v. SEARS'S ADMINRS, FENWICK upon the laws of particular ftates. This court is to be governed by the law of the place where the tranfaction happened, unless where the laws of the United States apply. The court in this cafe are to decide by the laws as they exift in Maryland; and there the laws of England refpecting bills of exchange and promissory notes have always been the rules of decifion. We are not in Maryland to be governed by whimsical opinions drawn from either Pennsylvania or Virginia. Virginia has not been remarkable for her progrefs in commerce; and were I to form a fyftem of commercial law, I fhould certainly not draw it from the fantastical opinions adopted in either of THOMPSON v. thofe ftates. In England, what is due notice has been and is fettled and determined to be matter of law to be decided by the court. On the 25th of February, The Court gave the following judgment. "It is decreed by the court that the defendants Stricker "and Payfon, not having obtained letters of adminiftration « in the district of Columbia, were not competent to main"tain this action; and that the circuit court of the "United States in and for the said district erred in over"ruling the demurrer. It is therefore confidered by the "court, that the judgment of the faid circuit court, on "the faid demurrer, be, and the fame is hereby reverfed, "and that judgment thereon be rendered for the defend"ant in the original action.” THOMPSON v. JAMESON. ERROR from the circuit court of the diftrict of JAMESON. Columbia, fitting in Alexandria. An action of The reporter was not in court when this judgment was entered, but debt for £. 860 he has understood that the court did not align the reafons upon which 12 1, founded their opinion was grounded; and gave no opinion upon the other point un a decree in Ste Evans on bilis, 67,68, 69, 70, 71, as to notice. v. a certain day to ance is fatal. Thompfon, in the year 1795, being indebted to Had- THOMPSON held, a perfon refiding out of the jurifdiction of the commonwealth of Virginia, and Hadfield being indebted JAMESON. to Jamefon and Brown as partners in merchandize, the chancery, is not latter obtained from the county court of Fairfax an at- fupported by a tachment in chancery, in the nature of a foreign attach- decree for ment, to stay the effects of Hadfield in the hands of £860 12 1 Thompson, under an act of affembly of Virginia, en- with intereft from titled "An act directing the method of proceeding in the day of render "courts of equity against absent debtors, or other abfent ing the decree. "defendants, and for fettling the proceedings on attach- But the vari"ments against abfconding debtors." Revifed code, p. 122, Upon an atch. 78. This act directs, "that if in any fuit which tachment in "hath been or hereafter fhall be commenced for relief in chancery under « equity, in the high court of chancery, or in any other the laws of Virginia, the re"court, against any defendant or defendants who are out cord ftated that "of this country, and others within the fame, having " I. T. in open "in their hands effects of, or otherwise indebted to, fuch court became fe❝ absent defendant or defendants, and the appearances of curity that I. H. (the abfent "fuch absentees be not entered, and fecurity given, to the debtor) fall "fatisfaction of the court, for performing the decrees; up- perform the de"on affidavit that such defendant or defendants are out cree of this court «of the country, or that upon enquiry at his, her, or Quere Wheif against him." "their ufual place of abode, he, fhe, or they could not ther an action "be found, fo as to be ferved with procefs; in all fuch of debt will lie "cafes the court may make any order, and require fure- against I. T. for "ty, if it fhall appear neceffary, to restrain the defend- creed against "ants in this country from paying, conveying away, or I. H.? « fecreting the debts by them owing to, or the effects in «their hands, of fuch abfent defendant or defendants; "and for that purpofe may order fuch debts to be paid, " and effects delivered, to the faid plaintiff or plaintiffs, "upon their giving fufficient fecurity for the return there"of, to fuch perfons, and in fuch manner, as the court "fhall direct." It further provides, that the court fhall appoint fome day in the fucceeding term, for the abfent defendant to enter his appearance, and give fecurity for performing the decree; and fhall order notice to be published, &c. and if the abfent debtor fhall not appear and give fuch fecurity, within the time limited; the court may proceed to take fuch proof as the complainant fhall offer; and if they shall thereupon be fatisfied of the juftice of the demand, they may order the bill to be taken as confeffed, and make fuch order and decree therein as to them fhall seem juft, and may enforce due performance thercof, &c. the amount de.. THOMPSON V. JAMESON. In the record of that cafe in Fairfax county court, it is ftated, "that at a court continued and held for the faid "county, on the 18th day of June, in the year last men❝tioned, came the complainants aforefaid, by their attor"ney, and thereupon Jonah Thompson, in open court, "became fecurity that the faid Jofeph Hadfield shall perform "the decree of this court, if against him, and on motion of "the faid defendant, Jofeph Hadfield, by his attorney, "the attachment is difcharged as to the effects in the hands "of the other defendants." The court, at a subsequent term, on the 19th of November, 1799, decreed, that it "having appeared to the