Case of Williams.

COLVIN against MORGAN.

A member of the assembly is not entitled to his privilege after he has reached home though within the fourteen days.

THE defendant in this cause moved to be discharged from the arrest, on the ground that, being a member of the assembly, he was arrested within fourteen days after leaving the legislature, but he did not state whether he had reached his home or not, at the time of the arrest.

Per Curiam. If the defendant arrived at his home. within the fourteen days, and before the arrest, the reason of his privilege, and, of course, the privilege itself ceased. (Rev. Laws of N. Y. vol. 1, p. 133.) As the defendant does not state where he was at the time he was arrested, the motion must be denied, with costs. (a)

Rule refused.

*In the matter of WILLIAMS, an insolvent debtor.(b) [*416]

In proceedings under the "act for the relief of debtors, with respect to the imprisonment of their persons," creditors residing out of the state, as it respects notice, are to be considered as not to be found.

AN application was made in behalf of the insolvent, who was in prison, that he might be discharged under the "act for the relief of debtors, with respect to the imprisonment of their persons."

It was objected, 1. That notice had not been served on a particular creditor residing in the state of Massachusetts, nor an affidavit made that he could not be found.

2. That the sum for which the prisoner was charged in execution, was not mentioned in his petition.

(a) S. P. Corey v. Russell, 4 Wend. 205; Gra. Prac. 2d ed. 123, 124; see

Case of Williams.

3. That the inventory purports to be an inventory of his real and personal estate, when, in fact, no real estate was mentioned in it.

Per Curiam. All the objections are frivolous. A person residing out of the state, as to the service of a notice, under the act, is to be considered as not to be found.

Rule granted.

The Chief Justice was absent during the whole of this term, on account

of extreme sickness in his family.

END OF JULY TERM.

ADJUDGED IN THE

COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF IMPEACHMENTS

AND THE

CORRECTION OF ERRORS, (a)

IN THE

STATE OF NEW YORK,

FROM FEBRUARY 1798, TO FEBRUARY 1800.

[In Error:-Albany, February, 1798.]

HERMAN LE ROY, WILLIAM BAYARD and GERRIT BOON, Appellants, against LEWIS VEEDER, MICHAEL GALLINGER, HANS GALLINGER, LODOWICK SNYDEr, John SNYDER, NICHOLAS SHAFER, PETER RUPERT, JOHN HOWELL, MICHAEL RUSSEL, AMOS ANSLEY, GEORGE STAM, MATTHIAS LINK, JOHN SMITH, and JOHN FIMS, Respondents.(b)

Where a bill is filed by several complainants, praying an injunction and seeking relief on account of title deeds which are lost, an affidavit of one of the complainants, that "he had been informed and verily believed, and hoped

(a) By the 32d article of the constitution of the state of New York, this court is to consist of the "president of the senate for the time being, the senators, chancellor, and judges of the supreme court, or the major part of them; except that when an impeachment shall be prosecuted against the chancellor or either of the judges of the supreme court, the person so impeached shall be suspended from exercising his office, until his acquittal and in like manner, when an appeal from a decree in equity shall be heard, the chancellor shall inform the court of the reasons of his decree, but shall not have a voice in the final sentence and if the cause to be determined shall be brought up by writ of error, on a question of law, on a judgment of the supreme court, the judges of that court shall assign the reasons of such judgment, but shall have no voice for its affirmance or reversal." [A court for the trial of an impeachment has never yet been held.]

(b) S. C. 2 C. Cases in Error, 175, introduction to Caines' C. in Error, i.

Le Roy v. Veeder and others.

to prove, that the deeds in question did exist, and were lost or destroyed in the manner mentioned in the bill," is sufficient.

Whether a plea that a contract relative to land to be patented is illegal, be

cause it contravened the royal instruction (prior to the American revolution,) restraining the patents for lands to a certain quantity to each patentee, is a valid plea, quære?

It seems that a demurrer to a bill, charging that the defendants claimed land by conveyances from persons out of possession and praying a discovery of that fact, because it might subject the defendant to the penalties of the act for buying pretended titles, would be bad, unless it appears that the answer would show that the defendant knew of the vendors being out of possession, and of a subsisting adverse possession.

If a complainant be properly before the court for a discovery, and at the same time prays relief, a general demurrer to the bill for want of equity, or because the plaintiff has a fit and adequate remedy at law, is bad, unless it is manifest on the face of the complainant's bill, that no discovery or proof can possibly make his case a proper subject of equitable jurisdiction. Where several defendants in chancery put in separate demurrers, on which separate decrees were given, this court on the reversal of those decrees on appeal, obliged each respective respondent to pay to the appellants, his costs on the appeal, for each respective decree so reversed.

A court of equity, should always withhold its aid and countenance from a suitor, whose conduct appears in any part, such as a conscience rightly informed, cannot approve. Per Benson, J.

THE appellants (the complainants in the court below) exhibited their bill in chancery, against the respondents, and

sixteen other defendants, therein named, in which. 1*418] *they set forth, that governor Sir Henry Moore, on

the 2d February, 1768, purchased from the native Indians a tract of land, containing 25,000 acres, then in the county of Albany, but now in the county of Montgomery, for the use of Peter Lewis, Moses Ibbit, Peter Lewis, jun. Samuel Runyons, Peter Millar, Lucas Veeder, Peter Frederick, Stephen Hipp, Michael Russel, Peter Fiax, Leonard Crutzenbergen, Michael Gallinger, Andries Snyder, Nicho as Shafer, George Hipp, Johannes West, Adam Rupert, Francis Beard, George Keep, George Stam, Lawrence Eaman, Matthias Link, Thomas Morgan, Joseph Mordaunt, and John Timms, who, thereupon, petitioned for a patent, which issued to them accordingly, on the 28th February, thereafter; that in consideration of money, and other valuable considerations, (not known to the complainants) paid, delivered, or performed by

Le Roy v. Veeder and others.

the late Sir William Johnson, of the said county, to the said petitioners, and in consideration that he promised to pay all the office and other fees on issuing the patent, it was agreed between Sir William Johnson and the petitioners, that when the patent should be made to them, they would receive the same in trust for him, and that when the title should become vested in them by the patent, they would convey to him; that Sir William Johnson accordingly paid the fees, amounting to upwards of 6007. "that shortly after the issuing of the letters patent, by which the title to the said tract of land be- [*419] came vested in the grantees therein named, and during the course of the year in which the said letters patent issued, the grantees in the said letters patent named, being then in possession thereof, and seised of the same, by virtue of the grant made to them by the letters patent aforesaid, they the said grantees in the said letters patent named, in pursuance of their said agreement with the said Sir William Johnson did, in consideration of the sums of money, or other valuable consideration, paid, delivered, or performed by the said Sir William Johnson to the said grantees, in the said letters patent named respectively, and in consideration of the said Sir William Johnson's having paid, or agreed to pay, all the office and other fees which became payable, and did accrue on issuing the said letters patent as aforesaid, in execution and discharge of their said agreement with the said Sir William Johnson before mentioned, by good and sufficient deeds and conveyances, in the law, for that purpose respectively grant, release, and convey unto the said Sir William Johnson, in fee simple, the whole of the said 25,000 acres of land, in the said letters patent mentioned and described; by virtue of which conveyances, and immediately, or in some short time after the execution thereof, the said Sir William Johnson took possession of the whole of the said 25,000 acres of land, and caused the same to be surveyed, and trees standing on the boundary lines thereof to be marked, showing and designating the bounds of the land:" That Sir William Johnson, on the 11th June, 1772, for 3751. conveyed a parcel containing 10,000 acres, to Lord A. Gordon, the boundary