You are on page 1of 87

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, Petitioner,
-againstNEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; Respondents. -----------------------------------------------------------------------x

CPLR Art 78 in Albany Index No.: 1787 -2012


) ) ss. )

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 Page 1 of 3

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

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

Petitioner REPLY in support of leave for Direct Appeal Page 2 of 3

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

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 REPLY in support of leave for Direct Appeal Page 3 of 3

Appeal from Van Allen v NYS Board of Elections Index No.: 1787 -2012 Petitioner Motion for leave for Direct Appeal

Exhibit I

20005-3960 FAX, 202.654.6211

700 Thirteenth Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DL


September 5, 2012

New York State Board of Elections ATTN: Anna Svizzero 40 North Pearl Street, Suite 5 Albany, New York 12207-2729

Dear Ms. Svizzero: Please find enclosed the official Certificate of Nomination of President Barack Obama as the nominee of the Democratic Party of the United States for President of the United States and of 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 Obama for America, at (312) 985-1459 or kwainscott(a) Please confirm as soon as possible with Mr. Wainscott via email that you have now received all of the necessary documentation to place President Obama and Vice President Biden on your state's general election ballot for November 6, 2012. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely,



Robert F. Bauer General Counsel, Democratic National Committee


Official Certification of Nomination














Perkins Coie


I: 06




As Chair and Secretary respectively of the National Convention of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, having assembled in Charlotte, North Carolina on September 4 through 6,2012, WE DO HEREBY CERTlFY that the following are the nominees of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively, and that the following are legally qualified to serve as President and Vice President of the United States respectively under the applicable provisions of the United States Constitution: For President of the United States Barack Obama 5046 South Greenwood Avenue Chicago, lllinois 60615 For Vice President of the United States Joe Eiden 1209 Barley Mill Road Wilmington, Delaware 19807

Anto io ViUaraigosa Chair, Democratic National Convention

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

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Signed and sworn to before me this day by ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA and ALICE TRA VIS GERMOND. Date: September

5.., 2012

My conunission expires: __





DC 20003

• T 202-863-8000

• F 202-863-8174


00 <,



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

130 E R .••NDOLPH .






ALBANY NY 12207-2729

TBACKlNG #: lZ 104 lAY 0191020358


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


~ld 9- d3S ZIOZ

Appeal from Van Allen v NYS Board of Elections Index No.: 1787 -2012 Petitioner Motion for leave for Direct Appeal

Exhibit J









- .- - -

... -


Att'y for Prf, AHC#, C. J. & E. DEWITT, Att'ys for Deft, Bespandent,



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







ANNAR. LUDLAM, Plaintif,




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 A forney, 1
No. 9 Court street, Brooklyn, L. I.


SILAS LUDLAM. Eowaao L I J D L ~ }MCase. WILLIAM HEWITT, H. and MAXIMO Bf. LUDLAM. This action was commenced on the 28t.h day of February, 1859. The pleadi~igsin the actioi~ follow, to wit. :

i 1


ANXAR. LTDLAM, Plaititif,



Tho plaintiff, Anna R . Ludlam, shows to the Court : T h a t she, the said plaintiff, and the defendant Maximo 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 t h a t said will was duly admitted to probate, and recorded as a mill 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 sl~ows, that the said defentlnnts so appointed guardians in and by said will, acceptetl said appointment, and entered upon the execution of tlie trusts so assumed by them. tlie plaintiff' further shows, that she attained the age of twenty-one years on the eighth day of December, in the year 1656, and that the defendant, Maxirno 31. Ludlam, :tt,tairled such age on the eighteenth day of R'ovember, in the year 1852.


'. And


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 i n Queens county, in t l ~ e State of New York, and leaving him surviving his mother, Rebecca Ludl.,m, three brothers, 8' t,wo sisters, and such clescenda~~t descendants of his or deceased brother, Richard I,. Ludlam, a s were then entitled, by the laws of this State, to take land b y descent, his only heirs a t l a w ; and t h a t such descendant

o r descendants of said R i c l ~ a r t l Luclla111 thereupon L. became seized i n fee of v11c equal uildivided sixth p a r t of said parcels of l a n d , subject to the life estate tllc?rcin of said Rebecca Ludlani, who departed this life on t h e t ~ v e l f t hd a y of M! ill tllc year 1849. a,

'. And t h e plaintiff f ' r ~ r t l ~ v rI I O Wupon h e r i i ~ f h r r n i ~ ~ S,
tion and belief, tliilt l l ~ eclet't~l~dant, 3laxirno i\l. Ludlam, was bur11 o u t of t l ~ e jarisilirtioi~ of tllc U l ~ i t r ( i S t a 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 ~ ~ tthc 1855, was ti11 alien, i111d not e i ~ t i i l e d il to take by d e s c e l ~ t a i ~ d \ v i t l ~ i lthe S t a t e of n'ew Yorli, l s ~ lwcause Ile was 11ot a c i t ~ z e lof the U11itt.d F t a t ~ s nor ~ , of the S t a t e of Ke\v J'ork, nor otl~er\vibcqun1ific.d lly l a w to take suc11 1a11dsby descent. " A r ~ dthe plaintiff f u r t l ~ e lR ~ I O W P ,t l ~ a t s11c is :I n : ~ t nral-born citizen of t l ~ e United S t a t e s , a l ~ dt h a t 111)olr the of h e r said ~ ~ n c lTllornas R . Lndlanl, onch e, 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 cstatc of s:lid I i ~ ' 1 ) e ~ c a J,udlem, w h i c l ~tel.l~riil:rtcd olr t l ~ ct ~ v c l f t l(lay of 11;1y, ~ in the ycar 1549.

.' And t h e plaintiff furth(br s l ~ o w s 11po11 illforrrla, her tion alld belief, t h a t the defendant$. ill tlle montll of F e b r u a r y , i n t h e ) e a r 1850, presented t l ~ e i rpstitio11,ill d u e form of law, to this ('ourt, :rt a special term thereof, held i n the couty of Kings (tllc said t1efclidant.q Silas Ludlam, E d w a r d Ludlam, a n d IVilliam H. Hcwi t t 11 s e t t i n g forth i n aid petition t h a t they petitioncad i n behalf of the plaintiff), wherein t h e y applied to this C o u r t for sale of t h e interests of t h e plaiutiff and the defendant Maximo M. Ludlam, in the several piuccs of land whereof said tho ma^ R. T,udlam died seizcd, a s

above ~ i ~ e n t i o n c and for the appointment of the ded, fcntln~ltS i l i l ~ 1,udlarn as the guardian of tlle pltiintiff ant1 said JIaximo JI., i n relation to t h e proceedings o n ~ u c application ; wl~ereupont h e C o u r t appoiilted uaid l~ Silax Ludlain such guardian, who d u l y executed a n d tile11 n bond a s ~equiribcl1)y the Court, and in pursuance of the s t a t u t e ill such case made a n d provided ; t h a t s11c11~ w o c c c ( l i ~ i p s mero thereupon h a d upon srlcll appli12 cntion. t l ~ a tl1i.s C o r ~ r t by i t s order made o n t h e t n e n t , ty-sistl~ (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;~iiccof t h e i ~ r t e r c s t s said J l a s i m o AI., aiid of t h e of ~ ) l i i i ~ ~ t in fs)ii(l parcels of land by said g u n r d i a ~ l ,a n d if , sac11 sale i l n d c o n v e p n c c ~ v c r caccordingly made l)y hi~n.

" Anrl t l ~ c pli~i~ltifT i'urtl~ersllo~vs, upon 11er information ill111\)olief, t h a t tile n e t proceccls of s:~itl sale, r e c ~ i v e c lby siii~lguarrlirtn, aniouutcd to six t l i o ~ l s a ~ ~ d one liundrcd :uicl forty-ciglr t dollars and e i g l ~ ~ - o ~ cen ts t le ant1 \vol.e by lii111 paid a u d transferred pursuant to said 13 or(lcr of J l a r c ! ~2d, 1850, t o t h e t c s t a ~ n e n t a r g u a r d i a l ~ s g irforcs;iid, a n d t h a t <:lit1 prnceccls, wit11 t l ~ ~ nccum~ilat i o n of tlic i~~coln::l ~ c r e o fno\\' ill tlrcir har~tls, t nrnclul~t to tell t l ~ o u a ~ i l d 11undl-cdn ~ l d t l ~ i r t y - e i g l ~ t folir dollars n:l~l se\-ei~tg-two cclits. p!i~i~\tiff t'nrtllc;' sllows, t h a t ~ i l l c eslre att;iiueJ I1c.r ~iiajority,hlic a l ~ p l i c dto tlrct soid testamllntitry gl~artlianst o :tccouiit t l ~ c r e f u r to h e r and to uvcr a ~ transfer to ! ~ e rs t i d proceeds, \\.itll the ~ d a c c ~ ~ n ~ n l a t i n n incrcwbc tllc~.eof. itrid t h e securities anrl i n w l ~ i c hthe s u ~ n e a r e illvestecl ; b u t t h a t t h t said 14 J I a s i m > Ji. Ludlanl clai~lls and insists t h a t 11e is enti, tled tu participate i o said proceeds, a n d the accumulatiff, a s tion :ind irlcruasi: tliereof, equally wi t11 the p l a i l ~ one of tlie licbirs a t . l a w of said T l l o ~ n a s R. Ludlam.
'. All11 tilo

deceased or otherwiue, tlud insist8 that said testameutary guardiau shall accoutlt for a ~ payd over one equal ~ part thereof to l i i n ~and, us slle is informed and , half believes, :hreatellri to 1)1.osecute said testalncntary g:.nardianu 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, Ircr. ox this plai~ltiflii~sists ~ I I I R tu glle 15 a lawful right to tleu~alld, said tcstarne~ltary guarand diana are bound lo (lo : and that said testamelltary guardialls trre u l r ~ \ i l l i ~ ~ g rcfuse, 011 a c c o u ~ ~ sucll alltl t of nufounded c1lti111c111i1 pi.etenhiolls of said 3laxii11o 31. Ludlam, so to accou~rt, pay ovcr, crntl transfer t o her. said proceeds, with the accun~ulatic~~i illcrcahc and thereof, and the ~ecuritieutl~erefor,witl~outthe ~ n c ti011and clireotio~l this (-'ourt. vf

.''l'l~eplailltiff t11erefol.e prnys, illat mid tc.stnrnentary guardians may he ordi~redto accou~ltto this Court and illcrease for said proceeds, and t l ~ eaccumulatio~~ thereof, trud way l ~ ordered and directed to pay over, e 16 and t r a n ~ f e rto the plailltiff the aulount which may be aecertained to be iu their I ~ a n d safter deducting their , fees, commissions, and expenses, tugether wit11 the BCcuritiee, in w l ~ i c l ~ same may he illvested ; and thtrt. the the plaintif?' may be adjudgeti to be entitled tllcroto ; and t h a t the defendant Maximo 31. Ludlam n1ay bc adjudged not to be entitled to ally share, right, or. illterest therein, and for such furthar or other relief, or both, as to the Court may seem proper.



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

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


,. r].I](:

dcfcllcln~rt JI:~sii~lo 11. Ludlam, a n s ~ v e r i ~ l g

t o tlrc ~ o l ~ l l r l i i i:itlinits that he. t l ~ c ~~t, said Jlnsii~io, and i 1 1 1)lniiltif'f :~r(! ~ the o111y snrviviilg cl~iltlren:111d tlc. scc11(!;111ts I l i c i ~ ; ~ rI,. I,ut?l:~~n. of (l tlccc:tsetl, in t l ~ c cornp l ; ~ i r ~ t n r n c t l , w! cb111c?1. not 11c,t l ~ c ~ 1,iit or saitl JIasimo, \\.:IS 11or11 out of tlrc j~~ristlictioil ( I N Cnitcd Ptatcs, 19 of o r :it I,~III:I.I 1'~~rii. ~ I S1-111t11 Ai~i(~rica, i!:c said plainor tiff is :L i~:ltni.:~l \)or11citizvi~of t l ~ eUliited Ft:ltcs, he I ~ n s 1 0 knowlctlgr. or ii~forl~ratiorl 1 forin a \wlicF, ;111clt l ~ c ! ~ ~ s fIc:~vcsthe pluii~tiff to ~naltcsuch i~rc proof of 1110 ; ~ l l o g ; ~ t i of~ ~ s coml)lail~t l l tlrosc reo llrc i

"A~rdtlro said tlcf(.~~clnrl fiir t l ~ c r a r ~ a w c r i l l ~ , t, says, lipon iliforniatinn : ~ ~ :I~cliclf,that tlic said Richarcl L. tl I,udl:in~, tlcccascd. as ~vellat the birth of this dcfend;\11t as a t Ilic I ~ i r t of the plaintiff, was a citizen of the l~ TTi~itctlSta11.s. c:lpal~lcof taking, h o l d i ~ ~ g , trans- do and n ~ itti i ~ g clescciit. and devise real estate witliin tho 1)y 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,until t l ~ c or 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 specifically ~riuntiolred, 1a11ds thin t l ~ eStatc of Kern ur Yorli ; or that tlie plaiutiff, u p o ~ 1 1 (feat11 of the said 1~ ~ Thon~ns Lodla111.Li.cilllic. seized or entitled to one R. equal a~rdivitled six111 part of the F L ' Y C ~ ~ Iparcels of 21 land, ~vl~ercof t l ~ uwid 'l'honli~s l<. Lndltlm, died lit!, ir; r~ow cctitlc*(l 1 1 1 rc-ccivc. r ~ fl~c? t l~nrlclsof said d e t k ~ ~ c l i i Silils T,udli~nr. Rd~vartl Lodlanl. and l~t~ Willialn B. licwitt. t l ~ uter;t:~me~~tary~ i i r d i w ~ ~ a g~ of t11e said plaintiff and this tlefendal~t, in thc c o m p l a i ~ ~ t namt?tl, thc nett ~ ~ r o c e e tof the sale of the said undi. ls videtl sist11 lmrt of sirid ~cverirlparcels of land, with the nccurnl11:~tions tlic inco~nctl~ercofn o w in their c~f hantls, 01. itny nt:cou~~t tlrerc!of, except as to tllc snm of $3,0'i4.40 ( t l ~ r e et l ~ o r ~ ~ ;111t1d a ~ i seventy-four dollaru and fort?- cents), hthing tlrc r~~oic.ty l~illf\)art of said proor ceeds 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~gsfor, ant1 const~qncnt 11po11 said tllc sale rl~atlc.

