Georgia v. Brailsford (2 U.S. 402)/Separate Jay

by John Jay

Jay, Chief Justice.My first ideas were unfavorable to the motion; but many reasons have been urged, which operate forcibly to produce a change of opinion.

The great question turns on the property of a certain bond;—whether it belongs to Brailsford, or to Georgia? It is put in suit by Brailsford; but if Georgia, by virtue of the confiscation act, is really entitled to the debt, she is entitled to the money, though the evidence of the debt happened to be in the possession of Brailsford, and though Brailsford has, by that means, obtained a judgment for the amount.

Then the only point to be considered is—whether, under these circumstances, it is not equitable to stay the money in the hands of the marshall, ’till the right to it is fairly decided; and to avoid the risque of putting the true owner to a suit, for the purpose of recovering it back?

For my part, I think that the money should remain in the custody of the law, till the law has adjudged to whom it belongs; and, therefore, I am content, that the injunction issue.

An Injunction granted.^[1]

1. See the same case, post, & 3 vol. p. 1, as well on a motion to dissolve the Injunction, as on a trial of the merits, upon a feigned issue.