Jackson ex dem. Williams v. Stokes

3 Johns. 151
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1808
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 3 Johns. 151 (Jackson ex dem. Williams v. Stokes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jackson ex dem. Williams v. Stokes, 3 Johns. 151 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).

Opinion

Kent, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court. The convictions under the act of 1779, of deceased persons, were out of the ordinary course of practice, and cannot be tested by ordinary rules. They were in the nature of bills v of attainder; and the legislature most clearly intended, that the convictions and forfeitures under the act, should apply as well to offences committed prior, as subsequent to the passing of the law. In giving each part a construction, the whole act is to be taken together. Its object is declared to be the forfeiture and sale of the estates of persons who had adhered to the enemy, and many persons were by name, ipso facto, convicted and attainted of an antecedent offence. The formality of an indictment and notice, in the case of a deceased person, was a substitute for the specification of the name of such person in the statute, and was attended with equal effect in respect to the forfeiture [153]*153of his estate. The conviction, in order to save the rights and prerogative of the state, was made to have relation back to the death of the person convicted; and as the prosecution was made to apply to offences committed prior to the passing of the act, so it was immaterial whether the offender was alive or dead upon that day. The law declares, that the indictment and conviction, shall be equally operative whether the defendant was dead or in full life. The proceeding in question is to be resolved into the plenitude of legislative authority, and we have only to inquire what was the real intent and meaning of the law. The constitution authorised the legislature to pass bills of attainder for crimes committed during the revolutionary war.

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

Judgment for the defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dow v. Northern Railroad
36 A. 510 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1886)
Rich v. Flanders
39 N.H. 304 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1859)
Denn ex rel. Boyd v. Banta
1 N.J.L. 266 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1795)
Den v. Banta
1 N.J.L. 308 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1795)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Johns. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-ex-dem-williams-v-stokes-nysupct-1808.