'.An(l the snid tlrftkn(lant \ I : ~ s i ~ n n Lltdlam, further bI. rtns\vcri~rg, RayH. t l ~ i ~ t 111)on tlle death of t h e snid l ' h o ~ . R. L ~ ~ t l l w as~ .i l l tllc corl~plitint stntvtl, l ~ c ,t l ~ csaid n Maxin~o, iind sr~id ~)lilil~tilf I)rc.alne seizod in f'ee a8 tenant$ in comlnon. cwcll of' one ~ir~cli\itlerl part. 11illf or moicly of said Inntl:: a1111real vstiite, \ v I ~ c r ~ o f the said 'I'l~o~nas Ludl:rr~~ It. tlicfl scizetl ;IS ;~forer;i~itl, subjcct to the life estate t l ~ c r c . 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~plirintset forth, lie, t lic said Nirxioro, becanie the owner of. a r d entitled to one half part of the procertls of said sale in sevorality, and the dcfv~ldatite

Sila~ 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 consequent upon eaid gale ~ n i ~ r :cnnd he admits and states l that Ile, mid dcfcndant Masimo M. Ludlam, claims and 34 insists, and a t a11 times sir~cc l ~ e t defendants Silas Ludlam, Edward Ludlarn, ancl William R.Hewit censcd to he his g i i a r d i a ~ ~ ~ \\.it, since the eighteenth rlny of to , 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 tils~~~ r e ~ f 'him, so far as ill tllcir to , custody, and so far as by tlic~rl investetl upol~ sccuritics, of all proper sccilrities taken tllcrcfor, wit11 latrful transfer 01' tl!c snuic, aild an account of tllcir gliurd i u ~ ~ s l l ns lo the stlit1 morloys, as of right 11el a ~ ~ f u l l y ip 111iglit(lo, b(:i11g t11e al)solute and sole orvncr of tlle 25 same ; y e t , thii t the &:lid d e f e ~ ~ d a n f s , lato gni~rdiune, his llave llitllorto \\.l~ollyclisreprded 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 the plitirltiff ill the corn of plltir~tset forth. LbWllerefore, tlic said defendant Mauimo N.LuJlie, law, asks that as to t11e &aid lnoneys alld t l ~ cillcrease thereof, uild the securities upon whicl~tlie same may be i ~ ~ v c s t e the prayer r.f the c o m p l a i ~ ~ a may be ded, l~t 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 i m of aild c011cerlliog the g~lardialisllipof

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 I . Hewitt, in T the amount of such rlehult. ',And he furtlier asks j u t l g m e ~ ~ t against the plaintiff

27 for his costs, allrl chargcs by llinl about illis suit ex-,
pended and incurretl, al1c1fbr sucli otlier a11r1f'nrther relief iir tlie premises as to this Court fillall scAcinproper. C. J. cFt E. DEWIT'I', Attor~teys Deujcndad, for 11. 31. ~ ~ v D L A ~

~ .



ANNAR. LLDI~AM, Plainiif,






Tlle def'endn~~ts, Silas Ludlam, Edward LutIt;~mand William 11. Hcwitt, for :llts~t:r to t l t ~ o m l ) I a i ~of' tile c ~t plaintiff, sity, that they arlnlit tlie I allogntiol~s 29 of tlle complaint. rxcept such a s are theroil1 mcltlc co11cerr~irlg respective r i g l ~ t ,title and interest of the the plaintiff and of tho defendant, Maxima M. Ludlam, in and to the funds and securities, l ~ e l d these tlcfcndhy 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 tlik Court sliall order ar,d direct.
Jltt'y jor

Def 'ts.

st\)., 0 1 1 t l ~ c l G t l r clay of Jnly, i l l tile actioll came ~ I to I be tric(l i\t t l ~ c (.'irc.r~it Court, i l l all(] for the said coui~ty Iiil~gs, l ~ c Ilcl(1 a t tlic City 1I:lll ill tlre city ot' t ~i of 13rc)oklj11, \!c!f'ure Jolr~i . Lott, Kscj~iiro,ollu of t l ~ e A Justices of' tllc Sullrcnlc Clourt, ~ ~ i t l l o ul tjury, (ir jury i l l n v i ~ ~113'coi~sellt of tlrc l~artics,\)cell w a i ~ e t l , ) g, and on suoll trial tl~crcof,tllc' p l i ~ i ~ , t ;is a. \vi t~li?as fl i l l Iribr be11aII'10

Aftcr\\.i\rcls, t l l i i t is

188'3, tllc izs~lc.s tlrrlv juillc(1

('ARLI>:R \\' . I , ~ I ) L A M~, 1 1 0 (in llar e a a m i ~ ~ n f i o n - b 31 c h i e f ) tcstiiictl : I ill11 t11e \vi(lotv of Iiii-l~t~r(l IAl1(l1,. Iillli. t1e~~'iised. i\11(1 11rot11erof Anna 13. 1,udliim, the plnintiff, ia11(1 JInsiu~o 11. I , ~ ~ d l a m , of t l ~ o tlefeildone allto ; Ricliard L. Lutlla~n,my h ~ ~ s l ~ iIYRS tllc , i'irtlicr ~n~l of snit1 l i n ~ 11. ant1 Jiirsi~rio L u d l i ~ ; ~ i first bei~ BI. ~I 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 Iri111 Fc'I)I.II:II.~ 1828, :kt 1,ilun ; 5tl1, Jiaximo W H Y bur11 ilt L i ~ ~ l i X O Y C ~ I I ~18111:1831 ; l, ICI' Al1:ia R. \Vil.? borli ill S e w York city, I)cce~ilbcr 8th, 1837 : m y I ~ ~ ~ l ) i i ~ i t l , I,llcllnr~~, ~ I tI into bnsiHicliartl \V ness O I I his O W I I aco~)uut Lirlii\, ill the year 1828 1 Ile at 32 wuu a tobacco I I I C I ' C ~ I ~ Liil~d ~ ' ~ l . ) i ~ r t l ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ l l i p I ~ ~ , ill 117itl1 one Jiilcs 0. 'F. F l i l ~ ; \vc kept Ilouso i ~ Lima; lily Iiust t Galid left l'cru i l l l d 3 6 , Sovcml.,er 1Sth, \\.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~is 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~itd)a~~el, ~ and family arl-ivcd ill S e w York Al)ril, 1837 ; I \\.as never before ill tlre U~liteilStatths: never before o11t of South $3 America: 1 I ~ a v e lruver \ . ) o t r r ~ ~ ~ i i t ~ ~ r as a i~~i c d m of l i~l ti ~ the U~~itccl Stutco; 11i.v I I I I S ~ ) : I I I ~ I I C V C I ' left S o ~ ~ l h An~cric;i. until Ire Icst't wit11 his f'alr~ilyfor 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 this ; co1111try\a :llr 11s. i l l 1837 ; they hroke up busi~lcsnwith the i ~ ~ t c ~of corni~lp 11crc.; III?- hliaband ~aegltrdcd ~tio~~ this colll~tryits lris 11o11ic. 11c corrcspo~rdcdwit11 lris : brotlrers, wistcrs, alrtl ~rrotlrcr 11c wrote to t11c11rt h ~ t j he ii~tcnilad to r e t u r n : Ire 11i1d ill) il>ti!rc.r;t i l l his fatllcr's 1,rol)orty htbre; IIC Ilctvchr left Yeru to go to 34 Bolivia or ('hili.
D'rrct clrnvrtitrntion res111rrct1.-XI? Ilufil)i~~rd nI\vap intendt?d to rctllr~lher(?to educate I ~ i s children : and his ill-lrc~altlr:ind tlrese \vrrcA tllc renNnns that he docided to colllr at t1r:it tir~rt. 1 llcvor s n w n11y lcttcr i n : whicl~ said that hca wtrs c o ~ l l i IiI~ ~ I Iand I co~iltl lot 11c ~I C. read his letters. 1~1.cal1sc~ w r e i l l E11glir11 1v11ei1 t11c.y : we were nbont to lboinr 1ro111chc. wrote to 11;sI-~rc~thcrs to receive US ; t l ~ a t \vas \v\liit I 11rea11t writing Irome ; 1)y I don't know what brother : 1 nevrr hearc1 a ~ ~ y t l r i ofr g ~ 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.



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~ld bettering 11is co~ltlit ; his intention was to go io11 to to Cndiz, and t l ~ e ~ l Lima : Ile must I ~ a v enrrivcd i ~ t I,ima witllili a fow u l o u t h ~ the ul~ipl i ~ i ~ d c direct ; 38 p ; ~ h a g e 1 ~ic?~ctr ; l~eurdof l ~ i s lcavillg Peru af'tcr his arrivill at Lilll:~,ul~tilIIC I ' U ~ U ~ I I C ~ ( ~ sick; I uccil11o11ie wio~~iilly \v~+oti. i ~ (1111illg t l i ~titnc 11e wau tlierc ; it I l l ~ \\.;is tli llicillt to co~i~~lil~triccitu Lima t1ilb11: not n ~ o r e with ~ I I R I I OIIC'C "r t\vice a yeilr ; notl~illg Ilis letters refers ill to tt retru.11; tllc lcttcrs \verb a frie~ldly corscspolldellce : ~ ~ o t l ~nf ~i~l b u s i ~ ~ c cl~nriicter t l ~ c r ewiis 0110 i g ss ; lcttcr t11i11 t l ~ c i~lconicof illy fatllcr's estate to lily nlotller ; I \\'a8 not ia\varc of his i~lttbntiol~ retrir11 to t o tllis coiir~trynutil 11c nrri\-ccl 1 1 ~ r;e I 11ud all the tilue lived ill S e w York, ar~tllived tlieru until after Itis d c s t l ~ 1 su\v Ilis fiiinily on his arrival ; t l ~ eboy 37: : 3liisimo could not talk E ~ l g l i s; ~ l they arrived a t Boston a~ld welit to Pl~ila~lrlpllia, ttrld wrote to one of m y brotlicrs tl~;rt11e wits very sick. and for one of tllcm to come O I I : a~ltlIllat \\.:is the first li~~owledgu had of \ve his I)c?iiigill 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 IIC released to my mother; upon my mother's d*atll that real estrrt!9 was divided among hie brotl~ere silcl sister^, and JIasilno and Anna R.; Maximo received all equal share wit11 Anus R. ; these were the otlly two 38, cliildre~ithen 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~ertyto his wiclom and clrildrelr ; the pro pert.^ was sol11 witl~out a suit, i~nder power of sale ill the will.
Wherchupoil, after l l e a r i ~ ~ g coul~selfor the respective parties plaintiff s i ~ ddefeiida~~ts,l ~ e issues aforesaid t were fiublrlitted to the said Circuit. Conrt, so held by tlle said Justice, who nftor~\~ards: \!,it, on tllc 22cl day to 39 of July, 186'3, gave Iris tlccisio~lof tlrc raid issues ill lvritii~g tlre wortls a11d figures f o l l o w i i ~ to, wit : ir, ~

FII.AS LUI)LAM, otl~ers. :\1rC1
- . .. . . -.



Tl~e issues ill this actioil having I~eretoforebet!i~tried
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 c o ~ ~ s e uof. partios, l bee11 \viiived), a ~ l d allog;rtio~~s~ ~proofs of the retlle a tl beerr curlsidered, I rlo find and spective prrties havir~g decide in favor u f tlle pliii1:ti R; a ~ direct judgiucnt t o ' ~ d he entered accordii~g to l.)i'ayer of tlre coirll)lai~rt, and that the dcfer~clauts i l ~ Lncll:rin, E t l ~ v ~ r t l S s Ladlam, ar~d Willia111H. IIewitt, 110 ~ l l o ~ v ~R r l ,part. of their S expeiraes, their costs and reasonable cotrllsel fees of this a-actioil. Dated Jilly 24d, 1859. JOHN A . LOTT,
t l l i b



the Suprcme Court.

