Jones v. Le Tombe

¶1GAPIAS -in Cafe. This was an atftion brought, Originally, in the Supreme Court, by John Coffin Jones., a‘citizen of Maffiachufetts, as Indorfee of James Swan, againffi the JDe-fcndant, the Conful General of the French Republic, as Drawer of a number'of protefted bills of exchange (for the aggregate amount of 385,964 livres turnois, 3 fols 8 den. equal to 70,05a dollars and 46 cents) correfponding with the following form r

¶2

¶3*385At the opening of the Term, Dallas and Du Ponceau -had obtained a rule, that the Plaintiff fhcwhis caufe of action, and why the Defendant ihould not be difcharged on filing a common appearance; and now Ingerfoll and E. Tilghman ihewed caufe, produced the bills of exchange, and.the Plaintiff’s po-fitive affidavit of a fubfiiting debt, including a declaration, “ that he was induced, principally, to purchafe the bills, in confideration of the character and private fortune of the Defendant, and that without the fulleft confidence in the perfonal credit and refponfibility of the Defendant, he. verily believed he would not have purchafed them.” They then contended, that the pofitive affidavit was fufficient, in this court, for holding the Defendant to bail; that it was not incumbent on them to ihew to whofe ufe the money was applied, Jince it was paid to the Defendant; that when a Conful a£ts as a merchant, and draws bills for caih- advanced, he is not entitled to any privi-ledge ; that the Defendant muff prove that he had a right to draw the bills as Conful; that even if he .had' the right to draw, he might pledge his private credit, in aid of his official function ; and that the critical fituation of the French Republic raifes a prefumpüon,'that the reliance was placed on the private credit of • the Defendant. The cafes heretofore decided in the Englijh courts, are perfectly diftinguiihable from the prefent cafe. 1 T. Rep. 174. They occurred between parties belonging .to the fame government; "and there was no proof of credit being given to the individual. In fupport of thefe pofitions were cited, 3 H. Bl. 554. Fait. b. 4. c. 6.f. 74.. 139. f 114. <2. Da'll. Rep. 247. 2 Stra. 955.

¶4The Counfel for the Defendant

¶5were hopped when they rofe to reply 5 and the Court were'unanimoufly and clearly of opinion, that the contradi was made on account of the government; that the credit was given to it as an official engagement; and that, therefore, there was no caufe of adtion againft the prefent Defendant.