lrrivcll.

'i'l'liat nnfi\.ity l im~is l~cs t l ~ c r ~ d c , hot11 of d u t ~ i t i i~i( l of right, ; ~ s bctwcen t11c iudivitl11:ll ar~cl the "(30vcr111nc11t. is n I~istoric;\l i~i11.1 1)oliticnl truth so "oI(1 : L I I ~ SO I I I I ~ V L ' ~ ~ : L I I J ~ C C C ~ ) ~ C I I , t l ~ : ~ t it is needless "to Ijrovc its : to t l~uri t~ . Srvcrtl~clcss, f i r the? sat,is- "faction of thovc ~ 1 1 0 xnay Iiave doubts, ii1)on the "subject, I note n few I~oolis \rl~icll, I think, cn1111ot " fail to remove all suc:I~ doubts-Kent's Co~n. yo]. " 2, part 4, lec. 2C ; B1. Com. book 1, cL. 10, p. 365 ; " 7 Co. 12ep., C:~lvi~l's case ; 4 Term, liep., p. 300, "Doe v. Jones; 3 l'ct. Rep., 1). 24G, Sl~ailks r. Dupont ; ant1 scc :L very learnc?cl treatise, :~ttribllted

" to Mr. Uinney, i11 2 11111. L a w I(.(y)orter. 193. " In the United Srntcs, it is too Intc no\\. to deny

" the political rigl~ts uull oblig:ttiuns co~lILrrc?d and imposed by nativity : for our laws do not pretend

'' to create or enact tllc111, but (10 assume and rccog- " nize them as t l l i ~ ~ p s know11 to all men, bec:nusc 'spre-existent :\nc.l n r t ~ ~ r n l , nncl therefore tLi11gs of '. which the 1an.s illust take cogniznrluo. :\cting out I d t,liis guiding t l i o ~ ~ g l ~ t , our Cnnstitntio~l tloes no

Inore than grant to Congress (ratl~cr than to any " other clepartmc~~t'j tho pon7er " to establish a uni- "form rule of nntnrn1iz:ltion." And our lnwr macle

'. in pursuance tllerc:ol'i~~di~o the mntle citizen with all " the rights ant1 ol)l igatio~~s of t l ~ c natural citizen. " And so strongly \\.as (:ungrclss ililpresscd with the " great legal fact that t l ~ e cllilcl takcs its political "stiltus in tlie nation where it is born, tli:lt it wan " follnd necessary to 1)nus a la\\,. r ~ . ) l ) r e ~ c ~ ~ t tllc alien- " agc of chil(1rcn of ollr l i ~ ~ o \ \ ~ ~ i 1~~11o~v-i~itizer1~. who " happc~i to be 11or11 in f'ureign cou~~tric>s, l'he act " of February 10, 185.',, 10 Statutes. GO4, l)roviclcs, " t111ct 1)cr:;ons 1lcrcrofi)rc: I)or11, or l~crcnftcr to be ' ' bor11, out oi'tlic lil~iits arlcl jurisclictio~l o t ' t l~c Irnited " States, sll:~ll l)e tleen~ctl an11 cousitlercd, a i d are " hercby clcclarccl to be. c i t i z e ~ ~ s OE tlict Uliitcd Stntes :

I '~.ovided, hozucver, 'l 'liitt tllc rigllt of' citizciiship sliall 1i9t tlc.~c~en~l to j)cbrsnn..; wl~osc li~tllcrs liever

:' residec.l in the U ~ ~ i t c c l St:~tc.s. " SE~'. 2. i l~ r t l be it ,titr:ftt 1. ejcrtr.le!l, 'I'11:lt : L I I ~vonia11

" \vho 111ig11t l :~ \vS~~l ly bc ~~ : l t~~rn l i zce l u~ii ler the exist- " ing 1ii11-s. ~n:~rrici l , or w l ~ o sliall Le rriarricd to a

citizen of the V ~ ~ i t c i l States, sllnll 1)e dconletl and ib taken to l)c :I citizeu."