Wl~icl~ decision was after\rttrds, on the 23d day of July, 1850. filed witlh the Clerk of said Supreme Court for t l ~ csaid cou~lty of Kings. upon whicl~ decision jntlg~~~eut 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 i d Court of tlre isouc.s in this action, before 43 f l o ~ lJollr~ A. I,oLt, witl~o~lt, jury, which clecision . a bears date the twenty-seco~~d of July, in tlie year day 1859, an.1 on motion of R. ( .Underllill, of coul~sel for j plai~ltil'f,i t is considered and adjudged tlrat the plaintift' 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~clrtiol~ctl l ~ c c o ~ t ~ p l a i u11d , of w l ~ i c l lx ilr t ~~t 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 44 guilrdiii~~~ of said plaintiff, as t l ~ e r e i ~ r forth, and is set also elltitlet1 to tlie accun~ulation ~ l d a increase tlrcreof, ~i11cc: same were so recc'ived by said gui~rtliaus, tllc 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 a c c u ~ r r i ~ l n t i o ~ ~il~crcnsc or 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 ? f e ~ ~ c l i i ~ ~ t s Lltdlani, 15clward Llid1s111 Siliix and W i l l i 1 H v i t tllcir few, commissions and exguardians of the plaintiff, 46 P enses :is sl1c11teatame~ltary ~nclnding, s part, of such cxpeilses, their costs and irs reasonable counsel fees, comit~i~sions ~ d a r expenses, b y tbe \\.rittci~ o i ~ s c of~their attorney, u ~ of d attorc ~ t ~ tlrc ney of the plair~tifffilctl l ~ e r c w i t l are adjustc?tl and ~, r t l l i ~ ~ e d tht: ilggreg~tl? at sun1 of t\vo 11u11dred all(] seventy-nine dollitrs and tl~irty-eight cents.
.4nd i t is furtiler urtlareti autl adjudgetl, (tlrc plail~. tiff w a i ~ i l l g forri~rrl c c o u u t i ~ ~ g the Court.) that tho u a to defendants, Silas L u d l a ~ n ,Edward Ludlttn~. and Wil. liam H. Hewitt, after deducti~ig from the f u ~ ~ idns their hands, ad such t e s t a ~ u e ~ ~ t a r y guardiirns, the itfc~rcsaid 46.eum of two hui~dredand sevesty-nine dollars and thirty-eight cents for their fees, cun1mi8sions, a11d expenses, pay over, transfer, and deliver to t l ~ cplaintiff the full balance of the aforesaid proceeds, and the accum~ilation and increase thereof, together with a n y 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 ~ nthe following, viz. : ,

T h a t in the year 1847, 'l'l~omas R. Ludlam, uncle of the plaintiff a ~ of tlie defendant, Naxirno Ji. Ludlam, ~ d died seized in fee ol certain lands and real estate mentioned in tlie complaint, and intestate, and without the issue, luavirig Ilim survivi~lg persons in that behalf named in t,lle colnplaint as his only heirs-at-lam. Tlirtt. tlw plsii~tiffand her brother, t h e defendant, Msximo Y.: t the lirne of the death of said intestate, a were thc only surviving children and descendants of Richard L. Ludlam: t110 intestate's Irot,her, who died before liim ; and t h i ~ w i d intestate also loft him surt viving tlircu brothers and two sisters. T h a 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 en~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. T h a t the plaiut,iff mas born within the United States, JIaxi~noM. Ludlam, wtas born and that t,he definda~it, a t . Lirna, Peru, South America, and was never naturalized au a citizell of the ,nited Statou, nor ever qualified as ~aaquiredby law of resident aliens to take or hold lands within the State of New York. l'liat Eicha~'tlL. Ludlanl, father of c aid Maximo M. Ludlurn, and of t.11~ plaintiff, in the latter 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 e s t a h l i ~ h i n ghis 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 ~ tllcrc cstablisl~c~l p~.r~~lai~c!iit 1 liis dulliicil. That in tlic year 1828, thc!rc 1n;rrrierl s natnral boru citizen of C.'l~ili,1~1loIlever becarnc : citizcii of i the Ullitetl States, and of t l ~ i ~ t 1narri:~ge tlie y l a i ~ ~ t i f f slid s:titl 31asilno L ~ ~ I I ' Iits i~f'orc t i ~ t ~ ' ( l . ~ ~


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

T h a t the plaii~~ill' :L 11aturu1burn citin!~i c,f t h e is United States. T h a t the ticfentl:t~it. i i i ~ i ~ nJI. IAutlla~ii. liot i~ n t l t l c) is ural bo1.n citizen of the U~litrd 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 ~ ~wi111i11 State of S e w Yorli. t, tlie


l'liat the larlds and real estsle mentio~retlill tlic coriiplaint, ant1 whereof' Thomas It. I A u t l l i l died rc.izcd, ~~~ upon his death descended, as to orlv n~~tlividecl onebixtl~ part thereof, to the plaintiff in fcc, as [lie rcprcpentative of liar father, to the exclusio~iof said d u f ~ u d ant, \laxinlo M. Ludlnm, and tliat p l a i ~ ~ t i f f c*ntitled is to t l ~ ewl~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 I u x i ~ i ~11. o Ludlam, is not entitled to any riglit, share, or il~tcrefit therein, and tliat the other defenda~itssl~ol~ltl account @ to the plaintiff therefor as provided ill tlic judg~ncnt.

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

And forasmuch as the said Maxilno 1,udlam hath appealed to the General Term of the said Supreme Court from the said decisiou of the said Justice a l ~ d judgthe ment 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~eralTerni, to turn the same int.0 a special verdict or bill of exceptions. 54


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, flttorneys f o r A ~ ~ p e l l a n t . To R. C. UNDERHILL, Esq., 66 Attorney f o r Respondrnt. CHARLES THOMAS, W. Esq.,

Clerk, County of- Kings.


A t a General Term of the Snpreme Court, held for the State of New York, a t Poughkeepsie, in the county of Dutchess, on the 22d day of May, A. D. 1860. Present-JOHN 8 . LOTT, JAMES EMOTT,JOHN W. BROWN, WILLIAM SCRUGHAM, and W. Justices.


__-. - -



S I L ALUDLAM, ~ impJd, &c.,


Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with cost8 to abide the event ; opinion by Judge Emott, Judge L o t t dissenting. Copy decision. WILSON B. SHELDON, Clerk.

A t a General Term of the Supreme Court, held a t the Court House i11 tlie City of Poughkeepsie, i n the county of Dutchess, on the twentyeeco~id day of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty. Prosent-Justices


---- - .



- -



SILAS LUDLAM, EDWARDLUDLUM WILLIAM HEWITT,, H. and MAXIMO M. LUDLABI. The appeal of the said defendant, Maxinlo 1 . Lud1 lam, from the judgment of the Special Term of this Court, rendered in this action, the eighth day of September, 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 Special Termof this Court, in this action be, and the same 60 is reversed, and that a new trial of the action be had ; costs to abide the event of the action. [Signed ,]


C. W. THOMAS, Cle~k.





To Messrs. C'. J. & E. DEWITT,attorneys for tho defendant, Maxirno li. Lildlan~ G. G . REYNOLDS, ; Esq., a t t o r i ~ e y the defendants, Silau Ludlam, Edward Ludof 62 lam, and William H. Hewitt, : and CHARLES THOMW. as, Escl., Clerk of t,l~t! C'uu~lty Kings : of You, and each of ynii, are hereby ~ot.ifiedthat 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 Kings, on the ninth day of July, 1860, of and entitled as of the twenty-recond day of May, in @aidyear' 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 or63 dered, with costs to abide the event of the action.

And t h e plaintiff hereby assents and stipulates, pursuant to the Eleventh Section of the Code of Prooedure, t,hat if said judgment of the Supreme Court at

Gcnernl Torm, 1)o aflirmc(1, jlidgment ~ b s o l a t e .sI1ii11 l ~ e rendore<lagainst her. Dated, September 19th, 1860. Yours &c..


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

State of N w York, K,i,bgs, e 64 I, C1i:trlce W. Tlionlas, Clibrk of t!ic Count,y of Kings,
(lo l ~ c r e b ycertify, that t11c I'vregoing lias bee11 cornparcrl wit11 t l ~ e original Juclgme~ltRoll, and nolicc? of appeal on file in my office, and that they are trill: trailscripts thereof, and of the whole of s11c11originals.

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.


W ' J ' l ! O ~ l ~ ~ S , 65 .



SILAS JAu~)~aal, irnp'rl. 'kc..,

1V e r n e Ctrurt at General Terns-





.,~P/JI:!/u)~/. 1


EMOTT, tice : .Jur
Tlre plaintiff t)ronglrt tlris actiou agaillxt the defendants, Sil:rs :ind Edward Ludlam, ancl Williain R. Hewitt, who are tllc cbxtlcurors of her Ibtlrur, Richard L. Lutllam ; a i d agililr~t Sf;rxri~~o r , l ~ d l t t ~ ~ ~ ,is her 31. \\~IIo 6 7 0 1 1 1 ~.*ur\,ivingIbrotl~t'r. co1111)el fornlcr to account tt) thv for a ~ paydI)vcbrto Ircr. to t l r c b eucl~lxiol~ tile latter, ~ of' :ill t l ~ c ? prc,c:c.c.cJs c)f tllr salt1 ot' ccrt;ii~i laiicls in ctlu c o ~ l r ~ uT Q ~ i ~ o na114 tlrt. city of S o w York. T I I ~ ~ N ~ tg s, lnntls \$-ere ' l ' l r o w a ~R. rlutlliiln, 8 b r o t l ~ c rof lticllirrd L. I.lrcll::n~. t l l c s ltlai~~tifF's fi~tlrer. Kicb::rd 1,. I,udlar~ldiet1 i l l 1838, arrrl 'l'lrornas 11. Llidlan~died i l l 1S47, irltcst;lttl: and tl~uvthe ollildron of KicIrard L. Ludlarn, wore among t11c 'aw of t11c. I;rrttnr, alld one sixth of his lands descended to tllern a s rcpnlst.lrtiilg their father. Tlre defendant Siliis IAiidlarn,\\.a8 6s appointed b y this Court the special gi~iirdial~ both of the ~ ~ l a i u t i f f arid the dcferltlant, Mlaxiulo 11. Lutllem, for the ~ ~ u r p oof joinilrg ill ti sale of ~IIUSL' lalltls. alrd w one.sixth of thc pl.occotls nafi paid o\ur to 1110 c?xccutors of' Richard L. Ludlam. who arc the testamelitary

pilardii~nsof I)fi)tlihis child re^^. These children Ilavc now both attailled lawful age, and the plaintiff has brought this action, claiming the wi~oleof the proceeds which were thus received by theexecutors of her father, to the c ~ x c l i ~ ~of n brotl~er, i o her hIaximo 11. I,udlam, on the gro1111rltlrat Ire was art irlier~at tht. tirne of the de acent. and t11ert:fi)r.cco~llrl~ i o inherit to his mlcle. Thet Judge Leforc \ v l ~ o ~ n callscb was tried, tlecided that 69 1I1(. Marinlo Ill~tllit~~i ari alien i l l 1847. ~vlien t l ~ edeWIN R C ~ I I \\'as caut by his uncle's dr:ttlr. a n d therefore, the ~. plaii~tiffwax cl~titled the \vliolc proceetls of thc lands to in qnestion, i r ~ ~ d is the only que.stio!l in the case. this Richard L. Ludlam, thr* father of these pariics. was In 1822 he wen: to Peru to seek ernploylnel~tand bettor his co11ditic)n. Hn became a cle1.1; in a mcrci~ntileI~ouse, in L i m ; ~ and ill IS28 married n wolilan ~ v l ~ o a na; was tivc of ('hili, but $her1 a resicic?rit of l'eru. AIasirn,) Ji. Lutllaln is her sol:, and was boru in Lima i n 1831. I" 70 1828 Bicliiircl L. Lutllitm went into b n s i ~ ~ e s u llis o\:.rl 011 a c c o n ~ ~ill. Lima, iii~tlconti~~uccl rcsitlc tl~creuntil t to April, 1837. wlier~ 1113 left Pout11 Alnc?ric:t. and canlo back to rcsidc ill this c o n ~try, \\.ill\ his wife a l ~ d i cl~ilc 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 ~died yi l l illis coillltry. ~tl
a cit,izen of this conr~trp, born herc iu 1304.

