Jackson ex dem. Williams v. Stokes — 3 Johns. 151

Majority

p. 151

Jackson, ex dem. Williams and others, against Stokes and Thompson.

NEW-YORK,

May, 1808.

Headnote

A Person who removed within the British *he war, and died 1777, 4as^presented. by the grand jury and indicted the under'lthe^act attainder of the22d ■October, 1799, for an offence charged to have been committed on the 15th of April, 1777, and being convicted, judgment was signed the 14th July, 1783, and his estate forfeited and sold. In an action of ejectment, brought against persons deriving tide under the sale by the commissioners of forfeitures, it was held, that the proceedings were regular, according to the act, and were not now to be questioned, and that the judgment on the attainder was valid and effectual.

■' THIS was an action of ejectment for lands in the county of Ulster. On the trial it was admitted, that Daniel Clarwater1 s attainder should be evidence of t.he attainder of Jacob Clarwater on the day stated in the record : and that , . the lessors ot the plaintiff, were the heirs at law of the said Jacob. That Jacob Clarwater died within the British lines in June, 1777. That the indictment against hinifor adhering to the enemies of this state, founded upon the act of attainder of the 22d day of October, 1779, was ■ presented on the 5th of May, 1780, by the grand jury of Ulster, and the offence was charged therein to have been committed by him, on the 15th day of April,1777. That

p. 152

judgment on the indictment was signed July 14,1783; and that the defendant derived title under the commissioners of forfeitures. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject t0 t^ie opinion of the court, upon the above case.^[1]

L. Elmendorf, for the plaintiff.

Sudam, for the defendant.

delivered the opinion of the court. The convictions under the act of 1779, of deceased persons, were out of the ordinary course of practice, and cannot be tested by ordinary rules. They were in the nature of bills v of attainder; and the legislature most clearly intended, that the convictions and forfeitures under the act, should apply as well to offences committed prior, as subsequent to the passing of the law. In giving each part a construction, the whole act is to be taken together. Its object is declared to be the forfeiture and sale of the estates of persons who had adhered to the enemy, and many persons were by name, ipso facto, convicted and attainted of an antecedent offence. The formality of an indictment and notice, in the case of a deceased person, was a substitute for the specification of the name of such person in the statute, and was attended with equal effect in respect to the forfeiture

p. 153

of his estate. The conviction, in order to save the rights and prerogative of the state, was made to have relation back to the death of the person convicted; and as the prosecution was made to apply to offences committed prior to the passing of the act, so it was immaterial whether the offender was alive or dead upon that day. The law declares, that the indictment and conviction, shall be equally operative whether the defendant was dead or in full life. The proceeding in question is to be resolved into the plenitude of legislative authority, and we have only to inquire what was the real intent and meaning of the law. The constitution authorised the legislature to pass bills of attainder for crimes committed during the revolutionary war.

We are of opinion, therefore, that the title derived from the state is valid, and that judgment must be rendered for the defendants.

Judgment for the defendants.^[1]

* 2 Caines, 164.