B u t for that :ii81, c . l l i l ~ l r . c~ r~ 01' OIW citizens wlio L1happcn to 1)c I)oni at IAondvn, Paris, or Home, '' wl~ilc their 11:~rcnts arc? t l~c re un n priva1.c visit of

pleasure or 1)usincss. 111igllt l.)e Ijruugl~t to the " native 11on1c of tllt:ir ~):u.cnts, only to lilicl tllnt thcy i 4 t l~c~nsclves wc.rc aliclls i l l tl~cir. h t l ~ e r s country,

incap:11)11! 0 1 ' ilil~critiug 111eir f i~ t l~crs ' Itinc.1, and with " 110 right to dcnlnnd the protec t io~~ of their fictllcrs' " goyernnicnt.

b i :t'/iut is tlv / /o r OJ' f~irllr ( [ t t11~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ t v ~ ~ n l t i w of ' I E.l,~!yla/~d, c:le:ir nucl ~ ~ l ~ t ~ u n l i l i c ~ l ; n11t.1 uow, Loth in

F;i~glancl i1nc1 Amcrica-.-~nodilie(l 0 1 1 1 ~ 1): statutes l L rn;~de fro111 t i ~ n c to t.imc: f o lneet c ~ ~ i c r g ~ ~ ~ i c i c s as Ii they arise."

Opi11io11 o f Att'y l:rn, Batcs, Nov. 29, 1862.

The judgment at thc general term should be revcrsecl, and that rendered at the Circuit affirmed.

JOHN E. PORTER, Counsel fm Appellant.

CAR~IER L c n ~ b ~ r , Admx. of ANNA R. LUDLAM,

Plff. and Applt., VS.

Maxmo LUILAM, Impleaded with others,

Deft. and Respdt.

Slalernent olr behalf o f Maximo Ladlam.

1. Tl~o plaintiff claims, as heiress-at-law of Thomas A. Ludlatn (brother of her father, Richard L. Ludlam, d s corned i n 1S08), the proceeds of certain lands descended from lier uncle Thomas; who died in 1847 Cfol. 7), intestate, and without issue; leaving three brothers, two sisters, and tlie issue of Richard, anotl~er brother, liis heirs-at law. Of coatsc, the share of Richard, father of the plaintiff, and Maximo, defendant, was one-sixth. (Fol. 8.)

T l ~ a gnnrdians of Anna, the plaintiff, and Maximo, defendant, tlic only surviving children of Richard L. Ludlam, on ]letition procured a sale of this one-sixth part, and received the proceeds, which are in their hands, and are tlie sulbject of tlie present suit, ancl amount to $10,438 72. (Fols. 10 to 14.)

The plaintiff claims the whole of the proceeds of this inheritance, as the only heir-at-law of her father, a l leg i~g that the defendant Maximo, her elder brother, was, as a s

alien, incnpnblo of inl~eriting ; because he' nTrrs born during the rcsidcllcc of lier filtlier iu Lima, in Peru. (Put, 9.)

And this is tho only question.

TIIE FACTS \!-ere given in evidence by C'cir~nel* TI'. Lud- Z r m , motl~cr of the two cli~irnant~, Nnxi~iio and Annn, nnd Ly Silcls Lrcdlam, brother of Richard, and uncle of the two clili~ilm~t~.

1. Richard 1;. Ladlam, tlio father, was born in the U~lited Slates, in biarcli, lS04. (Fol. 36.)

In 1S.38 11e left tllo conntry to seek employmciit and bcttcr liis condition, i l l tendi~~g to go to Linla, in Peru. (Ful. 36.)

In 1626 1:e was clerk of n l~ouee in Lima ; nnd in 18.18 m:~r~.iecl his \rite, Carmcr, a ~ ~ n t i v e of Cllili, and ~nesider~t of Peril, and w e ~ ~ t illto blisilie~s OII llis own account, and kept Ilousc tlicre.