'I'hc plaintitl'was boru after- t l ~ c i rarrival 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 witness o n :11c trial of this cause, as a and tes1ificc-l l o t l ~ c facts just stated, anrl a l s o that they left Lima becnude hcr husband was sick, a ~ \\-as ad~ d '1 i vised to leave that country, and becanse he wished to educate 1 1 i ~ 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 J 4 ~ ~ ( 1 1iu 1a s.illso SL;\VOTII i~ t tlie trial, b u 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 tti11cI l'clrll L;\fZiIS l'~ :it tIIi1t tilncl very i ~ l l ' l ' c c l ~ it'~11ot tlillicul~: [!:at l ~ u tlittlu correspontl~ :~~t elll:cs took 11lacc.l)et\\.c.c.i~ !~i::Lrotl~ori111cl t l ~ cf i ~ ~ n i a y lt I I I I I I I I . . i 1 1 1 1 1 t l ~ i ~111cyn.c?rch I ~ . Jitware of any pur!)osu OI! l I ~ c , ) 11is 1)iirt 1 0 r1.111r11, 1111til I : < , I.V~ICIICL(Il ~ cCnited Status t 1 4 i i t i I . I t Illa). 1~ adclucl that t!~ewii'o of Riellard Llirllu~l~ lii~s I I ~ cr beall ~~atnrnlizccl this \ ill country. Upon this e\icleucc the J ~ ~ d found 111:bt Ricl~artlL. gc L u d l a ~ n ia 1828. ~ u l u ~ ~ t a rexpatriated l~imsulf , ily from thcs U111ted >taler. for t 1 1 ~ .l,u~posc:of' l ) e c o ~ n i n ~ g ~ pcrI U ~ L ~ I C ~c.siCi~~llL i ~ u ai,l l i ' e l . ~ , II~ of' ;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 i n Lima. If tho domicil irjrd e ~ p u t r i u f c dis t n be nntlerstoud here in its proper 73 seas1.. I should Ije u~uihlcto agree t o this part of the decisioll as a question ot' f'itct. Tg expatriate i~ to ICRYO one's coilrltry, and rcJllounce allegia~lceto it, with the purpo-e of makilrg a Ilo~neand 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, :\tit1 i t is not an :iccur:ite Ilsrh of tcrlnb t o $a;\. t11at a nlan ~ I R Sexpatriated himself with thrt design $ ) f c l ~ a ~ l g i n g residence. He might more 11is correctly be said, in a gi\.c~lc:~.~.. to cl~nngchis domicil with a view to expatriation. Rut I d o !rot discover in the evidence in this case, anything to show that Richard Ludlam ever intended to expatriate him14 self, to renounce his American citizenship, and asoume allegiance to a foreign power, while i t will be observed t h a t he is not found or decided to have acti~allp done so. He neither became, nor declared any intention of

l w c o ~ ~ ~ i I~ t~ g u v i acitizen. Nor dill l i t . i l l ally way :I ' ~r , ~~ I I ~ ~ I O U I I Ci C s A r ~ ~ iI ~ z I I TIl! ~l e . t : f his ~ ~ u t i v o ~ i ~ r t r n t h c sc:ircl~ of' (-111111oyri1r11tI I ~ ce iy ; L f u r t r ~ ~ ~ tlie i i ~ u r ~c l n p ! o y ~ n c : ~ :i:rtl at I l t i ~ ~ i cl s~t a b .. t ~t, lisl~e~l lri~llsclf iu I ) u s i ~ ~ c s s .111; iii:l~i.idcl !1i1t1 l ; i l ~ l c r e n , o ~ ~f td r t h a t 11c looict?ci I'I)I.\\.:LI.I~ a c c.ol~.t:~:ltlyto $1 r e t u r ~ ~ t l ~ t :United St:~:es-::o i ~ !C;IJ! ; 1.:':1:! t i i ~ t~ r cvitlc~rcl:. 'L'ircl.i: is 110 tluubt t l r t i t lit: ;rccl~:ii.cil;. c!oliliCil I l i) ill Idillla, tI~iitlit: w e ~ t~l ~ e r c t :LIIII rcllii~i~lctl ! I C I . UV, ~ 11 ~ \ I nd) lixetl l ~ u r p o s e of a r c t u ~ .i l~ ~; L I I T c l c i i t ~ i l ~ ~ I I ) c . t ! Tlliit \\.:I..: I:is rcsitlencc ~ r r t i l ile \w.i l ~ ~ . ; l l ~ ~ ! l ) ! y cll.iv,:ll :in.;~yby t l ~ e failure of Iris Ilc.;~l:l~. Still. ti^:^! Iic n.;ls a n A111erica11 i t i z e r ~ , L I I ~a11 ;~1ii,11 I ' < ~ ~ : I I ~ I I ~ ) IaI ~ I I c L in I , r c s i ~ l c n ttllctre a:: a ~ n e r c l . ~ a ~ ~ t for t l ~ e ~ J : I I . ~ ) I ) s c : i111(1 , of tr:rcIc, ; I I I ~t l ~ i l tI V I I ~ I I 11c r t : t u ~ . ~ ~ c t)l tiris c o ~ ~ t ~ Ilk+ y TI tr 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 I1cbvcrlcl't i t , i s . 1 t l i i ~ ~ l ; .x c c e d i ~ ~ g l y !) c -. I tite pI:ii11. .!I:IS~[IIL) SI. I , u ~ ! ~ L I isI .~11t:rci'or~ so11 of a11 iI111cric111 i t i z ~ by ~ L I Ia1ic1111rot11cr:bur11 :L ia,)l,cigr1 c i~ COIIII t r y wl~ilu 11iufatller was tc111p~)ri)l.iIy r~lsi(\(-tltllcre. i(; t 1 sa? L1oi.11 1~11ile> liis fibtiler \\Jii* lc!u!),~ra~.iIys i ~ l c i ~ t x ~ I I C I - t . ;is i111plyi11~l ~ t l ~~ st ~ i i r,?si(lt?~lc:; \V;LA I I O ! IIC~ILI~IIcnt. t h a t i s [ ) u r p c t ~ ~ :ci , r ~ e ri l l I':lct 01. i l l i ~ ~ t c > n t i n ~ ~ . ill I set! r!o reason to d o u b t that I t i c l ~ a r t l 1,11i11:1111: ~ t ~ ~ ~ t l e d i to rcaturn to America bcfort: !I(. ti;c:tl, ; L I ~ I I O I Iht! I ~! protjahly did 11ot i n t e ~ ~ItOl r - ! t l ~ r ~ ~ I)l:ti)~.cI I I I I , ~ years, I an11 ~ ~ - ! r l ~ n o ) sas SOII:I :IS hc: tlitl. Sciil. t lie :1ct11:\1 r lt o intt:nd~.rl l e t ~ q t of his r e s i r l t ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ i~ 110t illatel~ ill l'~11.11, r i : If he made his clo~nicil i l l t l r i l r c*!)lllrl~.y. I1e ;is xrl~nittc?rlly tlid, i t is u ~ ~ i r n p o r t : it'or t ~r l)~cst?~rt questi011 ~ v l ~ e t l r e r d o ~ n i c i lc c ) ~ ~ t i ~ r t'~:.~ ! It I I ~ , ~ Lo ~ L e ~ ; . t11aI ~~t I rtI ~ He ivas not. :t trnvelcr, b a t n r c s i d o r ~ tari,l yc?t 1.c was 17 , not. i l c i t i m n of P e r n . nor cli~lIle intcr~tlto L c c o ~ n c so, b r ~ contir~ucr!a11 t l ~ e\l-l~ilt! a, citizeri of t h e U n i t e d t States.


l ' l ~ cc o u ~ ~ s for tlle p l a i ~ l t i i ris r i g h t in supposing cl

that tl~crc'is 1111 Statilte of'the Ulritetl States I\-Lich will rcaclr t111' CilSC. ( ' O I I ~ ~ C ' S ~1osse8st~sI I ~ I t' lIl.~ f ~ o l l s t i ~; II tutiolr, csl,rc?slr a l ~ d c.sclusive power to est,il~lisl~ uni a form rillc of ~ r a t n r a l i a t i o r : L I probably as incidental ~. I ~ thereto, to declarct what sl~iill111akea liialr a, citiwn or I i . 'I'l~ispower l ~ i r s1)co11repeittedly exercised. Tl~cal i r ~ tAct filr this p l l r l ~ ~was 1.)ass""1 Marc11 26tl1. c, 78 1790. \vl~icI~ silcceedrd :i~rdrcpoaled 1by a secoi~d. \PUS ~)BH*U(~ January 29tl1, 1795. I<? h , ) t t ~ thenc statutes it, was enactcc-i t,lrat all clrildl.c*~~ citizens, b o r i ~c ~ n tof nt' tlrc? limits of tlrl: United 5 ta tcl*. slro~lldlbc~ c.or~sitlered citizo~rs. If e i t l ~ c r f t l ~ c :nts \\.err i r r t'orc:c., it would o ~' probably deterrni~lc? ~ I - ~ ~ Y I t! Iq l l t ~ s t i o ~ ~ . tlre Act tl~i. I RIII of 17'35 ~.cyl'i~lcttl A I - I 01' 1;:IO. irs I I~nv,. stated, tl~c: tlie act of 1795 W L S its;.l[ ~.t.l)t!alctl1,y a Statute paswed April 1-ltl~, 1802, \\-lricl~ ollly providctl that t,l~e c h i l r l r c ~ ~ ptarsorls who no\v are or II;~vI: 1)c~eirc.i,iof Z~IIS, t11011~11 o l ~o f thc .iilrisdictio~r t110 Ullitefi bt1r11 t of state^, sl~allllr cnn~itlurc:clcitizeiis." Richard Li~dlam 79 tlrc f'iltl~cr f tile det'elrtlxi~t,w;rs not h o r n . nntil 1804, o and 11t.11ce i ~ o come w i i l ~ ithe oper;~tior~ this dill t ~~ I-)f statute. 'l'llis contirruetl to l)e tlle only act of Corlgr2ss ilporl this fiilhject, until 1855, w11e11:III act was pnxsefl wliicl~\\.ill avoid s n c l ~ qnrstions i n fut~irc CRReR. Rut as this d~lz(:~?nt ~.ii*t 1847, if Jfasirr~oL i ~ d was in lam was then an nliei~, la~rds the passed a t O I I C ( ~t o tire plaintiff, R I I ~ her title cannot be divesbed by t l ~ ucharacter given to lrer brothcr h ~ l i b s e q i ~ e ilepislntior~. ! ~t. We are necessarily driven to the doctrines of' tlre Common Law, to determirrc the co~lditionof iL person 80 born under si~cli circnmstnrrces. For tire clr~cationmust ~s be decided by some rule .of law. Tlre t c b r ~ ralien 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 iny ,which the question arises, r a n t e c e r i c ~ ~ t o r irldcpendont of, legislntivs action, if to, t h a t body of l a w cor~taillally rule upon t h e sul)ject. P e r h a p s we might go t o general public law. or the l a w of n a t i o i ~ sif i t d o not. 'I'llertt a r e no cases i n rhc C o ~ l r l s this c o u n t r y i n of 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 W e n d . . 389 P. C., 26 Wend., 613, \v\lns decided in tlie Suprerne Court upon the Stat,. I I ~ I ?of 1802, and ill t h e Court of E r r o r s , e i t l ~ e r lipon tlic same ground, o r upon t h e effect of the Declaracx t'ion of Il~dopcndenceand the T r e a t y of Peace, 11pon persons d l n i c i l o d a n d remitinil~g11el-ca f ~ e r war. It tlie i s trui? t11at the ( I l ~ i t ~ ~ c c lexpl.esscs all o p i i ~ i o ~tliat lor l t h e Stat,nte of 1802 \\.as intended to clltilige tl;c Comlnon I,aw rult!, hy w l ~ i c lie snys the cl~iltli.t:n of a citil~ zen, bol-11 al~roitd,were a ! i e ~ ~ s .I3ut t h a t p o i ~ ~ t not w:\s p r e r ; c ~ ~ l c d d c c i s i . ~ l and H con1 r a r y o p i n i o ~is inti fol. ~, ~ mated I>y t 1 1 ~ Chief Justice wtler~t l ~ ecase n . : ~ t h e 83 ill S r ~ p r c r ~ ~C O I I I - bi1t11 o p i ~ ~ i obeing ~ ~ l c \ r c loyl ~ i t e r . c: ~, ~~s Tl~c casus i l l t l ~ eU11ite11 t a t c s Courts (sw.1 2 C'~,t~ricIi., S 64 : ~ r ~ 7, W l ~ e a .383) l~avc? r e s c ~ ~ t e i l rl p qrics!io~~s ~ v o l v ii i r ~ g l ~ cc i g i ~ tof e x p a t r i a t i o l ~a ~ cl~angchof i l l l ~ g i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t f , t ~ d a11t1 so widely disti11g~is11;il)lc fi.0111 ~ ! I CI Y ? S C I I ~ . I n P Lynch v . Clurke, 1 S a l ~ d . 011.R., 659, Vice (~11:~11collor , Sai~(lfortl cs1)resses tlrc curlviotiu~itl~ittt l ~ ccl~ildl.c!r~ of o u r O ~ ~ X ( ! I I S ) U ~ I Iill)roild \\.~IY: ' i t i x e ~ 1 s of the I ~ L~ y ( J o n ~ n l o ~ ~ u l ~ d e rwI~icIi11,: sup1)oses that c l ~ i l d r c n 3 1,11\\., 8 horn a l ~ r o t ~of E n g l i s l ~ paren f a \\.ore a u \ ~ j ~ ' cof' the d ts Crown. 111his o p i r ~ i o ~ ~ he found a refel.enc.e to all will the A l ~ l e r i c a rdecisions, ill n o w of wl~iclillo~vever ~ is 1 the pui~lt.distinctly passetl upon. 1 1 England, also, r while t l ~ c i g h t of pitizunsl~ip of cliildrell born under such circumstances has been c o ~ i s t a i i t l asserted, i t h a s j~

never b c e ~ ~ esl)vcssly clccicletl wl~etlit~r that right was tlue to the ('OII.IIIOII or to positive Stiituttts. AS 1.;1\\.. early as i t Locan~t. i~ frc~clricl~t f'alniliirr thing for or E n g l i s l ~ r ~ l tol ~ e lcilve t l r c x liir~~rloru with tl~uir fatniliea. either for ~ ) u r l ~ ~ s tr;,vcl f or trade, we iilltl l'arlia. ~su rnc111tarynctio11 to retilove ;ill ditficulty or doubt ill the c:ise of' clliltlrcll who I I I ~ ~ I-I I 1)t: h r 1 1 to ~ I I C I I I abroad. gp:Thc pal-liest I';rvli;~r~ic~r~:a~~y what is ~ I I O \ \ . I I as i\ct is the Statute d c tratis ultru /tru,-e, ~) l l t l l c . 35t11year i of I r e of' 1 I . I. 1 'l'llt: esiste11ce of' this c..arjy S I ; I ~ I I I11;~sI I I I ~ ~ ~ I C ~ ~ pre- I I ~ I ~ P I ~ (: ~ ~ vcl~te(l cle:ir sul)sc:quclt~tju11~t.s t h e it Ity of pri~iciples of tile ( ~ ' O I I I I I I O I I L a w I I P O I 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 . ~ ~ ~S t, n t ~ ~~ c the preuI ;II. t of c~lt (lay, ~rratloatril i ~ ~ t r o ~ l ~ li t lrte dtltc Iilw a I I C W r ~ l l e , l o or ~vl~ctlrc~r it \\.i~s riltl~erR tleclaratioll of t l ~ e opir~ion of' the I';r~.lii~rnz:!~tr l , o l i t l ~ e I Iirw ;IS it tl~etl \\':is, Inore r~c:arlyR I I R ~ O ~ O ItoS wl~ii!i l l 11!o(l~r11 I 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 :iil l~ I~ I~ , h I C dispositioi~ of' the present casth,in c o ~ ~ s c q ~ ~ocf : l ~ t ~peculiar cor~dition of A ~ n e r i c :i~e~ ~s l : ~ t i oI ~I ~O I It i l e s111)jcct. , gi I ~
t l 1 c 5

