Court: Supreme Court of the United States; March 14, 1817; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
John Baptiste Chirac, a native of France who settled in Maryland in 1793, became a U.S. citizen in 1795 and was naturalized in 1798. Upon his death in 1799, he left no legitimate heirs except for his natural son, John Charles Francis Chirac. Maryland's state law deemed Chirac's lands escheatable, leading to their conveyance to John Charles, who has since possessed them. In 1809, the heirs of John Baptiste Chirac, also French nationals, sought to reclaim the land through an ejectment action. In May 1815, they won a verdict, which is now under review.
The relevant Maryland law, enacted in 1780, grants French subjects the ability to hold land under certain conditions and confers rights similar to free citizens for residents. However, it restricts land ownership for those who remain subjects of France without becoming citizens. Upon the death of a naturalized citizen, the law allows for inheritance by their kindred, regardless of their location, provided certain conditions regarding residency and citizenship are met. The act includes a stipulation that if a French subject does not settle and become a citizen within ten years, the state may claim the real estate. Additionally, it is argued that the U.S. Congress's abrogation of treaties with France and the convention of 1800 effectively repealed the Maryland act due to its reliance on reciprocal agreements.
Local legislatures needed to implement treaties made by the national government under the confederation, as demonstrated by Maryland’s legislature, which enacted a law that modified the reciprocity of the 1778 treaty. This act did not specify a duration, reflecting the expectation of ongoing relations with France, but it became void when the treaty was annulled, resulting in the heirs of John Baptiste Chirac having no inheritable rights. Chirac's naturalization under local law did not grant him the ability to hold land, as the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to establish uniform naturalization laws. Since Maryland's act was a general naturalization law, it could not authorize aliens to hold lands or provide specific privileges, preventing states from enacting laws that would undermine the Constitution's framework of citizenship.
Furthermore, Chirac's heirs failed to meet the act's requirements by not settling in Maryland or transferring property within ten years of acquiring seisin. The term "seisin" in the act refers to legal seisin, and the ten-year limitation begins from that legal status. The act allowed for property transfers without the need for the heirs to be physically present in Maryland.
Contrarily, it was argued that U.S. laws do not automatically repeal state laws but only invalidate conflicting parts. States retain the power to create naturalization laws without granting full political citizenship. Additionally, the Maryland act was viewed as independent of the treaty, serving other policy goals and remaining effective even after the treaty's abrogation in 1798. The act’s conditions regarding residency or property transfer imply a need for actual seisin to enable a feoffment.
Lastly, the 1800 convention allowed citizens of both countries to dispose of property and inherit without needing naturalization, affecting the case's outcome since the defendant held property under the Maryland act, which could be terminated if the conditions were not met.
The first clause of the article grants citizens of either country the authority to dispose of property in the dominions of the other, allowing such disposition through testament or other means, thereby repealing Maryland's prior restriction to feoffment. This clause permits dispositions during the individual's lifetime and by last will, effective only upon death. The second clause equates the inheritance rights of citizens from both countries to those of naturalized individuals, effectively eliminating the need for naturalization for inheritance purposes. The treaty specifies that if either state's laws restrict property rights for non-citizens, the affected real estate can be sold or disposed of to citizens of the country where it is located, which refers to the laws of France and the United States, not individual states. Consequently, any conflicting Maryland law limiting dispositions is invalid under the treaty, which secures the right to convey property in any manner.
Additionally, the treaty does not confer property rights to French citizens that they did not previously possess or alter their existing property rights. For the heirs of John Baptiste Chirac, their claim to property was conditional upon compliance with Maryland law, which would have otherwise led to escheat upon their ancestor's death. If they had naturalized or conveyed the property to a citizen within ten years, they would have secured their rights without needing treaty protections.