In 1831, November IS, Maximo, her son, was born a t Lima. (El. 31.)

Being in poor 11enltl1, and wishing to cdncatc his cl~ildl-ell i l l New York, Ile left Pern, 1536, Sovcmber 18, rill^ Iris family, and arrived in Kew York in April, 1$37. (Ful. 32 )

I n December, 1637, Anna, the ollier claimant, now plaintifl, was born at New Yolk. ($32. 31.)

8. Tile father Ricliard regarded the U ~ ~ i t e d States as his ho~oe (fcl. 33) ; Ire always in tc~~ded to return llcre to educate llis children. (A!. 34.) When 110 cawe lionlo in 1837, 11e a11d l~ i s copart~ler broke up business in Lima, and both came to the Uuited States. (Fol. 33.)

3. OD this evidence, tho Judge, a t Special Term, decided

that Maximo was an alien, not entitled to inllerit (fol. 51), as Ricl~ard, the father, 1iad expatriated liitnself, by settling in Lima, with a permanent domicil there. ml)ese lie married a natural born wornan of Cl~ili, and that Mauimo was born in Peru, of tliat marriage. (Fol. 50.)

And by his judgment July 23d, 1839 (fol. 60), the whole proceeds of tlie lands were adjudged to tlio plaintiff~rinna, to tlte exclusiou of her brother Naximo. (Fuls. 40, 33.)

EXCEPTIONS and a case mere made, and an appeal taken to the Qenesal Term (fol. 553, ml~o tliet-eupon reversed the judgrncnt, and ordered a new trial May 245, 1860. (Fol. 23.)

From this revessal the prescnt apl'enl is tnkcn, the plnintif atipnlati~lg for ju Ig.na:lt ab3olui0 agnirljt Iier, if this Conrt el~ouid affirm tlie judgment nppeale6 from. (pols. 62 to GP.)

The qliestion is stated, and fnlly considered by Emott, J., in his opinion. (321s. 66 to 127.)

First Paiut,-The qnestion of inheritance to lands i n New York depends upot~ tlie law of New York, em- bracing as well its cotninon as its statute law.

1 , The lams of t l ~ e TTnited States and of England only bear on tlie qnestion, as they irifl~~enco t l ~ c ststus requisite for inheritance by the law of New l'ork.

2. The R. S., '( Of Title to Real Property l ~ y Descent," Pt. 1, c l ~ . 11, containa 110 provision beari~~g 011 tl~ie question. (1 R. S., 759.)

3. But, by the Coqnmon Law, every persou, not an alien by the law of New York, is capable of taking by descent.

4. dnd by the Revised Statotes, Art. IT, ch. 1, Part 131, (1 B. S., 719), 'c cvery citizen oftheunited States is capablc of holiling lands within this State, and taking the same by descent, clcvise, or 1)urcllaue." 8 8, and by Art. 10, Cone. of tllc Unitcd States, § 2. " l'he citizens of each Statc sllall bc entitled to all privileges and immnnitics of citizens in tlie several States."

1 R. S., 13.

5. So that tllc Rcviscd Statutes of Kcw I'ork do not 1i111it tlic C O I ~ I I ~ O ~ ~ l i L ~ ns to c:ipacity for dcsccnt, but el~lerge it, estcntling it to nll pcl~sons wllo arc citizel~s of any Stntc, CJ-CII tliollgl~ tl~cy would bc aliens by thc comuion law i n New Tork, provitled tliey be citizens i11 nny otlicr Stntc.

6. W e are tlius left to inquire illto tlic comlnon law as to thc capacity to take by dcsccnt, witliout any contraction of its rulcs by tllc constitiition or lams of thc United Stntcs.

Second Point.-Tlio cotnnlon law of Kc\\? Tork, being the common law of England, ilitl not incapacitate ns aliells tlie children born of the citizens of t l ~ c State in foreign parts, who hnd not censcd to bc citizeiis of this Stntc.