'11~~ reig1l "1' ~ < , I N , L l lc, ~ 011u of' t11e i ~ ~ oirupor I I is st t a l ~ eras I I I I';~l~li>lr a : u l ' ~ O l l Indlly accolr~~~ri. was t Ili It attei~tlcb~l w1l11 riorlie special c i r c u r ~ ~ s t a ~ ~wl)ic11 lnay cev havc ~ iC I \I clcvasior~to quextiol~slikv the 1)resellt. It was the pt.riod of tlre ctj~r~!~ic.~:c.snrc.~~t Frerlclt of 111t. wars, which led to t h e re~lloral and s e t t l e l n e ~ oft I I ~ R I ~ J ~ b l ~ g l i s l sul;jvt.ts ill t~laces i l l F~AIICC., by t h e ~ \vllich 86 cllangew of war and of' treaty were a t tiu~ex uuder El1glis11a1111a t otliers under Freuclt d o l u i ~ ~ a t i c ~A t . ~l the rJalne tirne the E ~ ~ g l i 11at1o:lwas assullllllg a Illore sl~ influential position arnorlg Europeart, powers, and the illtercoursc aruoug all nations was gruwing illore fre-

for quont. Instailces of leaving the kil~gdolli 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 b o 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 I'l~ilipy:r, t l ~ eQueen of' Edward 111, Illat was by birth all alien to the realm, 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 Bordeaux. of' W l ~ e nwe find tl~iltParliament interposed to settle a question whicl~ ~ a d l arisen or rnigl~ arisc out of such cirt c u l r ~ s t ~ ~ i asc l ~ n v e ~ c a been alluded to, we are not to preNume as we migl~t col~ei(lering Statute of tlre presin a ent day, that t110y i~~terltled mere understood to or inlrke tlie law ~ L I to~ introduce a new rule. l'he conI stitutioll of t l ~ e Xnglisli Legislature a t that day is to mnle cstc~rt, nl:rt:ur of d i s p u t e , arltl i t s functions or a the mnlluur and extent of their exercise was certainly 88 much more limited than they afterwartle became. T h e o r g i i ~ ~ i ~ a t ao ~ dmanner of session of tllt. Coinmons i rn 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 o f tile IIouse being c l ~ o s e lu ~ ~ t a t least as ~, il late s a tllc fiftieth y e a r ot' Edward 111, ulld probably etill littei.. 'I'l~eI'arliament was first and xsually called together to grant taxes, and ont of the clcinalld for tl~crieall11 thc: po\ver to in~posecorlditions upon granting tl~eln, grew milch of its authority. The Commons aeserted t l ~ e right to petition for the redress of grievances, and their petition formally assented to by the King and thc Council was in many cases the form of the Parliau~cntsry action. T l ~ r ~ s Statute of Treasoils


passed in the same year mitll the law me are considering, 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 ~to be s traitorous for varioi~smatters not known to be treason, it 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 introno light matter to rnake a 8t:itutc wllicll sl~oi~ltl duce a new rule of general lii\\., to be forrvcr incorpo. rated with the law of England. Air. Bnllam says that it was a common arlsm7er to.the petitiuna of tho Cornmonu, that it could not be granted \vitllout making a l ~ e w l a w . And tllis ruluctal~celed 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 t h a 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 ina, redressed, justice was to be p ~ i n i s l ~ e d n d not indeed so much upon thc complaints of individual suitors, ns upon tllc pelitiolla a n d complaints of the representatives of the C'on~nlor~u E n g l a ~ ~ ill, behalf of d of their wllole body. I ' l ~ eoldinary ('ourts of Justico were neither sufficiently s t r o l ~ g protect the weak to against the po\verful, nor snfficien tly known alld respected to make their diacussionr as j e t , tile autl~oritative expositio~ls the law, which they afterwards of grew to be. In the reign of Edward 111 i t war: ordained 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 it waa passed to settle, and which was a queation as to w l ~ a t law was. had been before Parliament in the a previous year of the reign. I am not aware that legal liistorial~sor 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 on Lords, hon~evcr, the suhscquc~itgrowth of the Cons t i t i ~ t i oi~ ~ , have terminated in an appellate jurist may diction 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 Englanrl, should 1~ able to demand any inheritance within tl~c Pame legeanc- or no:, whereof n petition was p u 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 dol~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 poi11t."

I t the11 dcclaras that these, all of one accord, have w i d that i t is, and always has heen, the lam of the C ~ O I V that t l ~ e II, 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~rstlie part of tl~ia Statute to which tlie present question refers, which is to the effect that. the C'o~t~rnons aswmbled " he of the Barons, etc., a i ~ d one mind accorded that id1 tile children ii,hcritors, which from hencefort11 stiall be bur11 witl~outthe legeance of' tlie King, n,l~ohc!fatlicrs aud ~nothern, t the a 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 af-suc11 cl~ildrend o pans t l ~ esea by that the iuotl~ers the liccl~sc and wills of tlieir I ~ ~ s b i i ~ l t l ~ . ' ' I t wil! be observed that the i~nturnlimr~ort of this to language is, tlrnt hot11 the pare1:ts itii~st1,e ~u\?jects, nlakc thc i*sne i ~ ~ h e r i t : ~ l ~Ilte .was 1:ot until firr more recent times t!~atany csprecs statutory sat~ction was giveo to a 1xicl.e lenient rulc, f ~ ) rit 11~5is not until 7 Anne, 10 Anne, 4 George 11. s l ~ d 1 3 George 111, that very Act of I'nrliamer~t declarcd t l ~ a tt l ~ echild of an Englishman born abroad, should iuhcrit, although the 97 inother wi~sau alien. 'I'l~ereis iinotl~er Statute, passed r of in the 42(1 year of t l ~ e e i g ~ ~ E d w a ~ d111, 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 l d r e ~born ~ beyond F W ~ . ill the legnoricz of Calias, Guinnc, and Gascony, and e l s c ~ r l ~ e in the lands ancl liegl~orics l ~ a ~ re t h e l o ~ ~ g our lord the Iiiug, bcyortrl sea, sltould be i n to llel.itable, ctc., ' i t is agrewl :111(1 assented that the Common law and the Statute on this point, sllould he kept g, nnd observed.'" Tlle ~ n e a i ~ i nobviously, i~ to asfiert their del~izensl~ip, this is refcrre~l i ~ o wltollp to al~cl t ~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 i b ~ j e c t , law was apprelieuded to be otherwias. the 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 o f legislation. The Statiite recites that the question asto the children of subjects born under such circumstances, llad bee11 discussed, but not decided, and was gs in doubt. The law was, tl~erefore, agaillst their riot 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 prinr cases as in the Court. Tl~c Year Books, which coi~ttrinthe 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, ~ r h i c hare found in F i t z I~erbert'rj A\)ridgen~ent. cr

Tile earliest case in wliicli ;I question like the pres e n t occ:ilrs, is giver1 in Rrook~:'s Abritlgement, Deoiykn 6. The writer says, "Nofa per Hussey, Chief Justic" .' if a ]nun be born beyond sen, wl~osefather 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 lilridgeme~it,in the fiamo title, (21,) says : " If an E~lglishmaupass the sea, al~d marry all alien woman, by this the wife is of the King's allcgiaiice. and the issue will inherit," f.)r which , tlit! author refers to thc Abridgment of Assises. I n 0 r Colli~igwoodvs. Pace, 1 Pentr, 422, Lord Hale as8er.t~ t h e coliversc of this proposition, that if an Englishmen go beyond sea, and lnarry an alien, tlie childreu are

0 0

aliens, for tile wife \r:rs subyotestate rite. In tl!c first of these statements, fro111 I<rooke's Abriclgc~~lcnt. ~ o tl 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 all free States wl~urct l ~ a t of law prev:iil<, t11:tt t h e +offspring follow tlre c o l ~ d i t i o ~ ~ f;~tlier, of tllc nlrtl 11ot tlru rl nilothers, partus scquztur j~atrotn. 111 I,ittletor17s Reports, Rex vs. Eaton. 23, 2G 27, will bc* f'o1111d 1'1111 and well a ~ ~ reasoned discussiol~ of this sul>ject, ill t l nrgii11:errt and decisiou of the casc. It \ \ a s ir~sistetl tlre~l t l ~ a t a l l e g i a ~ ~ c e ilot ~nercly wah loc:iI, t l ~ ; r t2111 aliuri \\as one Lor11 not 01113. O I I ~o f t l ~ e i ~ ~ g t l o r l ~ , untlrr il, f'or*.ign k but obedielrcc. Cases were J ) I I ~ , :"id citptl, anti tlistinguishecl ot' a m:ll1 tra\elilrg, which, says tlre rcxport, the Corrlrl~omI,;LI\ tli(l forbid ; alld going out o f t h e realm illto tlre don~iiriorrhof arr :tlic.~rfricntl or all alien ellelily, ai~tl\vi t11 or w i t l ~ o ~tile l i i ~ ~ pco~lseirt, ~ r d of lt 's a cr) o his cl~ildr(>ll 11or1i eit11c.r wlrllo si~cli corrse~rtcontinued rl or after it was r e v ~ l i ~ LdI I ~I I V rtcnlled. 'I'lle laasirn, : yartus, requitz~rpatre?n, was cited. a ~ itsd a p p l i c i ~ ~ i o n ~ to cases n r i s i ~ ~ g ur~tlerv i l l e ~ ~ i ~i~oticed. '1'11(1case in go har~dwas of all Err~lisll rnercl~ant, who lrad golle illto Poland, a l ~ lrlarried :r womiilr tlrc3rc. ; a11tl t l ~ e ~l q~lcstion wae, w l ~ e t l ~ c r their child was all alien. I t \\.a< hvld that Ire Ira> ~ ~ o t , w l ~ i c l Gelverto~l, i ~ s t i c e gave for for ~, J , tlle (l reason. t l ~ i ~ t Father was ;I ~ l ~ ( ~ t . c l l anrn~ t . 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, fittl~er 0 or motller. I confess this seenls to me I ~ I I I C ~Inore I doubtful law t l ~ : uthe other doctri~le. 'I'l~ecolrstruc ~ tion is a violent one, and the doctrine of the c:isc ia


