Hunter v. Fairfax's Devisee — 3 U.S. 305

Majority

p. 305

Hunter versus Fairfax's Devisee.

Syllabus

BY order of the court, a letter from the Plaintiff in error, dated the 29th of July, 1796, and directed to the Clerk, was read. The letter ftated, “ that the Plaintiff had employ-n éd Mr/ Campbell\ of Virginia, to argue the caufe';’ that on the, 25th of July-, he was informed, that Mr; Campbell had died in Richmondj on the 18 th of the fame month; and that, being left without counfel, in confequerice of this event, he prayed the caufe might bé continued till next term.”

Lee and Ingerfoll, in objection to the requeft, ftated; that, from the nature of the caufe, delay would be worfe to the Defendant in error, than ⅞ decifion adverfe to his claim;‘ that the Plaintiff ought always to beready for trial; thatthere had been fufficient notice of Mr. Campbell’s death, for engaging the a£. fiftance of pther couhfel; that the cafe depended entirely on the record, might yet be confidered by counfel, fo as to obtain á decifion during this court, and that it had already been poft-póned onfe term; at the inftarice of thé Plaintiff in error.

:-^In all queftions of this nature, wfe muft be governed by a found difcretion; in order to prevent, on the one hand, an unneceffar.y procraftination, and, on the other hand, to, avoid an injurious precipitation of trials. In the prefent inftance, we think there is a fufficient foundation laid before us,, to juftify our granting a continuance ’till the next Term. If the cauie were now? to be taken up, it.muft be heard and decided ex parte. It is .true, that counfel might even at this time be employed, fo as to admit, perhaps, of an argument before the court rifes; but it is reafonable, that in a caufe of fuch magnitude,^[1] the counfel fhould have an oppor

* The Attorney General Hated the pbinfih controverfy to ante on. thefe fails : Lord Fairfax Was a cifizen of yirgirlia, anti died in the year *306 1780; Having made a will by which he'dev jfed certain lands in that ftate, to the Defendant in esror, who then was, and ever has been, a Britiíh fabjeft, relident in Great Britain. The queftion is, whether being thus an alien, the Defendant in error can take and hold the lands by de-vife? And, it will be contended, that his title is completely proteifted bythe Treaty of Peace, concluded between the tlnited States and.Great Britain, in the year 1783. Chase, ~Jupce : 1 recollect, that in Harrifon’s cafe, a deciiion in favor offucha devifee’s title was given, by a court in Maryland. It is a matter; however, of great momenl; and ought to be deliberately-and finally fettled.

p. 306

tunity to inveftigate the principles, and to confider the authorities conne&ed with it, out of term, and unencumbered by the prefiure óf the current bufinefs of the court.

Let the Caufe be. continued.