98 HEPBURN'S CASE.—3 BLAND.

who was authorized to make up an issue upon the case, and send
it for trial before a jury. 1786, ch. 49, s. 4. And, as if to leave
the door wide open for any citizen to come in and obtain a judicial
decision upon a claim of any kind which he might have against
the State, any claimant was allowed, in the manner prescribed, to
commence and prosecute an action at law against the State; 1786,
ch. 53; which law remained in force until within a short time past.
1820, ch. 210.

The Confiscation Acts divested the Mollisons of all their prop-
erty, debts only excepted, upon the ground that they were alien
enemies; and, consequently, those very Acts, as to all such prop-
erty, virtually declared them to be civilly dead. The question
then arises, how far did those laws really impede or embarrass
Hepburn in the collection of his debt. It must be admitted, that
but for the confiscation of the property of the Mollisons, Hepburn
might, by an attachment, have taken any part of it, real or per-
sonal, as well as their debts, in satisfaction of his claim. But the
* Confiscation Acts allowed him to come in and have his
117 claim passed by the commissioners, or the Auditor-General;
and so far, therefore, his remedy was changed without being im-
paired.

In regard to this change of remedies, it is evident that the Con-
fiscation Acts considered the Molli^ons as deceased debtors, and
the State as their trustee for the benefit of their creditors, citizens
of this country; and as administering their assets according to the
principles of equity. Upon a creditor's bill, in this Court, all the
assets of the deceased debtor are made subject to the payment of
his debts, so that the personalty, or natural fund may, at the in-
stance and for the benefit of the heirs and devisees, be first ap-
plied. And all his creditors are called in, by a general notice:
and their claims, on being proved and adjusted, are ordered to be
paid from the proceeds of the sale of the estate, If any claims
are not brought in before a distribution is actually made, they are
excluded from any satisfaction in that case. Such is the course of
administering the estate of a deceased debtor in Chancery.
Hammond v. Hammond, 2 Bland, 307; Tessier v. Wyse, ante, 28.
The course of proceeding prescribed by the Confiscation Acts, is
strikingly analogous to it; those Acts requiring that the creditors
should endeavor first to obtain satisfaction from the debts due to
their debtor in this State: and on their being no such debts, that
their claims against the property taken by the State, should be
exhibited within a limited time, or be excluded; and should be
legally proved, if required, to the satisfaction of the jury.

Considering the actual situation of the Mollisons, and the whole
subject in this point of view, it is manifest that Hepburn's remedy
for the recovery of his debt, was in no manner whatever materi-
ally impaired or obstructed; that although in some respects dif-