ulore c:~silysustained upon tlie prir~ciplesof the Comnioli Law, a ~ l d as if they liad been declared by the Statute. If the Statute had ilot bee11 passed, the Cornnio~i Li;\v, as foreign travel and con~mercial pursuits incrrilscd, ~v,uld have asscrted the rule which the Statute d ~ ' c l a r c 41)ut (1eclare;l i l l r e s p c t o111yto children , 1v11oso fatllcrr; awl nintl~crsmere l.:~lglial~. The Comd loon T,arv, adl~cri:~g t l ~ e to doclril~e that t l ~ econdition of t l ~ c i*atl~cr c!c.ter~tiilled tllat of the offspring, would C" hnrc reucllc~tlc a w s wl~icll\vcire not \vi thin the letter of tllc Act. Tllis case in Littleton. wi~sdecided 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~nitetl11y t l ~ ol 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 o the case citetl fl.orn Littleton : Thornas t J?:;con W ~ I I itl)ro:ltl to carry on trade, and married the ~ tlnngl~terof tl~:otllcr Englisl~ rnercl~ant. resident abroad. b l'llrir cl1il11bor11 ctbro;~cl, was held to bc a denizen o t a 3 13r:rrupto11, Rcrlilc~,aud C:roke. said t l ~ a tthe father 11ring i l ~ n c r c l ~ aal~tlresitling abroad for purposes of ~~t, tr:rrlc, Itis child sl~nultl ltc n dcnizen, and tliat. even thougl~t l ~ c~rlotl~er bee11 a n alien, for the cl~ildren 11ad follo\v the t'iither'r; contl~tiol~.Bran~ptonsaid t l ~ i swas by tllc ('o~nu~on 1,aw; b u t Uerklcy, by t l ~ eStatute of Ed\v:rrcl 111: and Croolie scelrls rather to have l ~ e l d wi t11 B r a ~ n p t o ~ l 'I'l~ecasc reported in Li ttleton, mas . cited. 'I'l~c case of Collingwood us. Pays, or I'HCC, i~ also repc~rtctlill 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 ~about the Stiitute of Edward 111, tliat ~t, a l t l ~ o u p lthis 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 the same allegiance as he ; a er . rule, it may be observed, which does not make allegiance altogether R qilestio~lof 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 Little0 rc ton and Crokc, as deciding that the c l ~ i l d r e will inherit l~ 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~scto the parents to re:lli&i~~ abroad ib determilled, which a g a i ~ i docs not go upon tile ground of lz lncrely local a l l c g i a ~ ~ c e . Finally the rcpvrtur adds quere of person&,not merchants, n.110 go b e g o ~ ~sea without d license, and have child re^^, if their cl~ildrell inllerit. A question wl1ic11 p l a i ~ ~ ldid llot depend u p o ~tbe y ~ o Statutes, which said ~ ~ o t l l i re~ t l,~ c rof uuch lnercha~lts ig 0 or license to lcave the rcaln~. 'l'hese p r i ~ ~ c i p l e s be will 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 n7asdcclaratc~ry tlie ('om~nonLaw, or first established the rule. of In Biic. Abr. Alien A. the rule is give11 that if an Eng. lish n ~ e r c l ~ a go beyond sea and take a11 alien wife, nt 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 ~ ~ ewas whethd, er a man born in Scotland after the accessioi~ James of was an aliell or a denizen. to the Crown of England, 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~riilciplcsof tllc Colnmon J.ii\ry wcrc not npplictl to i l ~ s t a ~ l c c s clriltlrcn of En* of
]is11 rcsidcl~t ill fore~g,n coul~tricsfor tl-iltlc, otc.. yet tlrc doctrillc 01' tllc 11aturc atld esscuce of allcgiallce was t l ~ n r l ) ~ ~ ptliscr~ssc~~l, sorile cases cor~siclcrcd l~ly aid wl~iclln ~ u s t rest I I ~ J ~ IS II I I I I I ~ of tllc: I ) ~ ~ I I C ~ aI s s ~ ~ t ~ d JI~ r~ by H O I ~ I (of t11e J ~ ~ t l g (ill 1 < 0 ( ' ~ 7 1 v. R(ICON ~ !s ;i11(1 Rex v f Euton. 'I'l~us t 1 1 casch o!' :III 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 r c q ~ ~ e ~tr ~vollltlllavc 11cc11 1 ~ 1 ~ alltl ~ r o f i t, ~ 11, doubt clc.r.liirct1, tlrilt al~si.l~cc, t~.;~tlch t l . a ~ c l .n.;~s1;1\vf'ul, tilr c:r a if i t r I :I I 1 1 1 s i 1 s s . I t is trllc thiit tllc cloctritle of i i I l ~ g i : ~ ~:is cc ~ ) ~ ~ s c q n c t clcl)clldaut ~ (? or ~ t U ~ I O I Ithe ])lace of birth, \\.:is i t l \ ~ i lstrolrgly il~sistcd ~~ up011 1)y 1Soglinl1(,'orlrts i111t1 lawyers i l l fi~vorol' the I':llglisl~ ("0111111011. ;i~rdii 1.igl1t to tllc. :iiI~~gi:il~ct:eveof r y ~ ~ ~ F I Lor11 \ v i t l ~ i ~ tlre r ~ ' : l l ~ r\vils s o t ~ ~ ~ ' t as-i ~ ~ s I I I r ~. il sertc!tI, 110 ti-~iitter IIO\V \ l a a eiit~lcto livi! t1rt!re, or \vIlo wl!rcb Ilis olarisllts. Iili4. t 1 1 ~ 11c~ilri11p l i ~ ~ ~ i t i ~of c > ~ t or ti this cloctl.i~lcill I ~ r t c r ~ ~ : i t i oI,it\~ l ~ ~ ; i \\.as tlewr consitl- c m eretl, i u ~ d tl1i1:k it is 1)Iiii11 I fro111\\']lilt \ I : ~ s I)tlc:l cited, tlrat 'tl~ec o ~ ~ v c r x e propo+itiou was nevt!r corlccded, tlli~t.tlle ~ ~ l a c i ? birth \voul(l ~ilakethe clliltlrerr of' an of Ktlglial~ su\),jcct L'rcc! l'ro~ll 11;s alltbgi:l~r~r. 'I'lris cle~ C I I I I I VItlmll tlrc circrlll~st:l~lcc I ant1 tlit. conditiol~ of i s~ t I t will IN. e; , I I I I ~ . I al)l~t'c.l~c.~~d, the ~ I t11:rt q~wstiolrof i\Ilcgii\l~cc 1.0111t l ~ ellrcrc 11li1r11 I,irtll. 1' of 11;~s 111ctwit11 \-cry serious t~.viilnlcr~tr tllc: tl-il)i~tr:~ls ir of cbvclry couatry, accortlii~g o 1111: asl~cct \vllicll it Iras l ill beerr 1)resc:11tctl. I t 11a.qLccu s t ~ ~ ! i ~ u o uii~sisted sly 11po11 \vI.~cru birtll tlla 1)crson ill q l ~ c r t i u l ~ by \vould 1)e boaad 5 Cu t o 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 ~ c ri~ woiilcl w ~ r k t

n p i n s t itself. I t ci111Irarrlly l)c sni1.1to bc scttlib~lils a i~niversal rule, certainly not witl~ont cscel)tions. 'l'l~t? prjncipli!s wonlcl ljrotcct tllc cllil(lrul~ British sub of ,jccts born al)roi~d l u r i ~ ~ gtelnporirry irbsel~ccof' tho c i~ ~)arclrts,1)11t t l ~ r Stnti~tes \vl1ic11 wuri! piissc~l frolrl t i ~ n c o t i l l l c r , rel~~l(:rc(l ul)l)licutic~~r 111ost (litse~1 t their ill 11llncccssar.v. , I ~ : I I ~ ~ lI I11is('i.11 t rlrics1 11. 3, ( ' i ~ s ~ il s ?(I. 2 s i ~ y s ( ~ s ~t11;tt ~t i l ~! s( ;sI I~~ ]~I ~ ~ ~ ?ot'I 11 I I I ~ ~ < ~ I I ~Irtiv-~ , ~r t I ~II rl ~ , 11iteI clilip i l l ;I I;,rcig:.11 ~ O I I I I I ~11y ~ L I I a1ic111110tll~r. 1)or11 tlii!re sl~all1)c l ~ ( ! i ~ * s to t'i~tl~ihr, t11(! 1111si11ess for of' a 11lc~rcl1i111t ~-i.cll~ircslung ~ I I I O I I ~ ! ;I ;il)ri>;' 11owill ~ ~ o t , his fo1.t1111c fill-tors, ii11(1 this 1111 S ~ Y ~ I I Ito tr11,~t to S put. 1101 111)011 1111! S I ~ I I I I ~ C ' , I ~ I CI I I ' ~ I I ~ : ~0]1)' ! t110 1)1it ('S ( ' ~ I I I I ~ I ~ J 1Ji1 I I \v, '1'111-r~ iirih ~ I I I ~ ~ t \YO IIIOIY! rctbeIlt cirscx, 0 1 1 c tlrc!*c is Doc. ile~n. ot' Durroure Y ,101tc.s.4 S. I{. :100. 308. 'I'l1i1 11oi1rt t l l e r ~ ~ u I cIViIS t I l i 1 1 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 I I ~01' tI1(1 K i ~ ~ ~ I o ~ r ~ i ~ -~ i ~ l11ot~ ~, O gs ~ o o r( ~ , l i l ~ l ~ ( ~~ i t 1 1 ~ i'tr ('11111111011 I 1 i i 1 ~ U I I ( ~ C 1~1 1 S t i I t I l t ~ ' ~ . r l i 111' ? ~ L a i s is i ! I i I I 0 1 I I1ii1111. by F ' i l l 1 l l l t r chfli81.l 01' 1111: i i l ) l ) l i t + i t t i i ) ~ ~ t i l t ? r111(! I J U ~ ~ U J of' seq~~ifus ytrtrc.t]c. 111 ruii~lil~g ollirliol~ot' the ,jn(lgew t11c ill t11is ciistnI tile ~ I I I S I ! ~ V ~ 1v11icIl II:M 11ei!11~ l r i ~ i ~ ( l y L~~~II i ~ ~ r i l ~ lllcr,t t l l u cxistcr~cc t i 01' 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 irI clear ~ I RIIII 11irt:ct clecisio~lof 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 1 110 1 \)e for1 ~ ( ~ I . l l ~ l .K { ! I I ~ O Io b s ~ ~ ri l\l ~ ~ ~ s I 11iso1)i11io11,1 1 i ~ tt110 t ~:IliIl'a~tl!r 1 $1 lli1.1llrill 1 ~ ) 1 ' 1 1 slll{i(!ct. ii~lt('l'i~~l. t l ~ e ~ ' 10 Stiit~ltc. illci(1c11t o I)irtl~ t \vitlrirl tilt! a l l i ~ g i ; r ~of c ~ ? ~ t11~ Ki11g o111.v. ' l ' l ~ i rih111ilrki l l its Iwari11g I I I ) I ) I I the ~ w 51 pruwn t questiol~,sl~oirlcl bc' clilnl jlit:tl l)y tl~t:~ ( l d 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 b ~i ld ik f;)ruign i~ l ~ ! coulltry, was rcgardi~dby tllc' law 11snot \wing i i dcpart111h

turc fro111 Icgiuncc of the Sovereign, or as coiistitlie 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,11i11stl ~ ereferred to the coliditiol~ of the father. iind liis la~vfula ~ tc~uporaryabode in a for~ d eign country, nii(1 110tto 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 Commori Law. I t contains, ~ ~ o \ v c v e r , tlle a v:llu:~Llc tliscnssiul~of the subject in the argument a t t l ~ cD:lr 1)y Lindall v. Parleer, who were of coiinsel. Sil~gnlar!yeriorlgl~, 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 delivered fro111 the Bench to which L)otli tljesc distillguisi~ecic o u ~ i s weye afterwards elevated. Sir Charles ~l A l ) l ~ > t ti, i f t ~ y ~ i i rLord Venterdell. was t11c11Chief d~ C1 Juaticte, tint1 clcli vercd tile only opi~iionin tlie case. w


Sir Willisln Blackstono ill his Comment;trics inti, mates t110 opi~iiolithat a t Common L a w a man h o ; ~ ~ oiit of' t l ~ c rcal~ri,of whatever parents, was itn alier~ He scclns to co~isitlertlie 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 \lyeare witlloot the aid of t l ~ eSt:~tutes. If 11e had b c c ~ i 1 an1 confidei~tlie would have arrived a t a differ, Rccve in his history of Euglish Law e n t cor~clutiio~~. * C.l Vo1. 2, 1 400. says that the Statute of Edward I11 ' r , . w was inadr! to reiriove solno doubts which were entertained about the deuization of children born of Englisli p i ~ r c n t s out of the Kingdom, and Ch. Kent xocms

to l~avc? entcrt:iincd tlic siimc opinion. 49.

2 Kent, Corn.,




Thc S t a t i i t ~ s tlrc? $;':l~glishI ' a r l i a ~ ~ i i ~tn t nlrich I of r~ 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:irerlby the Cor~wtitiltio~~t l ~ c .Stiitr of NI.IVP o r k , ildol)t(?(lin of 1 Hut i r ~l i Y b ' ( 2 I,;LI~S Y..Green'l. 116). i t was S. el~ac:to(l l ~ : i t iiftthr t l ~ c1st of' Max rrest. llorlc o f tlrn t Statutes of' Great 13ritair1,*Iro111(1 be c u ~ ~ ~ i d c r i ~ ~ l I,;Lw& of this Pt;itcb. 'I'l~cciIibct of' tlris i111dof t11(! ~ I I ~ I P C ~ I I C I I ~ , Icgisli~tio~~ of ('o~rgrx.ssI I ~ J ~ tlrc s~rl!jc.c-tof r ~ a t l ~ r ; i l i x ~ - ' I I ti01111i1s ~ ~ sto 1l ~ a wI I C vo1111itio11 ull tlrc cl~ilclrcn l 1 I 01' nf Al~~c!i.icar~ citizcris I ) I ) ~ I I aljroad 11utwee~1 1502 u ~ ~ d 1855. c . s c l ~ ~ s i v to~ t l ~ c c l dcrisiorr of' \vl)iit C:~I'~II. K~:II!, ? C ~ I I I ~ I I c;llls tllc. clorlila~~tr ~ t l d o ~ ~ l ) t fpri~iciplcs 53, . :i ul of' tlrcb C o i n ~ ~ ! o i ~ Law. I ) o r ~ ~ l n rt)llcbse l)rir~c:iplvs t cer~ tainly Ir:rvc becr~dnring the lorrg period irr \ ~ l r i c lthe neotl ol' tIrc111lras been sol)l~liedby statutory rc!gnlatic~~rs. I tl~inktlrey Ci1.e 11ot illtogctlrcr tlo~~btf'ul.I l)ut c o ~ ~ c ( ~tlrat, first, 1)y tlre ( ' O I I I I ~ ~ O I I,a\v, wlrclr a snl). isc I j c c t is trilvclir~g or so,jori~.~ri~lg ;tbroacl, c i t l ~ c r 0 1 1 the ~)ul)lic. l~~~sirlc~ris, 1:iwfnl * l c c a s i o ~ ~ h i s o\vrr, with o r on of thci csl)l.c?zs or implied lic.(?~hsc arld silrictio~~ tho of Posc~rt~igri. wit11 t11c i l ~ t ( * ~ ~ t i~ o ~ ~~I I I ' I I ;isI I l~ ~ e an11 of I ~ ~ , con.tillrlc!s I I I I ~ I :tlle protc!ctit111of tlrc! Sovc!rc:ign powt?r, ~ so I I V rctaills tlrc privil(y,re!: ; I I I ~ conti~iucs rirrtlcr tlre obligiitini~sof' 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 S e c o ~ ~ t l . that as :IIC 11rriv(1rs~1I I H S ~ ~CF t l l c ? Common I,;i\v is parim I I sequitzis patren~,it is sunicicrrt fur t1rc application of tlie clnct1.ir1cajust slatcrl, tli:rt tlrc f i ~ t l ~ i lsllo~il(lhc a r slll!jec!t Iri~vfnllynlld w i t l ~ o r ~ t l)rc;~cli l ~ i sallcgicnce of beyolltl the Rea, no matter w l ~ a tmay 1)c tlit! c n ~ ~ d i t i o n

