Georgia v. Brailsford

Supreme Court of the United States
3 Dall. 1, 1 L. Ed. 483, 3 U.S. 1 (1794)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state statute that sequesters debts owed to enemy aliens during wartime does not vest title in the state, allowing the creditor's right of recovery to revive upon the restoration of peace; furthermore, in civil trials, juries have the authority to determine questions of law as well as questions of fact.

Facts:

Brailsford was a British subject residing in Great Britain, while his partners, Powell and Hopton, were citizens of South Carolina.
The partners held bonds and were owed valid debts by various citizens residing in the State of Georgia.
During the Revolutionary War, the State of Georgia enacted a statute regarding the property and debts belonging to British subjects and loyalists.
The statute purported to affect the debts owed to Brailsford and his partners due to their status during the conflict.
The war concluded with the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain, which included provisions regarding the recovery of pre-war debts.
Following the peace, the State of Georgia claimed ownership of the debts, arguing the wartime statute had fully transferred title to the state.

Procedural Posture:

The State of Georgia filed suit against Brailsford and others in the Supreme Court of the United States, invoking the Court's original jurisdiction.
A special jury was impaneled to hear the case within the Supreme Court.
The parties presented arguments to the Court and jury for four days.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the Georgia statute enacted during the Revolutionary War permanently confiscate debts owed to British subjects, thereby vesting ownership in the State, and does a jury have the authority to decide this question of law?

Opinions:

Majority - John Jay

No, the statute did not confiscate the debts, and yes, the jury is empowered to decide the law. The Court reasoned that regarding the South Carolinian partners, the Georgia statute did not confiscate their property because their own state (South Carolina) had not done so. Regarding Brailsford, the British subject, the Court found that the Georgia statute effected a 'sequestration'—a temporary freezing of the debt—rather than a 'confiscation'—a permanent seizing of title. Because the State never took actual ownership, Brailsford remained the real owner throughout the war. Consequently, the restoration of peace and the terms of the Treaty of Peace revived his right of action to recover the debt. Finally, the Chief Justice instructed the jury that while courts generally decide law and juries decide facts, the jury has the lawful power to determine both.

Analysis:

This case is historically significant for two primary reasons. First, it establishes an early interpretation of the Treaty of Paris, distinguishing between wartime 'sequestration' (which does not transfer title) and 'confiscation' (which does). Second, and more famously, it contains Chief Justice Jay's explicit instruction that juries have the right to judge the law as well as the facts. While the doctrine of 'jury nullification' or determining the law has largely been abandoned in modern federal civil procedure (superseded by cases like Sparf v. U.S.), this opinion remains the primary historical citation for proponents of the jury's broad power to interpret the law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"