Слике страница

ond count. The Circuit Court entered a judg. If two individuals were to conspire, in a forment on the first plea for the amount found by eign country, to obtain money from a third par. the jury, fourteen thousand and thirteen dollars ty, either by highway robbery or theft, or by and sixty-seven cents; the judgment to bind cheating of any description, and under the con. assets.

spiracy one of them were to obtain the money From this judgment the defendants prose of the third party, it would scarcely be contend. cuted this writ of error

ed that under such an agreement the other On the trial of the cause in the Circuit Court, could claim from his associate in the conspiracy the defendants took a bill of exceptions to the a share of the plunder, through the instrumendecisions of the court on six different proposi- tality of a court of justice. It is contended tions or prayers, submitted by their counsel for that there is no difference between such a case the opinion of the court. The bill of excep- and a conspiracy to cheat the government, and tions contains the whole evidence in the cause. that such a conspiracy is essentially different as All the prayers of the counsel for the defend it regards its validity in our courts, from conants were refused by the court.

tracts made for the purpose of evading the rev. The opinion of the Supreme Court on the enue laws, or the mere commercial regulations matters presented under the writ of error was *of a foreign country; when to invali. (*285 given on two propositions, into which all those date such a contract would be substantially to submitted in the Circuit Court were considered enforce such laws and regulations. to be resolved.

It is contended, also, that not only was such “1. That the agreement between Captain an agreement void, and that thereby the prin. 284") De Valengin and John *H. Duffy, un cipal fact on which the court instructed the der which De Valengin was to claim remunera-jury in favor of the plaintiff in the Circuit tion from the Brazilian government for the Court was removed from the case, but that the loss of the brig President Adams and her cargo, existence of such an agreement necessarily preon the ground of its being neutral property, vented a recovery from the plaintiffs in error; when, in truth, the cargo was the property of as it would have precluded a recovery against John H. Duffy, and therefore belligerent, and De Valengin, if he had obtained the money from liable to capture by the laws of nations, was the Brazilian government. fraudulent and immoral, and that the courts of The case put on the whole of the proof of the justice of the United States will not assist a defendant in error established this fraudulent party to recover money due on such agreement. agreement, and showed that the money had

"2. That if the money belonged to John been obtained by false documents, furnished H. Duffy, the action would not lie against by John H. Duffy, or obtained by his aid and Neale, as administrator, nor the money be as. with his privity, sets in his hands of De Valengin's estate; that The property thus coming into the possession his return to the Orphan's Court cannot alter of the administrator, the effect of this action the character of the transaction, and that this was and is to repudiate the plaintiff's own suit ought to have been continued against fraudulent documents, evidencing title in De Neale's administrator, and not against the rep- Valengin, and to reclaim the property by force resentatives of De Valengin.

of the agreement to pay over the money to him The case

was submitted to the court on when recovered. The action could only be printed arguments by Mr. M'Mahon and Mr. maintained upon the agreement to pay over the Johnson for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. money when received; he having parted with Williams for the defendant in error.

the title for the fraudulent purpose: this agreeOn the first proposition, as stated by the Cir ment to pay over was a part and parcel of the cuit Court in its opinion, the counsel for the corrupt and fraudulent agreement, which could plaintiffs in error contended that the alleged not be severed from the latter, nor established agreement between John H. Duffy, the defend without proof of it. The case, therefore, fell ant in error, and Captain De Valengin, by within the scope of the well established princiwhich the latter was to prosecute the claim on ple "that when recovery cannot be had except the Brazilian government, for indemnity for by proof of the illegal or corrupt agreement, or the loss of the brig President Adams and her through the medium of it, it cannot be had at cargo, representing the whole property to be all.” long to him, and, as such, not liable to capture; The counsel for the plaintiffs in error also proposes nothing more or less than the case of contended that the proof of the fraudulent two persons conspiring to cheat a third party agreement showed conclusively that the de. out of his property.

fendant in error had no title to the money The object of the agreement was merely to sought to be recovered; that by his own show. extract money from the third party, and this ing, the title to it was in the Brazilian govern. was to be accomplished by conspiring to make ment; that the money sought to be recovered false and fraudulent representation of an injury was not, and never had been his property or the done to one of them, who, in fact, had sustained proceeds of his property, but was, on the conno injury; and this falsely alleged injury is trary, a sum of money originally belonging to made the sole basis of the payment by the third the Brazilian government, and obtained by party. The verdict of the jury admits that fraud from it; and the proof of the fraud fur: the payment was made only in consequence of nished by himself, and showed in the agree. the false and concerted misrepresentations, and ment supposed by the prayer, established that would not have been made, if the truth had not the title was still in the said government, and been suppressed by the conspiracy.