fatisfaction of the court, that "the complainants bill hath been duly taken for confef"fed, after his appearance by attorney, and giving fecu"rity for performing the decree against him, the court "doth adjudge, order, and decree, that the complainants "do recover against the faid Jofeph Hadfield, the fum "of eight hundred and fixty pounds, twelve shillings "and one penny, fterling, (to be fettled in Virginia cur"rency, at the rate of twenty per cent. exchange,) to"gether with intereft on the fame, at the rate of five per cent. per annum, from the 8th day of March, 1795, "until the day of pronouncing this decree, and also his cofts "by him expended in the prosecution of his bill here." Hadfield having failed to perform this decree, and Brown, the partner of Jamefon, being dead, Jamefon brought the prefent action of debt in the circuit court of the diftrict of Columbia, against Thompfon, founded upon his responsibility as fecurity for Hadfield's performing the decree. The declaration was "of a plea that he ren"der unto him the fum of eight hundred and fixty pounds, "twelve shillings and one penny, fterling, of the value "of one thousand and thirty-two pounds, fourteen fhil"lings and fix pence, Virginia currency, equal to three "thousand, four hundred and forty-two dollars, and for66 ty-one cents, United States currency, which to him he "owes, and from him unjustly detains; for this, that "whereas," &c. fetting forth the fubftance of the proceedings on the attachment in Fairfax county court, "and "whereas afterwards, that is to say, at a court held for "the faid county of Fairfax, on the 18th day of June, "1795, at the county aforefaid, the faid Jonah, in open court, became fecurity that the faid Jofeph would perform the decree of the faid court in the faid fuit, if against him. V. JAMESON. "In which said suit such proceedings were had, that the THOMPSON' "faid court of the county of Fairfax, on the 19th day "of November, that is to fay, at the county of Alexan"dria aforefaid, did adjudge, order and decree, that the "faid Robert B. Jamefon and co. fhould recover from "the faid Jofeph, the faid fum of £. 860 12 1, fterling, "(to be fettled in Virginia currency, at the rate of twen"ty per cent. exchange,) together with intereft on the fame, " at the rate of 5 per centum per annum, from the 8th day of March, 1795, until the day of pronouncing the "faid decree, and also their costs by them expended in "the prosecution of the faid bill. All which by the re"cord thereof, now remaining in the office of the coun ty court of Fairfax, will more fully and at large appear. "And the faid Robert B. Jamefon, in fact avers, that "the said Joseph has not in any manner performed the "decree of the faid court of Fairfax county, in the cause "aforefaid made, in this, that he has not paid to the said "Jamefon and co. in the life time of the faid Brown, "nor to the faid Jamefon, who has furvived the faid "Brown, the faid fum of £.860 12 1 fterling, or the "value thereof in Virginia currency, at the rate of ex"change in the faid decree mentioned, with intereft there"on as awarded by the faid decree; which faid decree, in "form aforefaid, yet remains in full force and effect, not "reversed or fatisfied; by reafon whereof, action accrued "to the faid Jamefon and co. to demand and have from "the faid Jonah, the said sum f £. 860 12 1, fterling, of "the value aforefaid. And the faid Jamefon further avers, "that the faid Brown, on the day of in ❝ the year There was an office judgment at the rules in November, 1801, which was not fet afide at the next fucceeding court in January, 1802. At April term, 1802, the defendants counsel moved to fet afide the office judgment on ย. THOMPSON pleading nil debet. The court being divided on the propriety of that plea to an action founded on the record of JAMESON. a court of one of the states, the plea was not received, and a bill of exceptions was taken by the counsel for the defendant and figned by the judge who was against the admiffion of the plea. The pleas of nul tiel record and payment were then filed and iffues made up, on which the cause went to trial. The verdict upon the iffue of payment was in these words, "we of the jury find for the "plaintiff the debt in the declaration mentioned, and one "cent damages, to be discharged by the payment of two "thousand, five hundred and forty four dollars, forty nine "cents." And the defendant moved in arrest of judgment for the following reafons, Ift. Because the action is brought for fterling money, when it appears by the plaintiff's own fhewing in the declaration, that the original sterling debt has been changed by the decree of the county court of Fairfax, into the current money of Virginia. 2d. Because the plaintiff, in his declaration, declares for a fterling debt, and lays his damages in current mo ney. 3d. Because the jury have found their damages in current money, and have fixed the fum in current money, at which the said sterling debt might be discharged. 4th. Because it doth not appear by the plaintiff's declaration what was the nature of the defendant's undertaking as fecurity, whether it was by record, by bond, or by parols. 5th. Because the whole proceedings are irregular informal and erroneous. These reasons not being deemed fufficient by the court below, judgment was rendered for the plaintiff for ".861. 12. fterling, of the value of £.1032. 14. 6. Virginia "currency, equal to three thoufand, four hundred, forty "two dollars and forty one cents, United States currency, |