The heirs failed to meet the conditions required for their estate, resulting in its forfeiture to the state after ten years. Consequently, the defendants do not possess an estate that can be claimed from either the state or the plaintiff who claims through the state. A general principle of sovereign states prohibits aliens from owning real property, which is based on public policy rather than penalties or forfeitures. The Maryland act allows certain exceptions for French subjects, provided they comply with specific conditions; thus, heirs must demonstrate strict adherence to these terms. Upon the death of a French subject, their heirs inherit the estate and immediately gain seisin, triggering the statute of limitations.
The plaintiff argues that John Baptiste Chirac's estate was escheatable since it was acquired before he became a U.S. citizen, as the Maryland law he followed was effectively repealed by the U.S. Constitution and federal naturalization law. While the power of naturalization is exclusive to Congress, the Maryland act from 1780 purportedly grants French subjects the right to hold land under certain conditions. The act specifies that French subjects must be citizens to hold land in fee, while mere subjects could only hold for life or a limited term. Chirac was not a citizen when he acquired the disputed land. However, the court agrees that the 1778 treaty between the U.S. and France allows French subjects to hold land in the U.S., establishing reciprocity in property rights.
The legal article grants French subjects the right to purchase and hold lands in the United States. It clarifies that the treaty in question became the supreme law after the U.S. Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, making its effects relevant post-emigration of John Baptiste Chirac. The excerpt notes that prior to the French Revolution, the droit d'aubaine was modified through treaties, allowing foreign heirs to inherit property, but this was later reversed by the civil code, establishing reciprocity in civil rights based on treaties. The repeal of the treaty did not affect Chirac's real estate, as he had become a naturalized citizen and no longer needed treaty protections. The key issue raised is whether Chirac's heirs, being French subjects with no active treaty at the time of his death, inherited his land or if it became escheatable. Under Maryland law, a French citizen's kindred can inherit real estate as if they were state citizens. Arguments suggesting that this law was solely to enforce the treaty and was repealed by implication were rejected by the court, which maintained that the law is perpetual and independent of the treaty. However, a proviso in the law states that if a French subject acquires property, it will revert to the state after ten years unless they become a citizen or transfer the property. Chirac's heirs acquired his estate but faced the condition that it could be defeated if the proviso was not met by July 1809, shortly after the suit was initiated.
The heirs admit that they did not fulfill a condition related to the property, but argue that their inability to do so is excused due to legal restrictions imposed by the defendant in Maryland, which prevented them from transferring the land to an American citizen. However, the court finds that the heirs were not legally disabled from executing a conveyance and could have taken action to maintain their estate. The case revolves around a treaty between the United States and France, which grants French subjects the right to dispose of and inherit property in the U.S. without needing naturalization. If the original landowner, John Baptiste Chirac, had lived until the treaty was enacted, his heirs would have benefited from these provisions. The treaty does not enlarge existing estates but allows French subjects to inherit and dispose of property as if they were citizens, thereby questioning whether it modifies the requirement for the heirs to either become U.S. citizens or transfer the property within ten years. The court concludes that the treaty effectively nullifies the condition imposed by Maryland, placing the heirs in the same position as citizens regarding their property rights and eliminating the need for compliance with the original state requirement. The treaty's general provisions supersede Maryland's specific stipulations regarding alien property ownership.
The treaty allows for the sale or disposal of real estate owned by foreigners if local laws restrict their property rights. This provision implies that restrictions may prevent a French national from inheriting or purchasing property from another French national not also a U.S. citizen. However, it does not limit the rights of those who acquired property under the treaty, allowing them to sell or dispose of it to U.S. citizens or residents. A French subject who inherited land from a U.S. citizen can sell it during their lifetime, despite state laws that might otherwise impose restrictions on aliens.
The court notes that while the original treaty granted rights that would last for life, its addition limiting the treaty's duration to eight years raises questions about the impact on existing rights. The court concludes that rights granted by the treaty do not vanish upon its expiration; rather, they are vested and continue to exist beyond the treaty's term. The rights are effective immediately upon acquisition, meaning a French subject retains the same rights regardless of the treaty's expiration. Consequently, the court affirms the judgment in favor of the defendant, who retains the right to recover the land in question.
