You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Ogden, Administrator of Cornell v. Blackledge, of Salter

Citations: 6 U.S. 272; 2 L. Ed. 276; 2 Cranch 272; 1804 U.S. LEXIS 260

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; March 18, 1804; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case of Ogden v. Blackledge revolves around a dispute over a debt on a bond executed by the defendant's testator in favor of the plaintiff's testator, Samuel Cornell, a British subject. The core legal issue is whether the plaintiff's claim is barred by a 1715 North Carolina legislative act that disallows debt recovery after seven years from the debtor's death. The plaintiff, however, contended that the debt was protected by the fourth article of the peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States, thereby exempting it from state law limitations. The defendant asserted the act as a complete defense. The circuit court judges were divided on the applicability of this act, leading to certification to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the referenced act had been repealed by the 1789 legislation, which took effect before the treaty's ratification and the commencement of the seven-year limitation period for debts owed to British creditors. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim was not barred, determining that the treaty effectively rendered the state act inapplicable, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with the claim.

Legal Issues Addressed

Impact of International Treaties on Domestic Law

Application: The plaintiff argued that the debt was exempt from the state law due to the fourth article of the peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States.

Reasoning: The plaintiff countered that Cornell was a British subject at his death, invoking the fourth article of the peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States to argue that the debt was not subject to the state law.

Repeal of Conflicting Legislation

Application: The court determined that the 1715 act was effectively repealed by the 1789 act, rendering the defendant's plea based on the former act invalid.

Reasoning: The court, in reviewing whether an act of assembly serves as a bar to the plaintiff's action, concluded that the act referenced in the defendant's plea does not bar the action, having been repealed by the 1789 act.

Statute of Limitations on Debt Claims

Application: The court examined whether the 1715 North Carolina act, which barred claims after seven years from a debtor's death, applied to the plaintiff's claim.

Reasoning: Creditors of a deceased individual must submit their claims within seven years of the debtor's death; failure to do so results in a permanent bar to recovery.