1. Tlie question of alienage, by tlio common law of England, depcndecl upon thc questioli of pcrma- nent allegiance to t l ~ c l i i r ~ g of Engln~ld.

Tlie \vliolc subject is discussecl ill Calvin's cnse (7 Rep., I), tile pril~ciplcs announced in which case are i~lcontestibly principles of tlie coln~non lam. I n that case it is hold t l~nt alienngc does not dcpcnd on being Lon1 out of tllc .liingdol~i or Statc, but out of the allegiance of its ruler. Thus, lncn born in Scot- laritl (R :ol)aratc 'Iiiligclo~n), nfter .Tanics bccame

King of England as well as of Scotland, vcre not aliens as to lands i u Ellgland, bccauso thcy owed allegiance to tlie same K i n g , ~ v l ~ o , it1 liis own person, united the public cnpncitics of Iiing of botll.

And, the cl~ildren of ailibnssadols born abroad, being born in tlic allcginncc of tlie I<i~lg, altliough not in his dominions, were not aliens.

So, doubtless, of oficers of tlie army and navy. See 1 Dyer, 224.

So, also, of subjects going abroad with license of the King, and wl~ose cliildren are born abroad during tile license.

Iiidc v. ElilZ, Cro. Eliz., 3. I t seems, tlieret'orc, certain, that the allegiance of

a n ~ r ~ n may esist so as to embrace his issue born abroad, and that they may be by birth su1)jects and not aliens, although born abroad. I n otllcr words, birth abroad is not inconsistent with the capacity of inheritance by birth.

I t remains to s&e on what grounds this rests, to determine its application to the case.

2. Citizensliip depends on the permanent allegiance of the subject.

It is clearly laid donn in Calvin's case, tllat the plea of alien nlnst aver birth, not out of the kingdom, but out of t,lie allegiance of tlie King; dis- tinctly disclai~ning place as absolutely essential.

I t is also indisputable, that tlie maxim of partus sequitur patrem-as to legitimate issue, is a masitn of the English law. And the maxim is founded on the fact, that the father provides for his n~inor children, is their natilral gnardian, and is entitlcd to their service. In illegitimate birth, ns tho mother alono is the parent ~ ~ O J T I I to the law, shc is under these obligations, and pnrtrcs seyuitul* ventrem. So also of slaves in favor of'tlie master,

3. The father being tllus tlie natural representative of the child, who owes to the father p~imary obediencej and ml~o, by the maxirn of lam, follows his status, if

the father remains a citizen, all analogy of law pre- sumes the child to I~ave the same civil stntus.

A firtlier, resident abroad, retains his original a1. Icginnce, and also has R tem1)ornry allegiance to the sovcrcign in wliose country 11e dwclls ; but the latter does riot clisplnce t.110 former.

See ShzrZey's Ctue, 1 Dyer, 1). 144 a.

Tlic cllilcl born nbroad partakes of bot11. IIence it is, t l~nt t l ~ e cllildren of aliens born in tliis country are not prcsiirnl)tircly nlien~, but snbjects. For " Tho law of' El~gln~ltl llns been always very gentle " i n tllc! co~rstrnctiorl of t l ~ e disability of nlieiinge, " and rather contracting than cste~lding it too se- " verely."

I'er Lt1. Hale iu Paca v. Colliagwood, 1 'CT~'l2t?'i8, at p. 4.7.

So also, Kent C. J., 3 John. Cas., 123.

" This objection of alienage is not nt any time to " be favored, sillce tlie policy of the Legislature llas " been so f'l.eque~ltly declared in favor of aliene " lloldiog lands."

And the father, perhaps, 111ay decide for his mi- nor child, or tlie child nt years of discretion Inay decide for himself, which ~llegiance 11e will perma- nently adopt, as ante nati nlny, 111 Dyer, 244, a, it is expressed, if s Frenclimnn come to Etlglrll~d and stay helv, and have issue, a ron Lor11 here, lie is a liege.

4. Tlle weigl~t of authority, as well as tlie ground of pl.incil~le, is i l l favor ot' not il~capncitnting the issue borli abroad of n fktliel- i n allegiat~ce.

The opinion of Hussey, 1 Ric., 111, p. 4, is to that effect.

The case of Eyde v. Hill, CTO. El., 8, whete liena age of foreign born issue is stated to be a birth

while tho father was nbrond tuithin or +ftor licence, clearly implies that sucli a birtll, witAi~t licence, would not llare incurred nlicniige. Sinco tho course of commerce has rendered liccr~so no longer rcqni- site for lawf111 absence, nll citizclls going abroad nre lawfiilly in tllc contlition of tl~nsc ~ 1 1 o fortnorly ob- tained license, a1111 thcir issnc sl~oultl bc i t ~ tllc same condition.

Bacon v. Bacon, Cro. Car., G01, i s ill point.

The Statnte of 25 Pdw. I IL , ch. 2, (7e natis ~ J t r a mare, was dec1arntol.y of tlic cornluorl law.

See Pur1;e Arg.. 3 B n r ? ~ . tG C'YCSB., 779 ; (9 Ehg. C. L. N., 2SS), Doo v. As?tlain.

See, too, tlle nct 20 CUP. I]., c?~. 6, on tllc same subject. Tho cl~il(lrcn of' El~glisll ~)al.cnts born out of the domiuions, c h . , al-o tlccln~ed to be natural. borrl snlljcc:~.

Nelson, C. J., in Young 7:s. I'cck, 2 l 1K,nd. B., 391, says : '' Tllc act of 55 I<tl\v. III., \vllicl~ is said '' to lli~ve bee11 passed to rcnlovc cloul)ts ns to tho " ~-ule of t l ~ c c o ~ i ~ ~ i i o ~ ~ law 011 tlic eul)jcct,, &e."

See, also, S:111Clti)r(l's I ' C I ~ I D ~ ~ Y i n Lynch v. Clark~, 1 Sr:znd. C?L A!., G53.

Tllo obscn~*ity of tllc question on this s~il)ject, owing to t l ~ e nicetics of tlle f'cnd:ll syetern, tllc di- versity of fiorercig~~ties Iwfbrc tho consolitlation of tlic kingdolns nf Qscnt Bl-itnil), rcndel.cd dcclnratory acts very necessary.

Tllc English acts on tllis sul)jezt arc all, io their language, declnrntory.

Ame., cA. 5 , $ 2; 4 Gco.I . ,ck. 91 ; 13 Geo. IIZ, C?L. 21.

Thero is no l~istoricnl fact to show any new grounds of policy for f'ran~ing new laws.

The discussio~i OII this sul~jcct, by tho Judge nt General Term, is complete n~id satisfactory.

Third Point.-There is no evidenoe of expatriation by the father at or before the birth, in Peru, of the de. fendant, Maximo.

I. Tllc rcn~lnciation of citizensl~ip is riot to bc pre- sunicd, but to be aftirmntivoly proved. No fact ia P ~ O V C ~ in the case not equally consistent with t l ~ o intcrit to return, as ~vitli tlint not to return.

2. Tllc cvidcnce of tlic ~vii'c rind motlicr is distinct ns to t l ~ c intcr~t to rctiirn. I t is no ol~jcction to this, that slie saw no letters and can state no pro~l~inent fact; i t is her evidence, based on tlie observation of his daily life.

Dewit v. Barclay, 17 N. 1: IZep., 340.

3. Mere domicil, or tlic nntiolial c11:vactcr in bellig. erent events, is no criterion to dccido the pcrrnancnt allegiance or nation:il cl~:~rncter of a citizen. Bel- ligerent cbarnctcr is nscribed to ~.csitlcncc of persons acknowledged not to be of belligcrcnt nlloginncc.

1 l h n t Corn., 78 ; 2 l i n t , 49-50 ; Tho 'Vk~zw, 8 Cranch, 253.

4. There are offences under the lams of tho United States to which citizenship is essential. I11 all theso cases the father of tlic defendnut Maximo ~rould have been within the law.

Slave Trade act, 1794, 17Iarcl~ 22, fj 1, 4 : Brightley's D., 835.

Act of g a y 10, 1810, $8 1, 2, 3 ; Id., 830.

Pivacy, by citizens cruising under a foreign corn- mission.

Act Apr i l 30,1790, § 9, B~* igk t l r~ ' s Dig., 207.

Treason : (( If nny person oying allcgiancc to the U. S.," &c.

d c t 1790, fj 1, Brigh tley,p. 201.

' ( If any person being a citizen of tlie United

States, resident in the United States or any foreign country, carrying on corsespondence wit11 foreign power, to defeat measures of the United States," kc.

d c t Jan. 1799, § 1 ; Id. 201.

Being subject to laws growing out of citizenship, he i s entitled to its privileges.

See Pr. Harshall, 2 Cranch R., 120, in illurray vs. The Churning Betsey.

Fourtlr Point . -I t is 110 answer to the claim of the defendant, that by birtli i n Peru he was entitled as a citizen there.

1. Assuming that it is so, yet there is no inconsistency in a double allegiance devolving on an infant child. This only becomes important when a case for the conflict of allegiance takes place. Then he must. elect.

I t is no greater than the double alle,' aiance con- tracted by evesy temporary resident abroad to the country of dornicil arrd to the coul~try of sorigin. I t only becomes inconsietent when the conflict arises.

Fifth Yoi1r4.-The legislation of Congress has no d e cisivo bearing on the subject.

1. That legislation is all founded on the power to establish uniform rules of naturalizatio~~ ; but the ,question in the case is not of naturalization, bat of original inheritable capncity by birth. The qnestion is purely a question of the common law as to the descent of lands, in its nntnse wholly local.

2. But the legislation of Congress has alwaye sanc- 2

tioned the policy of treating foreign born minor children of citizens by birth as following the condition of their parents.

3. And in its nnturalization acts, Congress recognizes the natural and universal princfple, tlicrt the infant child's citizenship follows tllnt of his father.

Acts of Conq. Ap~i t 14, 1803, ch. 28, § 4 ; diarch 26, 1306, ch. 47.

Last.-The judgment of the General Term shonld bo affirmed.

C . J. & E. DEWIT, For Respondent Masilllo Ludlnm.

DAKIKL ~ A O K D ,

Of Counsel.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION THIRD DEPARTMENT -----------------------------------------------------------------------x CPLR Art 78 in Albany Index No.: 1787 -2012 H. William Van Allen in esse, Petitioner, -against- NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x

• Petitioner REPLY Affidavit in Support of Motion for Leave for Direct

Appeal

Exhibit I: NYS BOE submission of Ballot Certificate for BHO September 5, 2012

Exhibit J: RECORD on Appeal LUDLAM v. LUDLAM, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863)

• Affidavit of Service

Dated: Hurley, New York September ___, 2012 ____________________________________ H. William Van Allen, petitioner Self-represented w/o an attorney 351 North Road Hurley, New York 12443 Telephone: (845) 389 4366

Email: [email protected]

http://www.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?query=%28%28natural+born+citizen%29%3CIN%3EGB%29&srcquery=P@eLsoKQgl0wBxQyIDXBVtQwM0ARvfA7M%3D&sortspec=date+desc&resstart=0&respage=25&hidesummary=0&booklist=P@eLsoKQgly8tITixOVcirTCwoAJJQTm5mcTIAhw4KEQ%3D%3D&logauto=&bottomID=BOTTOMID&hits=10&curdoc=6&k2dockey=14120214@COLL41

mailto:[email protected]

hva reply in re nom for leave for direct appeal w exhibits 1787-2012

Documents

leave of direct appeal

supreme court

prior appeal

court of claims

direct appeal page

nys court of appeals

notary public petitioner

new york city