not in the defendant in error. It is contended that such an agreement will Upon the second proposition as stated in the be held fraudulent everywhere; and that, in opinion of the court, that the action would not such a case, the fraud has no locality.

lie against Neale as administrator, nor tho

money be assets in his hands, of the estate of | tors, would have been a full protection against De Valengin; that the return of Neale to the any claim founded on the mere return in the Orphan's Court cannot change the character of inventory. There is nothing in the Maryland the transaction, and that the action should have Act of 1820, ch. 174, to change the common law been continued against Neale’s administrator, rules on this subject (as was supposed in the and not against the plaintiffs in error; the court below), or even to bring it within the op. counsel for the plaintiffs in error contended: eration of that act as expounded by the courts

The only pretense of claim against the es- of Maryland, in Sibley v. Williams, 3 Gill & tate of De Valengin and the plaintiffs in error, Johnson, 63, 64; and that there was no evidence as administrators de bonis non of his estate, is in the cause to show that the money received founded on the allegation that Neale, in his by Neale *on the sales was in such a (*287 lifetime, received the proceeds of property predicament that the plaintiffs in error or ad. which did not belong to De Valengin, but in ministrators de bonis non could have pursued fact belonged to the defendant in error, John H. and recovered the money, according to the con. 286*) Duffy, and had *wrongfully carried it struction of that act in the case just referred into the estate of which he was administrator. to; and that the plaintiff's remedy as to assets,

The administrator could not, by a wrongful in such a predicament, was against Neale's receipt or conversion of property which did not estate, or on his bond. belong to the intestate, create a debt against Mr. Williams, for the defendant in error. the intestate, or charge against the estate of By the laws of Maryland, administrators de the intestate, which enables the owner of the bonis non are entitled, and their duty requires property to come in as a general creditor them to demand from the legal representatives against the estate. The administrator alone is of the former administrator, the delivery over personally liable for such wrongful receipt or to them of all bonds, notes, accounts, and evi. conversion, even where the property has gone dences of debt, and to require the payment over to the benefit of the estate.

of all money, belonging to the original estate. This is established by numerous and uncon. And such bonds, etc.

, and money, are assets in tradicted decisions, which settle it beyond con- the hands of the administrators de bonis non. troversy, that upon a count for money had and Laws of Maryland, 1798, ch. 101, sub. ch. 14, received by an administrator, no other judg. sec. 2; 1820, ch. 174, sec. 3–5. ment can be rendered than the judgment de It is, accordingly, not only the right, but the bonis propriis; and that such a count cannot be duty of the plaintiffs in error, to demand from joined with any counts on an indebtedness of Neale’s representatives the money and property, the intestate, or with any indebtedness of the admitted by him in his lifetime to be in his administrator, as such, such as money paid for hands, as the estate of De Valengin. The repthe use of the estate, etc., which does create a resentatives of Neale cannot claim this properdebt against the_estate. Cited, Jennings v. ty as a part of his estate. Nor can the new adNewman, 4 D. & East, 348; Bridges v. Parker, ministrators of De Valengin reject it as form2 Bos. & Pull. 424; Powell v. Graham, 7 Taunt. ing no part of De Valengin's estate. 580 (2 S. & Low. 223); Ashley v. Ashley, 7 B. If the administrators de bonis non have neg& Cres. 444 (14 S. & Low. 771); 1 Chitt. Prec. lected, and are neglecting to perform their duty edents, 46, note; Reynolds V. Reynolds, 3 in not calling on Neale's representatives for a Wend. 240; Sumner v. Williams, 8 Mass. Rep. delivery over of the property of their intestate, 198.