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 tlc~~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 ~ p o r a rresiderlcc multiplied, 1~1it1 1 1 e y ~ qucstior~ as p r c s c ~ ~ t c d the Courts, and this was l ~ y to the du~cl0~~111c11t a p l ) l i c a t i o ~ ~ the doctrincs of and of Y tl;c C o r n ~ ~ l o l ~ Tlicm. Eo11rt11, that the Statute of Ed0) marc1 111, was not intcl~tlcd, is i t to bo understood nor au nbrogatil~g esisting rule of law, and introducil~g :r now r~rle t l ~ e Ly will of' the Legislature merely, 1)ut was dccl:iratory in its ~ ~ i ~ t u r ea,t least furrlislles evior dcncc tll:it tllc rulc of tile Common Law was other t l ~ : ~ n that co111;iilledi 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 h a l ~to a strailled c o ~ ~ s t r l ~ c t of nthe Statute of Edward, a11t1 io is a11 i r n p o r t u ~ ~ t irldicatinn of the origiri of the whole doctril~tr011 this sui~,jcul. rr I t I I I ~ ~ ob,jcctcd that the country in wl~ich sue11 Lc 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 ~ cparents who merely temporary, and wllore t l ~ c cl1ildrc:11were removed before their nlajority. Csscs migllt., ~)crhaps, supposed when the cl~ilclrun be woultl 11c to sonlo extent under both allegiances, or a t least luigl~t entitled or bound to elect between the Lo as two. Llut ~vllcn, in this case, the parent returns to liis ~rativc 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 e g i a ~ i cor, that of his children, on accourlt of ~ c 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! o o ~ o t xecln rnnterial, so long nx i t is d n 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.


A l t l ~ o n p l ~do~nicil, t YRR that of a mercllant tema i porarily resident abroad, intending, a t some future time, althougll a t a time not defined, to ruturn to the U~litedStates, 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 t h a 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 LOTTdieson ted.

& Ff

Anna R. Ludlam, the plaintiff and appellant, died February 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. Resent, Hon. HENRYDATIES, E. Acting Chief Judge,



S n u LUDLAM EDWARD LUDLAM, Wn~icwz hEwrrr and MAXI-I H. MO M. LEDLAM, I I Dcfts, Respondents.
On reading and filing the petition of Carmen M. Ludlam,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 b thereon to said Carmen M. Ludla~n 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 admission of service thereof by tlie attorneys of the res 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 and in the name of Carmen I . d Ludlam as csecutrix, kc., .of Anna R. Ludlam, deceased, as plaintiff and appellant.







.. - .- - . ..


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


LUDLAhI, l\~II.l,l.i~I11. l i I < i V I T ' ~ M.ASl!,IO 11. i111al J.I'I>LA 11. .I:,.yi,,n,l..:,f.<. . . - - . . . .

Poi~ats lor Appellant. 1 ilr: : I C I ion vras brouglit by the testatrix, ~vllo n llntive of is tl~is S~:ltc. catnl>lish lier riglit to the procccds of real estate to of a C ~ I I C ' P ; I S C Iuncle, one half of which is claimed by the de~ fcud:t~lt Mnsimo 31. Ludltlm, l ~ e brother, a native and citizen r of S o u t l ~:\mcricn. '.l'l~cotl~cr (l~lc!id;uits were tbe testamentary guardians of tile tn-n cliililrc~~. 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 ~ t c c i l . e~:ligratecl to Limn ill lie 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 11ativct of South America. (Fol. 31, 32.) 1 1 1 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.)
I 1




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.) s I n 1837 he visited New York with h ~ 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 December, 1837 ; aiid her father died in that city, some four months after her birtli. (Fol. 5, 31.) I n 1847, rluri~igt 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 B Y 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~ringhim snrviving, the perso~~s that behalf named in the complaint as his in only heirs-at-law. 2. That the plaintiffand 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, sale for t l ~ c 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 becomiug H 1)crilianci1tresident of Lima, in Peru, South America, a i d ut'cst;iblisliing his permanent clomicil there, and, in a few 111o11tl1s t11ero;~ftcr become such permanent resiclent in such did last limned place, and there establislled his permanent domicil. 6. 'l'l~atin 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.


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. capacity to take real cstnte by d o s c ~ n and; Tllc t auci devise, has been d u i i ~ ~ e d liillitcd by tllc Rcvisctl Statutes nnd if the rospondcnt w ~ an :\lie11 in 134.7, wlicn Tliomas It' 3 Ludlam died, the estate clcsccnded to tllc plaintilf:
1. The preamble to tlie Act of Tcl.iurc, sI~o\\.s tile pnrpose of the lcgisliiturc to nilopt lived ailll 11eii11ite rules of inclusion tun1 csolusion.
I Rcavilcd Sr:~totes,i l i .

2. " Every ' cilize,~f tlrc L7iitl.d S&afesis cnpal~le 11vldo ' of " iilg lunils i~itllin Sti~tc, of taking the sitme this and " by descent, devise or l)urcl~nsc.''
1 Ila:\.isud Statutes, i l 9 ,


3. Subseqr~cnt sections of the Statute prc~scriLo tho conaliens can talie ant1 lioltl lnilds ditions on \vliicli alo~:e, ~vitllin the S t n t c ; nn:.l it 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 stal~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 b y 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 18-17,whic11:nade in the alic:i-bcin.~ of an Aii~cric.:uic:ll~igrn~it, an alien wife, so11 by " a citizen of the Gliited Statcs."
1. 'lllle stattitcs of t l ~ Stiitc ;lo riot d c c l : ~ ~ . ~h is '' a ? ~ o ~ i t i z c n tho Cui~cci of States!" ancl tlint cluestion must be iletcrl~~inctl ikllcri~llairs. I.)?;
2. It \\.as l)rol)crly nusilmcd by tlie lbdcral govcriiiricnt, that i l l tllc :L~)SCIIL'C~ 1n' sl!eciIic stntutc, tllc children of citizclls Lo]-11 :lI.ll'i~;ld \ - u u ~be ; I ~ ~ ( ;~ and nccord\ c~ 'IJ iilgly, i l l l;!'til, C'vi~;:;!.cs:: cll;ictc~l ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ \ ~ i s i o n , a after:v:rril3 rcl,c:~lccI! tllat " 111cc:l~il~'lrc:~~ of ~'itizc~is the of ';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.

nl Large, 103.

3. T l ~ e~ c of 17'35, ~vllicli rcl)calc(l t l ~ n tof 1790, con: t 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."

r.d. Slatutcs at L:lrgu,

4.46,sec. 3 and

1.Tile act of Id02 repcaled tlic prcvio~isStatntcs, and
eiinctcxl a 11eiv r~ilc,li~nitii~g n!q~licntion to the its cl~ildreii tll0dC 11-liowcrethen or 1.hcretoforecitizens of 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 l w when this estate dea 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 the respondof ent 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, a distinguished from m "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 rcspondeut ; as it is conceded that it l ~ n snever 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, of before thc stnt~ltc 25 Etl\v., 3, is that referred to in tlie notc of D j c r : 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~ringis 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~iof sul?jcct born " be}-ond tllc sen: i)z the scrcice o f 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 inaugurated 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 l 1 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 inheriL' 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 said parliament, do approve and assembled in t l ~ c 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 l ~ e t ~leatli t,hcirancestors, of ;' in ;ill parts withill tllc liegiance of H11g1atid1as well " as those born within the same liegi;i~ice. ;' llnd that all children inheritors: which hence"fortl~sl~all born out of the liegiance of tlie King, be '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~itlnrl\-fiutngc, to have and bear in" heritance witliiu tllc same liegiance, as the other " illlleritors nfbrcsr.i~lin time to come : So always that " the noth hers of such children passed the sca by the "licc~lsesttd ~vill their husbands" of
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 ~ oservice 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~il~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~llcritfrom 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 liegi:ulc.e ntid faitli of England, shall be entitled to i ~ i l ~ r r'' t time to come." i in

6. Under these provisions, n, persoii iheretofore born abroad of English 1,arents-not of the royal familyand 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 cleelaratory 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, it 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 t take effect in til~lc:to co~nc." o

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

9. The respondent could not clailil tlic bellefit of this and the 1:iter English ~5'6atulesV I I 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.

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

SEVEXTH. however tlic spccu1:~tioiis()fjuristsat a later If period, can pr01)erly be rcsortccl to fi lr tllc 1)url)oecof clisplacing an enabling clause in an act ol' 1':1rli:i111clit, antedating an11 it the yro.yecticc ~.t~le assumcd to inarrgurzitc~,we s111)niit that as between the English autllorities oil tllis s~iljcct prcpontlic derance is decisive against the resl)ull(lcnt ; aiicl that thc conclusioils of thovc wl~osc rcscarclics i1lt.l) the c:irlier history of tlle law were rnnclc a s~~ccialty, elltitlcll to far greater :lrc 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~ Ekliv. 4, says he of

is an alien, " which is born out of the li~qianceof our Sovereign lord the Ring."
Cokc's Littleton, 128, h. wc., 198.

2. Coke, writing in 1593, co~nr~lerits this passage t l ~ u s on : " ~ l l i s nalienigc~ia, derived froin tlie Lntin word. , is alie~ius,and according to tllc etylnology of the " ~vorcl, signilictl~ it one born in a stran,gc c o u ~ ~ t ~ , " u ~ ~ d tllc oheilicncc of strange prince or country. er (:111(1tlierefvr~~ nr;tct1)11saith that this exocptiou i L p ~ * o pd t$ c z m ~ ~ a / ; o ) ~ i s , rather be pl.opter te ~ .t ~ e should dr/;.ctunk s/~l~ec/iv~~l:Sj,Littleton anitli. (which c)r us " is the surest) out of tlic licginnce vf the Bing."
Coke's Littleton, 129,a.


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 : LiA1lalien 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~,suhject b o r ~ ~ " n cannot be a suI,jcct of the I<il~g England, of "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 doubt." [The :lutllor here a 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~:.licritInnrle i l l I.:ngl:iiil.! : which iiuc.!stion,it seems. I~nn: been :!8.bfi!r4c l ~ i !l;arlinment t in tlic cigl~teu~ltl~ of this King's rcign, but ;;car .; rlutl~ing Iln(l 11cc11 i8ie;l. The Statute first de(LC; .-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'!/(!)tt*s! 1 / t i 0 . 5 1 it! t~t:~.y 1 rule 7'C!hl/il?~ ;l, ./;,om to ' . ~ f ' ! / t 1 / la,/. ijt the of n .szlbj?ject;] a~lrlhath 1;s .; i~l\va~.s SII, tl~t.!111echildrell, o the liit?g. born 1.1t:cn f '' in any ;~:irt of t'lc \vo~-lcl, have a right to inherit; '-U I I ( ~this! :ii'~:i)rlling the observation made in the * . I I L I I ~ ~ t i ct .~1.8.11ty 111!Io\v. uryuiitent to pvoue, t J l ! l / ;)L '. tt"~: (:!is# ! l C ~ ; ; I ~ ) ~ :L~~~I ~ j ? j h c t Zazti z c m ! ~ ~ j / ~ t ~ t ~ / / ! ~ i ~ , l I ee ~ . .. tri to be /.~!.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.~> tliink mas misapprehended. \\.e
I t KLLS not t l ~ lir';n!.il~,~l ~vllicli one of dowerc fi1se, wns

L I La~ c:rel: ~ ~ : i t ~ : lill tlie observations of the author, .l alltl ilccidtt~lin 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~hm mother was not an English i " 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 . , ( , . . ~ [ ~ ~tqiri." t,: But Judge Jenkins precedes the statement of thir (.fist? \vit.ll t l ~ c i;~llon.ingobservations, r h i c h clnim ~ we to be ~tt'finy( ~ ~ t ? i o i ini / ~ / favor, proceeding f o ~ our rm



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 full 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 o trade, was sustained by C 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, decidud in 17'91, is direct ail11 explicit against tbe claim of the respondent. Lord Kenyon Ch. J. said: 'I ?'lie cha)tzctcr of a L i natzlral-borti subject, (~)ltCrior to any of the statutes, was illcidentnl to birth only. Whatever were the '+situationof liis parents, tllc being born .lui&?~in the ~iall~yiunce thc hi'tzg, constituted a natural born of 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~iLam 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~nlniiwoulcl Lo ii Uritisli subject 1 Cllitty's Comn~. w , 1li, 119, 130. L
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~nof tlle respondent, that though 5orn in Peru, he ~v:wa citizen of the United States because his father was a citizcii.
I. In Peclz v! 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 ~ b r e i y n coza~t~*y, a n ctlieiz." was
26 Wendcll, 623.

