Beekman v. Tomlinson
Opinion
Tbat'the defendants committed treason, and thereby incurred a forfeiture of tbeir estate to tbe public, gives them no claim to tbe discharge of tbeir debts, nor bad any effect to dissolve tbeir contracts. Marks v. Johnson, ante, 228. And tbe provision under tbe act of confiscation, for letting in creditors upon tbe estate forfeited to tbe public, was in favor to tbe creditors, and intended solely for tbeir [293] benefit, that they might not lose their debts: But their waiving the benefit of that provision, does not, by the words, or any implication of the act, bar their right of recovery against the person of the debtors, or the estate they might afterwards acquire, or had at the time of confiscation, either in this state or elsewhere.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 Kirby 291 (Beekman v. Tomlinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.