they can be compelled, by application to the Even if there was any remedy against the es- proper tribunal, to discharge their duty in this tate in such case, it would be found only in particular. the right to follow and reclaim the specific In the mean time it cannot be an objection, property so wrongfully carried into the estate, to be urged by the delinquent parties them. by a proceeding for the specific recovery of it, selves, that they have failed in their duty. Nor, or by a special claim against the estate founded surely, ought it to work a loss or an injury to on the allegation that the property had been Duffy, that he has presumed they have fulfilled, carried into the estate and appropriated to its or will fulfil the obligations prescribed by law uses; and this, even if the recovery could not in this respect. be had against the estate, through the medium And, further, if Duffy had the alternative, of the mere common count for money had and as he doubtless had, under the circumstances received by the administrator.

of this case, to treat Neale in his individual There was no foundation for any such claim character as his debtor, he most clearly had a against the estate, as it was conceded that right to embrace the more disadvantageous alNeale died after having sold the property and ternative of regarding De Valengin's estate as received the proceeds, and that no part of the his debtor. In adopting the latter alternative, said proceeds had ever been paid over to the as has been before remarked, it cannot belong plaintiffs in error, or accounted for to them to the plaintiffs in error to falsify Neale's ad. either by Neale in his lifetime, or by his admin mission, and deny that to be their intestate es. istrators since his death; and the plaintiff had tate, which the first administrator declares on therefore an ample remedy against Neale’s ad- oath to be such. There is as little grace as ministrators for the recovery of the money. It there is law in placing themselves in such atti. was insisted that the mere return of it in an in- tude. 2 Will. Ex. 1086; 1 Taunt. 322. ventory by Neale, could vary the question; not As to the assumption of the counsel for the only because he could not by his mere act of plaintiffs in error that the contract between De charging himself with it to the estate, make the Valengin and the defendant was fraudulent and estate a debtor therefor to the owners; but also immoral, under which the indemnity for the because the recovery by title paramount, in an cargo of the President Adams was claimed from action by Duffy against Neale, or his administra | the Brazilian government, and therefore cannot


be made the subject of a suit in a court of the claim upon the ground that the property was United States; the counsel for the defendant in De Valengin's, and at length succeeded in oberror said that it assumes that in a court of the taining compensation for it from the Brazilian United States, between citizens of the United government. The money was paid to Neale's 288*] *States, an agreement cannot be en agent at Rio Janeiro, and invested in coffee, forced which seeks to guard bona fide Ameri- and shipped to him at Baltimore; where he recan property from seizure by one belligerent ceived and took possession of it as property bepower that is at war with another; both of longing to De Valengin's estate, and as his ad. them being at peace with the United States. ministrator. It was duly appraised as the prop.

The device practiced in this case, by placing erty of De Valengin, and returned as such by the property in the name of the captain, is not Neale to the Orphan's Court, in January, 1834; forbidden either by the laws of nations, the and afterwards was sold by him, and the laws of war, or the laws of morality.

money received. It does not appear from the The residence of Duffy in Buenos Ayres, evidence, whether Neale had or had not any which imposes upon him a temporary alle knowledge of the interest of Duffy in the cargo, giance to one of the belligerent parties, may while he was prosecuting the claim against the subject his property, if captured, to condemna Brazilian government, or when he received the tion in the courts of the other. But if the compensation for it. property is restored or indemnified for, either In March, 1834, Duffy brought suit against because the capturing power chooses to waive Neale for the money he had thus received. The its right to condemn, or because the residence of suit was against Neale as administrator of De its true owner is unknown, it ought clearly to Valengin. In 1836, Neale died, the suit being inure to the benefit of the true owner against still pending; and after his death, process was all the rest of the world. It would be mon issued against the present plaintiffs in error, strous, and against all law and justice, to al. who are the administrators de bonis non of De low the other contracting party, who has par Valengin, in order to make them defendants to ticipated in the seizure, to claim that as his the suit which he had instituted against Neale own which he admits to be another's, and which in his lifetime, as administrator as aforesaid. he has promised to account for when received. The declaration was amended by the plain1 Bos. & Pull. 3; 7 Wheat. 283; 8 Wheat. 294. tiff after the appearance of the administrators

The cases relied on by the defendants below, de bonis non; and the only count applicable to are irrelevant to the points in issue. They the case, as it appears in the testimony, was chiefly relate to controversies between a neutral that for money had and received by Neale, and a belligerent, as 2 Dall. 34; 1 Kent's Com. as administrator of De Valengin, to and for 143; 7 Wheat. App. 27; Story's Conf. L. 214, the of the plaintiff. The defendants or to cases of insurance, where there was a con- pleaded non assumpsit and plene administravit, cealment of material facts, as 3 Wash. C. C. upon which issues were joined; and the jury R. 391; 2 Phil. Ins. 130.