2. Chancellor Keat, who is relied on as an authority against us, s : ~ j sin tlio test of the commentaries in treating of illiet~sand 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~lLbizlazu, 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.


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.


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

R.,584, Lyncl~ Clarke. v



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(li11gthere for temporary purposes, as for hcilltl~, or c:~iriositj-, or occnsional business. It \C.(:)IIICI dillicult Ilotvever to assert, that in .the bc l!rcscl~tstatc ui' public law, such a qualification ir uuivel.snlly established. "
Story on Conflict of Laas, sec. 48.


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.



The moment a foreign donlicil is abandoned, the " native domicil is reacquired. But a mere return to his native country, witl~outan intent to abandon I i his foreign donzicil, does not work any change of his domicil."
Story on Conflict of Laws, sec. 48.


9. Tlie foreign bur11 cllil(lrc~lof citizens, are aliens a t cornmon Inn..
3 Ur;iclli~rti. 131. 136.

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

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

10. I n t l ~ c recei~t cl:ll)orntct ol)il~ion the ~)rcscnt tt,orof A Iley (;cucrtll 01, r'/'/,'z!.lr.~lrip, oflicially communicnted to the Sccrct:u,y o S t l ~ cI ' I ~ c L s L I ~ ~ IIC hacl oclc:isiou to ' , examine tllc 1~11c,stiunand the following extracts : he show the trouctl I I R ~ O ~ Ia.t~ ~vliic11 :lrrivcll.
'i'l'liat nnfi\.ity l i m ~ i s l ~ c s ~ cr ~ d c hot11 of d u t ~ tl , itii~i(l right, ; ~ sbctwcen t11c iudivitl11:ll ar~clthe of "(30vcr111nc11t. is n I~istoric;\li~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 tI lI ~ : ~ t is needless , it "to Ijrovc its :totl~urit~.Srvcrtl~clcss, i r the? sat,isf "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~ailksr. Dupont ; ant1 scc : very learnc?cltreatise, :~ttribllted L " to Mr. Uinney, i11 2 11111. a w I(.(y)orter. 193. L " I n the United Srntcs, it is too Intc no\\. to deny " the political rigl~tsuull oblig:ttiuns co~lILrrc?dand 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 ~ ~ pknow11 to all men, bec:nusc s 'spre-existent :\nc.l n r t ~ ~ r nnncl therefore tLi11gs of l, '. which the 1an.s illust take cogniznrluo. :\cting out I d t,liis guiding t l i o ~ ~ g l our Cnnstitntio~l tloes no ~t, Inore than grant to Congress (ratl~cr than to any " other clepartmc~~t'j pon7er "to establish a unitho "form rule of nntnrn1iz:ltion." And our lnwr macle

'. in pursuance tllerc:ol'i~~di~o mntle citizen with all the

" the rights ant1 ol)ligatio~~s t l ~ cnatural citizen. of A n d so strongly \\.as (:ungrclss ililpresscd with the

" great legal fact that t l ~ ecllilcl 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 ~ ctllc~alien~ t " agc of chil(1rcn of ollr l i ~ ~ o \1~~11o~v-i~itizer1~. \~~i who " happc~ito be 11or11in f'ureign cou~~tric>s, act l'he " of February 10, 185.',, 10 Statutes. GO4,l)roviclcs, " t111ct 1)cr:;ons 1lcrcrofi)rc: I)or11, or l~crcnftcrto be '' bor11,out oi'tlic lil~iits jurisclictio~lot'tl~cIrnited arlcl " States, sll:~lll)e tleen~ctl an11 cousitlercd, a i d are " hercby clcclarccl to be. c i t i z e ~ ~ s tlict Uliitcd Stntes : OE I'~.ovided, hozucver, 'l'liitt tllc rigllt of' citizciiship sliall 1i9t tlc.~c~en~l j)cbrsnn..;wl~oscli~tllcrsliever to :' residec.l in the U ~ ~ i t c c l St:~tc.s. " SE~'. i l ~ r tbe it ,titr:ftt 1. ejcrtr.le!l, 'I'11:lt : L I I ~vonia11 2. l " \vho 111ig11t l:~\vS~~lly~ ~ : l t ~ ~ r n l u~iiler existbc i z c e l the " ing 1ii11-s. ~n:~rricil, w l ~ osliall Le rriarricd to a or citizen of the V ~ ~ i t cStates, sllnll 1)e dconletl and il taken to l)c :I citizeu." B u t for that :ii81, c.llil~lr.c~r~ OIW citizens wlio 01' L1happcnto 1)c I)oni at IAondvn, Paris, or Home, '' wl~ilc their 11:~rcntsarc? t l ~ c r e n priva1.c visit of un pleasure or 1)usincss. 111igllt l.)e Ijruugl~t to the " native 11on1cof tllt:ir ~):u.cnts, only to lilicl tllnt thcy i 4 tl~c~nsclves wc.rc aliclls i l l tl~cir.h t l ~ e r scountry, incap:11)11! ilil~critiug111eirfi~tl~crs' and with 01' Itinc.1, " 110 right to dcnlnnd the protectio~~ their fictllcrs' of " goyernnicnt. :t'/iut is tlv / / o r OJ' f~irllr ( [ t t11~ ~ o ~ l t~ wt ov ~ ~ n ~ i f E.l,~!yla/~d, nucl ~ ~ l ~ t ~ u n l; ln11t.1 c:le:ir i i c ~ uow, Loth in l F;i~glancli1nc1 Amcrica-.-~nodilie(l0 1 1 1 ~ 1): statutes l L rn;~defro111 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,

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

JOHN E. PORTER, Counsel fm Appellant.

CAR~IER n ~ b ~Admx. of ANNA Lc r, R.

Plff. and Applt.,

Maxmo LUILAM, Impleaded with others, Deft. and Respdt.

Slalernent olr behalf o f Maximo Ladlam.
1. T l ~ oplaintiff 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 ~ agnnrdians 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. ( o s10 to 14.) Fl.

The plaintiff claims the whole of the proceeds of this inheritance, as the only heir-at-law of her father, a l l e g 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. ( u , P t9.) And this is tho only question. TIIE FACTS \!-ere given in evidence by C'cir~nel*'. LudTI Z r m , motl~cr the two cli~irnant~, of Nnxi~iioand 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~litedSlates, in biarcli, lS04. (Fol. 36.)

In 1S.38 11e left tllo conntry to seek employmciit and to bcttcr liis condition, illtendi~~g go to Linla, in Peru. (Ful.36.) In 1626 1:e was clerk of n l~oueein Lima ; nnd in 18.18 m:~r~.iecl \rite, Carmcr, a ~ ~ n t i vof Cllili, and ~nesider~t his e of Peril, and w e ~ illto blisilie~s llis own account, and ~t OII 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 i n t c ~ ~ d eto return llcre to d educate llis children. (A!. When 110cawe lionlo in 34.) 1837, 11ea11d l ~ i s copart~ler broke u p 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 case mere made, and an appeal taken and a to the Qenesal Term (fol. 553, m l ~ otliet-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~lgfor ju ab3olui0 agnirljt Iier, if this Conrt el~ouidaffirm tlie judgment nppeale6 from. (pols. 62 to GP.) The qliestion is stated, and fnlly considered by Emott,

J, in his opinion. (321s. 66 to .


First Paiut,-The qnestion of inheritance to lands i n New York depends upot~tlie law of New York, embracing 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~~encol ~ cststus t 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 tl~ie . 011



R. S., 759.)

B t by the Coqnmon Law, every persou, not an u, alien by the law of New York, is capable of taking by descent.

4. d n d by the Revised Statotes, Art. IT, ch. 1, Part cvery citizen oftheunited States 131, (1B.S., 719), 'c 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 C O I ~ I I ~l iOL ~ to c:ipacity for dcsccnt, but tlic ~ ns ~ el~lergeit, estcntling it to nll pcl~sons wllo arc citizel~sof any Stntc, CJ-CII tliollgl~tl~cywould 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 pcrmanent allegiance to t l ~ c i i r ~ g Engln~ld. l of Tlie \vliolc subject is discussecl ill Calvin's cnse (7 Rep., I), tile pril~ciplcsannounced in which case are i~lcontestiblyprinciples of tlie coln~nonlam. I n that case it is hold tl~nt alienngc does not dcpcnd on being Lon1 out of tllc .liingdol~ior Statc, but out of the allegiance of its ruler. Thus, lncn born in Scotlaritl (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 King, ~ v l ~ it1, liis own pero son, united the public cnpncitics of Iiing of botll. And, the cl~ildrenof 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~osecliildren 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 esist so as to embrace his issue born may 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; displace as absolutely essential. tinctly disclai~ning 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~inorchildren, is their natilral gnardian, and is entitlcd to their service. In illegitimate birth, ns tho mother alono is the parent ~ ~ O J T to the law, I I 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 ~ i m a r y obediencej by and ml~o, the maxirn of lam, follows his status, if

the father remains a citizen, all analogy of law presumes the child to I~ave same civil stntus. the 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.110former. See ShzrZey's Ctue, 1Dyer, 1). 144 a. Tlic cllilcl born nbroad partakes of bot11. IIence it is, tl~nt l ~ e t 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~rstrnctiorlof t l ~ edisability of nlieiinge, " and rather contracting than cste~ldingit too se" verely." I'er Lt1. Hale iu Paca v. Colliagwood, 1 'CT~'l2t?'i8, p. 4.7. at So also, Kent C. J., 3 John. Cas., 123. alienage is not nt any time to of the Legislature llas " been so f'l.eque~ltlydeclared in favor of aliene " lloldiog lands."

" be favored, sillce tlie policy

" This objection of

And the father, perhaps, 111aydecide for his minor child, or tlie child nt years of discretion Inay decide for himself, which ~llegiance will perma11e 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 authority, as well as tlie ground of of pl.incil~le, i l l favor ot' not il~capncitntingthe issue is 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 longer rcqnino site for lawf111 absence, nll citizclls going abroad nre lawfiilly in tllc contlition of tl~nsc 1 1fortnorly ob~ o tllc tained license, a1111thcir issnc sl~oultlbc i t ~ same condition. Bacon v. Bacon, Cro. Car., G01, i s ill point. The Statnte of 25 Pdw. I I L , ch. 2, (7e natis ~ J t r a mare, was dec1arntol.y of tlic cornluorl law. See Pur1;e Arg.. 3 B n r ? ~t.G C'YCSB., ; (9 779 Ehg. C. L. N., 2SS), Doo v. As?tlain. See, too, tlle nct 20 CUP.I]., c?~. on tllc same 6, subject. Tho cl~il(lrcnof' El~glisll~)al.cntsborn 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~vebee11 passed to rcnlovc cloul)ts ns to tho " ~ - u l of t l ~ c o ~ i ~ ~lawo 011~ e i i ~ tlic eul)jcct,,&e." See, also, S:111Clti)r(l's I ' C I ~ I D ~i ~ Y Lynch v. n Clark~, Sr:znd. C?L A!., 1 G53. Tllo obscn~*ity tllc question on this s~il)ject, of owing to t l ~ e nicetics of tlle f'cnd:ll syetern, tllc diIwfbrc tho consolitlation of versity of fiorercig~~ties tlic kingdolns nf Qscnt Bl-itnil), 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 new laws. grounds of policy for f'ran~ing The discussio~i this sul~jcct,by tho Judge nt OII 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~ipis riot to bc presunicd, but to be aftirmntivoly proved. No fact ia P ~ O V Cin the case not equally consistent with t l ~ o ~ intcrit to return, as ~vitli tlint not to return.
2. Tllc cvidcnce of tlic ~vii'crind motlicr is distinct ns intcr~t rctiirn. I t is no ol~jcctionto this, to to t l ~ c that slie saw no letters and can state no pro~l~inent fact; it 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 a citizen. Belof ligerent cbarnctcr is nscribed to ~.csitlcncc persons of acknowledged not to be of belligcrcnt nlloginncc. 1 l h n t Corn., ; 2 l i n t , 49-50 ; Tho 'Vk~zw, 78 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 o g a y 10, 1810, $8 1, 2, 3 ; Id., 830. f

Pivacy, by citizens cruising under a foreign cornmission. Act April 30,1790, § 9, B ~ * i g k t l r ~ ' s 207. Dig., Treason : If nny person oying allcgiancc to the



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; I .201. d Being subject to laws growing out of citizenship, h e i s entitled to its privileges. See Pr. Harshall, 2 Cranch R., 120, in illurray vs. The Churning Betsey.

Fourtlr Point.-It

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 contracted by evesy temporary resident abroad to the country of dornicil arrd t o the coul~tryof 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-


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. A p ~ i t14,1803, 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.

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,
-againstNEW 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 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: