his claims should not be affected. It is a sufficient answer to say that he comes voluntarily into your courts to demand justice, and he must be content to receive it according to the regulations which are prescribed to you by the legislative power.

In the construction of contracts the lex loci where they are executed is observed, but in applying a remedy for a breach, you must be governed by the laws of the place where the suit is brought.

The counsel then read an extract from 2 Huberus B. Tit. 3. p. 1. 26. translated in 3 Dall. 370, in nota, on the effect of contracts made in one country and attempted to be enforced in another; and, on the effect of foreign judgments, Judge Washington's opinion. Am. Law Journal, ante p. 192.

If the principal were to be brought into court in discharge of his bail, he would be entitled to a release on common bail. The effect of this application is no more. It is doing the same thing and waiving an idle and nugatory ceremony.

CHASE, Chief Justice. This is a question about which much diversity of opinion prevails, and I understand that different decisions have been made in the different states. It is a point, which is of great consequence to foreign creditors particularly, and therefore it ought to receive a more solemn deliberation than can be had in a mere side-bar motion.

The party should have every opportunity to put facts in issue, and courts will generally endeavour to have facts submitted to a jury. A discharge may be obtained in an improper manner. The certificate is not conclusive. It may be inquired into. This very case shows the necessity of inquiring into it. The defendant was bound to give a true list of all his creditors, but we do not find the plaintiff's name among them.

Justice requires that the property should be divided among all the creditors; but a foreign creditor is not within the law. He cannot claim a dividend, nor can he even come in to allege fraud in prevention of the discharge. Is it honest then, that a plaintiff so circumstanced should be precluded from every means of recovering a debt?

Let the defendant plead this discharge, if he wish to rely upon it. I certainly cannot consent to enter an exoneretur.

HOUSTON, Justice, thought it unnecessary to give any opinion on the effect of the record of the discharge. The proper course would be to bring it before the court under a plea. Upon this ground alone he agreed with the Chief Justice, OVERRULE the MOTION.

to

1

Per curiam. The action in this case is trespass. The defendants plead to the jurisdiction of this court, the plaintiffs demur generally, and the case presents, for the consideration of the court, the single question of jurisdiction.

It is incumbent on the plaintiffs to give jurisdiction to this court by proper averments on the record; that jurisdiction must be founded on circumstances of the persons, parties to the action or circumstances of the case. The averments intended to give jurisdiction are, "that the president, directors and company are citizens of the state of Pennsylvania, and that the bank was incorporated or established by a law of the United States." Upon the first of these averments it is to be observed, that this action must be instituted by the plaintiffs either in their individual or corporate capacity. In the former, it could not be maintained, or if at all, they must have sued by their baptismal names. In the latter, the individual is so totally sunk in their corporate state of existence, that though it were true in fact, that the president, directors and company were all citizens of the state of Pennsylvania, still they could not communicate their right of suing in this court to the corporate body of which they are members. The constitution takes no notice of corporate bodies in enumerating the cases in which this court shall exercise jurisdiction upon circumstances of the persons. A corporation cannot with propriety be denominated a citizen of any state, so that the right to sue in this court under the constitution can only be extended to corporate bodies by a liberality of construction, which we do not feel ourselves at liberty to exercise. As a suit in right of a corporation can never be maintained by the individuals who compose it, either in their individual capacity or by their individual names, how is the citizenship of the individuals of the corporate body ever to be brought into question by the pleadings? With regard to the jurisdiction of this court, as founded upon circumstances of the action, it is necessary, in order to vest that jurisdiction, that the case should be brought within the description of actions arising under the constitution or laws of the United States. The general principle is, that the states retain all the powers of sovereignty, not expressly relinquished to the United States. The states have relinquished the right of taxing individual property held within their jurisdiction, under no possible circumstance, except where such a tax may come within the description of imposts or duties on exports and imports.

There is no question raised under the constitution; neither is it a question arising under the laws of the United States. No privilege or right created by the laws of congress is violated. The legal validity of the bank charter is not denied, nor any difference of opinion entertained of its effects. The act incorporating the bank contains no clause exempting the property of the bank from taxation, neither the construction nor constitutionality of any law of congress, arising under the law of the state of Georgia, in which we can see no clashing or interference with the laws or constitution of the United States. Counsel have argued, that it is a case arising under the laws and constitution of the United States, because we must look into the constitution and bank charter, to determine the question of jurisdiction; but if this prove any thing, it proves a great deal too much. For it would go to give this court jurisdiction in every possible case whatever. There would exist the same necessity of looking into the constitution and laws of the United States, in a case between citizen and citizen of the same state, or in the most ordinary question of state jurisdiction.

It is true, that this view of the subject may expose this valuable institution to some embarrassment; and it is to be regretted, that it cannot be better guarded, but it is to be hoped, that a just and temperate idea of the true policy of the individual states, with its real and extensive importance to the union, will always afford it ample protection; and if their rights are violated, the state courts are open to them.

It is also true, that there have been cases before the supreme court, in which corporate bodies were parties, that have undergone the review of that court, without any notice being taken of this question; but the answer is; that there were no

pleas to the jurisdiction in those cases, and any objections that may have been raised upon the face of the record appear to have escaped the attention of the court and counsel.

We are happy in understanding that this decision is to be reviewed in the supreme court; its importance in every point of view entitles it to the notice of the highest court in which it can be considered.

Plea to jurisdiction sustained, demurrer overruled, and JUDGMENT for DEFENDANTS.

High Court of Errors and Appeals

OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA.

JANUARY 14th, 1785.

Silas Talbot, qui tam, &c. v. the Commanders and Owners of the brigs Achilles, Patty and Hibernia.

LETTERS OF MARQUE. CAPTURE. ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. APPEAL. The owners of letters of marque are responsible for injuries committed on the high seas, by the commanders of vessels sent out by them, at least to the value of the vessels. In cases of capture from enemies, persons in other vessels acquire no right, merely by seeing the capture made. The judge of admiralty for this state may legally take cognisance in cases similar to this. The appeal, in such cases to the high court of errors and appeals for this state, is regular.*

SILAS

ILAS TALBOT, commander of the armed sloop Argo, belonging to, and in the service of these states, duly commissioned, sailed from New-London, in the state of Connecticut, the twenty-ninth of August, 1779, on a cruise. On the sixth

It was contended by the counsel for the respondent, that the appeal lay to the court of appeals instituted by the United States; and by the counsel for the appellants, that the court of admiralty for this state had no jurisdiction in this case.