found for the plaintiff on the first issue, and

for the defendants on the second; and the judg. Mr. Chief Justice Taney delivered the opin- ment was entered for the amount found due by ion of the court:

the jury in the usual form, to bind assets when This case comes here upon a writ of error to they shall arise. the Circuit Court for the District of Maryland. At the trial, several instructions were asked

It appears from the record that John H. Duf- for by the defendants, which were refused by fy, an American citizen, being engaged in com. the court. They may all, however, be resolved merce and domiciled at Buenos Ayres, shipped into two. 1. That the agreement between De a cargo of hides and lard to Gibraltar, on board Valengin and Duffy, to claim remuneration the brig President Adams, in 1828. Buenos from the Brazilian government, upon the ground Ayres was then at war with Brazil. The Pres- that it was neutral property, when in truth it ident Adams was an American vessel, and Dewas Duffy's and, therefore, belligerent, and liaValengin, her captain, was a citizen of the ble to capture by the laws of nations, was United States. He was also part owner of the fraudulent and immoral; and that the courts of vessel.

justice of this country will not assist a party In order to protect the cargo from capture by to recover money due on such an agreement. the Brazilians, it was shipped as the property 2. That if the money belonged to Duffy, the of De Valengin; and the bill of lading and action would not lie against Neale as adminisother papers in relation to it, were made out in trator, nor the money be assets in his hands, of his own name. The brig was, however, cap: De Valengin's estate; that his retrun to the Or. tured on her voyage by a Brazilian cruiser, and phan's Court cannot alter the character of the was wrecked; and the vessel and cargo totally transaction; and that the suit ought to have lost, near Monte Video, while in possession of been continued against Neale's administrator, the captors, who were endeavoring to carry her and not against the representatives of De Vale into port.

engin. De Valengin being the ostensible owner of The first question may be disposed of in . the cargo, he, with the consent of Duffy, prose- few words. It has been frequently held that cuted a claim for remuneration from the Bra- the device practiced in this case, of covering zilian government, insisting that the property the property as neutral when in truth it was belonged to him; that it was neutral property, belligerent, *is not contrary to the laws (*290 and, therefore, unlawfully captured. De Valen- of war, or the laws of nations. And contracts gin' died before he recovered anything: and made with underwriters in relation to property after his death, James Neale took out letters of thus covered, have always been enforced in the 289*) administration on his estate, *in the city courts of a neutral country, when the true of Baltimore, and continued to prosecute the character of the property and the means taken


to protect it from capture, have been fairly rep- | any sound principles of reason, or to find any resented to the insurer. The same doctrine has countenance for it in analogous cases. always been held where false papers were used We do not mean to say that the principal to cover the property; provided the underwriter may not, in such cases, resort to the adminisknew or was bound to know that such strata trator in his personal character, and charge gems were always resorted to by persons en him, de bonis propriis, with the amount thus gaged in that trade. And if such means may received. We think he may take either course, be used to prevent a capture, there can be no at his election; but that whenever an executor good reason for condemning with more sever. or administrator, in his representative characity, the continuation of the same disguise after ter, lawfully received money or property, he capture, in order to prevent the condemnation may be compelled to respond to the party enof the property, or to procure compensation for titled in that character, and shall not be perit, when it has been lost by reason of the cap- mitted to throw it off after he has received the ture. It is true the courts of the capturing na money, in order to defeat the plaintiff's action. tion would never enforce contracts of that de In this case, De Valengin was the bailee of scription; but they have always been regarded the goods shipped by Duffy, and had a special as lawful in the courts of a neutral country. property in them, and it was his duty to take

The second question is one of more nicety, all proper measures for their safety and and the cases are not entirely reconcilable to preservation. He had a right to sell and transeach other. There are, doubtless, decisions fer the goods in his own name, and as his own which countenance the doctrine that no action property. The Brazilian government, by agreewill lie against an executor or administrator, in ing to pay the money, admitted that the debt his representative character, except upon some was justly due to him on account of the de. claim or demand which existed against the struction of this cargo. Whether that governtestator or intestate in his lifetime; and that ment was deceived or not, is another question, if the claim or demand wholly accrued in and does not affect the point now to be decided. the time of the executor administra- | The admission of the debt as due to De Valen. tor, he is liable therefor, only in his personal gin, places this case upon the same principles character. But upon a full consideration of with that of a factor before mentioned, who the nature, and of the various decisions on the had sold the property of his principal in nis subject, we are of opinion that whatever prop- own name, and died before the receipt of the erty or money is lawfully recovered or received money. If the administrator is lawfully entiby the executor or administrator, after the tled to receive it in his representative character, death of his testator or intestate in virtue of and does so receive it, he is liable, in the same his representative character, he holds as assets character, to the party entitled. Neale proseof the estate; and he is liable therefor, in such cuted the claim, and received the money, as representative character, to the party who has the administrator of De Valengin. He must a good title thereto. In our judgment, this, account for it in the same character. upon principle, must be the true doctrine. If this transaction had taken place before the

In the case of a factor who sells the goods of Act of Assembly of Maryland of 1820, ch. 174, his principal in his own name, upon a credit, the suit must unquestionably have been conand dies before the money is received, if it is tinued against Neale's representatives, and could afterwards paid to the administrator in his rep- not have been sustained against the adminis. resentative character, would not the creditor be trators de bonis non of De Valengin. Because entitled to consider it as assets in his hands, the property which Neale had received as ad. and to charge him in the same character in ministrator was converted into money in his which he received it? The want of knowl. lifetime, and must therefore have been account. edge, or the possession of knowledge on the ed for by his administrator, and would not part of the administrator, as to the rights or have passed to the administrator de bonis non claims of other persons upon the money thus of the former intestate. But by the 3d section received, cannot alter the rights of the party of the Act of 1820, ch. 174, the administrator de to whom it is ultimately due. The debtor, that bonis non is entitled to the bonds, notes, acis to say, the party who purchased from the counts, and evidences of debt, which the defactor without any knowledge of the true uwn- ceased executor or administrator may have tak. er, and who pays the money to the administra en, and to the money in his hands in his rep. tor under the belief that the goods belonged to resentative character, and he is authorized to the factor himself, is unquestionably discharged recover them in the manner there pointed out. by this payment. Yet he cannot be discharged And the money now in controversy being, as we unless he pays it to one lawfully authorized to have already said, "lawfully in the hands (* 292 receive it; and the party to whom he pays can. of Neale, in his representative character, the not be lawfully authorized to receive, except administrators de bonis non are entitled to it; only in his representative character. If he is and as they are authorized to recover the fund 291*] "authorized to receive in that character, out of which the money due to Duffy is to be why should he not be liable in that character ? paid, he had a right to make them parties to

Again, if a note had been taken by the fac the suit which he had instituted against the tor, payable to himself, and after his death his them. They are not injured, or in any manner

first administrator, and to continue it against administrator sued upon it in his representa placed in danger by this proceeding. For they tive capacity, and recovered the money; would are not liable, unless the money is recovered by he not be liable to the principal, in the same Neale's representatives or securities, provided character in which he had, by the judgment there is no negligence or breach of duty on of a court, recovered the money? It would be their part. difficult to reconcile the contrary doctrine to The motion in arrest of judgment offered in



Some of

the Circuit Court, if it had not been objection- | thousand dollars. The action was founded on able upon other grounds, was evidently too late a promissory note, in the following terms: by the rules of the court; and, on that account, “$53,000.

Warren, Pa., Sept. 6, '37. properly overruled.

“Three months after date I promise to pay to The judgment of the Circuit Court is there the order of Guy C. Irvine, Esq., fifty-three fore affirmed.

thousand dollars, in office notes of the Lumber

man's Bank at Warren, and payable at their Thịs cause came on to be heard on the tran: banking house in Warren. N. A. Lowry.script of the record from the Circuit Court of

Indorsed on side, “Guy C. Irvine." the United States for the District of Maryland,

The sheriff of Warren County attached cerand was argued by counsel; on consideration tain real estate in the county, and also returned whereof, it is ordered and adjudged by this that he had attached the goods and chattels of court that the judgment of the said Circuit Nathaniel A. Lowry, in the hands of certain Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby persons named in the return. Among the gar. affirmed, with costs and damages, at the rate nishees was Guy C. Irvine. of six per centum per annum.

*On the 24th of October, 1839, Na- [*294 thaniel A. Lowry, the defendant, presented a petition to the Court of Common Pleas of War

ren County, stating that he was at the com293'1 "GUY C. IRVINE, for the use of The mencement of the action, and at the time of Lumberman's Bank at Warren,

filing the petition, a resident and citizen of the

State of New York, and that Guy C. Irvine, NATHANIEL A. LOWRY.

the plaintiff in the suit, is, and was at the comWaiver of privilege-jurisdiction of Circuit Pennsylvania, and asking the court to accept

mencement of the suit, a citizen of the State of Court-residence of parties-non-negotiable the security offered for entering his appearance note or chose in action-assignor deemed in the Circuit Court of the United States, and plaintiff.

in all things complying with the acts of ConAn action was brought by foreign attachment in gress in such cases made and provided; he the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, prayed the court to proceed no further in the vania, for the use of the Lumberman's Bank, at cause, and to allow the removal of the cause to Warren, Pennsylvania, against a citizen of New the Circuit Court of the United States for the

The suit was on a note given by the defend. Western District of Pennsylvania. ant to the plaintiff, to be paid "in the office notes of the Lumberman's Bank' at Warren."

The Court of Common Pleas granted leave the stockholders of the Lumberman's Bank at for the removal of the cause to the Circuit Warren were citizens of the State of New York. Court, and the defendant gave a bond with seand having given bond with surety to the Court curity for the entry of the cause in the Circuit of Common Pleas, removed the cause to the cir- | Court. cuit Court of the United States for the Western On the same day on which the petition of District of Pennsylvania. A motion was made in Nathaniel A. Lowry was presented to the Court the Circuit Court to remand the cause to the Court of Common Pleas of Warren County, the of Common Pleas of Warren County, the affiCircuit Court having no jurisdiction of the cause davits of Robert Falconer, President of the on the ground that the real party in the sult was Lumberman's Bank at Warren, and of Walter corporation, some of the stockholders of the bank W. Hodges, were filed. being citizens of the State of New York.

The affidavit of Mr. Falconer stated that at held that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the the date of the note on which the action was

The decistons of the Supreme Court have been founded he was President of the bank, and the uniform, and as declared at the present term in note was received from the defendant at the the case of The Commercial and Rall Road Bank time it bears date, as a security for his previous of Vicksburg v. Slocomb et al., that the courts, of indebtedness to the institution; and that Guy the United

cannot when some of the stockholders in a corporation C. Irvine had not then, or at any time since, established in one State are citizens of another any interest in the said note, except as guar. State, of which the party sued by the corporation antor for the payment of the same, and the lo a citizen.

A note to be paid "In the office notes of a bank," solvency and sufficiency of the drawer of the la not negotiable, by the usage or custom of mer- note. chants. Not being a promissory note by the law merchant. the statute of Anne, or the kindred act liam Hall, Vine Elderken, Brown & Buckland,

The affidavit of Mr. Hodges stated that Wil. by Indorsement; and not being under seal. It is Starkweather & Brown, and sundry other pernot assignable by the act of Assembly of Pennsyl: sons, were stockholders in the Lumberman's vania on that subject relating to bonds. No suit could be brought upon it in the name of the in

Bank at Warren, and at the time of the institu. dorser. The legal interest in the instrument con- tion of the suit were citizens of the State of tinues in the person 10 whose lavor It has been New York, residing in that State. drawn, whatever equity another may bave claim the sum due on the same, and be only 18

The case being in the Circuit Court of the the party to a suit at law on the instrument.

United States for the Western District of Penn.

sylvania, at the November sessions of the court, N a certificate of division from the Circuit Mr. Biddle, for the plaintiff, moved to remand District of Pennsylvania.

County, for want of jurisdiction. On the 6th of May, 1839, a writ of foreign On the hearing of this motion before the attachment was issued out of the Court of Circuit Court, Mr. M'Candless, the counsel for Common Pleas of Warren County, Pennsylva- the Lumberman’s Bank at Warren, produced nia, in the name of Guy C. Irvine, for the use to the court an Act of the Assembly of Pennof the Lumberman's Bank at Warren, against sylvania passed the 28th of February, 1834, for Nathaniel A. Lowry, requiring bail in eighty chartering the bank; also an Act of Assembly

It was





« ПретходнаНастави »