J.B.C., a native of France, migrated into the United States in
1793, and became domiciled in Maryland. On 22 September 1795, he
took the oaths of citizenship according to an act of assembly of
Maryland passed in 1779, and the next day received a conveyance in
fee of lands in that state. On 6 July 1798, he was naturalized
under the laws of the United States, and in July 1799, died
intestate leaving no legitimate relations other than the plaintiffs
in ejectment, who, were natives and residents of France. Upon the
supposition that the lands were escheatable, the State of Maryland
conveyed them to his natural son J.C.F.C. with a saving of the
rights of all persons claiming by devise or descent from the
intestate, under which grant, J.C.F.C. took possession of the lands
and remained in possession until the ejectment was brought. In
March, 1809, the defendants in error, the heirs at law of J.B.C.,
French subjects, brought an action of ejectment for the lands in
question, and in May, 1816, obtained a verdict in their favor and a
judgment thereon, which was affirmed.
It was held that the power of naturalization is exclusively in
Congress, but that the treaty of amity and commerce between the
United States and France of 1778, art. 11, enabled the subjects of
France to purchase and hold lands in the United States.
Quaere, what was the effect of this treaty under the
confederation?
J.B.C. having died seized in fee of the lands in question, his
heirs being French subjects, the treaty of 1778 having been
abrogated, and the act of Maryland of 1789, permitting the lands of
a French subject who had become a citizen of Maryland, dying
intestate, to descend on the next of kin being nonnaturalized
Frenchmen, with a proviso vesting the land in the state, if the
French heirs should not, within ten years, become resident citizens
of the state or convey the lands to a citizen it was determined
that the time for the performance of this condition having expired
before the action was brought, the estate was terminated unless
supported in some other manner than by the act of Maryland.
But the convention of 1800 between the United States and France,
enabling the people of one country holding lands in the other to
dispose of the same by testament or otherwise and to inherit lands
in the respective countries without being obliged to obtain letters
of naturalization, it was held that it rendered the performance of
this condition a useless formality, and that the conventional rule
applied equally to the case of those who took by descent under the
act as to those who acquired by purchase without its aid.
The further stipulation in the convention
"that in case the laws of either of the two states should
restrain strangers from the exercise of the rights of property with
respect to real estate, such real estate may be sold or otherwise
disposed of to citizens or inhabitants of the country where it may
be"
was held not to affect the rights of a French subject who takes
or holds by the convention so as to deprive him of the power of
selling to citizens of this country, and was held to give to a
French subject who had acquired lands by descent or devise (and
perhaps, in any other manner) the right, during life, to sell or
otherwise dispose thereof if lying in a state where lands purchased
by an alien generally would be immediately escheatable.
Although the convention of 1800 has expired by its own
limitation, it was determined that the instant the descent was cast
on a French subject during its continuance, his rights became
complete under it and could not be affected by its subsequent
expiration.
Page 15 U. S. 261
John Baptiste Chirac, a native of France, migrated into the
United States in the year 1793 and settled in Maryland. On 22
September, 1795, he took the oaths of citizenship, according to the
form prescribed by an act of assembly of the State of Maryland
passed in the year 1779, and the next day received a conveyance in
fee of land lying within that state.
On 6 July, 1798, he was naturalized as prescribed by the laws of
the United States, and in July, 1799, he died intestate, leaving no
legitimate relations other than the plaintiffs, who are natives and
residents of France.
Supposing the lands of which he died seized to be escheatable,
the State of Maryland conveyed them to John Charles Francis Chirac,
his natural son, with a saving of the rights of all persons
claiming by devise or descent from the intestate. Under this act,
John Charles Francis Chirac took possession of the land of his
father, and has remained in possession ever since.
Page 15 U. S. 262
In March, 1809, the defendants in error, who are the heirs at
law of John Baptiste Chirac and subjects of the King of France,
brought their ejectment for the land of which their ancestor died
seized, and in May, 1815, under the instruction of the court, to
which exceptions were taken, obtained a verdict in their favor on
which a judgment was rendered, which judgment is now before the
Court on a writ of error.
The act of assembly of the State of Maryland, on the
construction of which the cause mainly turned was passed in 1780,
and is entitled "An act to declare and ascertain the privileges of
the subjects of France residing within this state." The 1st section
gives to French subjects the capacity of holding lands within the
state on certain conditions. The 2d section gives to those subjects
who may be resident in the state all the rights of free citizens
thereof. The 3d section contains a proviso restricting and limiting
the privileges granted by the act and declaring that nothing
therein contained
"shall be construed to grant to those who shall continue
subjects of his most Christian Majesty, and not qualify themselves
as citizens of this state, any right to purchase or hold lands, or
real estate but for their respective lives or for years."
The 4th section enacts that if any French subject who shall
become a citizen of Maryland
"shall die intestate, the natural kindred of such decedent,
whether residing in France or elsewhere, shall inherit his or her
real estate in like manner as if such decedent and his kindred were
the citizens of this state,"
with a proviso that
Page 15 U. S. 263
whenever any French subject shall, by virtue of the act, become
seized in fee of any real estate, his or her estate,
"after the term of ten years be expired, shall vest in the state
unless the person seized of the same shall within that time either
come and settle in and become a citizen of this state or enfeoff
thereof some citizen of this or some other of the United States of
America. "
Page 15 U. S. 269
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
The first point made by the plaintiff in error is that the
estate of which John Baptiste Chirac died seized was, in his
lifetime, escheatable, because it was acquired before he became a
citizen of the United States, the law of the State of Maryland,
according to which he took the oaths of citizenship, being
virtually repealed by the Constitution of the United States and the
act of naturalization enacted by Congress.
That the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress does
not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted, but it
is contended that the act of Maryland passed in the year 1780 "To
declare and ascertain the privileges of the subjects of France
residing within that state" gives to those
Page 15 U. S. 270
subjects the power of holding land on the performance of certain
conditions prescribed in that act.
The 2d section gives to the subjects of France who may reside
within the State of Maryland all the rights of free citizens of
that state. The 3d section contains a proviso restricting the
privileges granted by the act and declaring that nothing therein
contained shall be construed to grant to those who should continue
subjects of his most Christian Majesty, and not qualify themselves
as citizens of this state, any right to purchase or hold lands, or
real estate but for their respective lives or for years.
This act certainly requires that a French subject who would
entitle himself under it to hold lands in fee should be a citizen
according to the law which might be in force at the time of
acquiring the estate. Otherwise he could only purchase or hold for
life or years. John Baptiste Chirac was not a citizen according to
that law when he purchased the land in controversy.
It is unnecessary to inquire into the consequences of this state
of things, because we are all of opinion that the treaty between
the United States and France, ratified in 1778, enabled the
subjects of France to hold lands in the United States. That treaty
declared that
"The subjects and inhabitants of the United States, or anyone of
them, shall not be reputed aubains [that is, aliens] in France. . .
. They may, by testament, donation, or otherwise, dispose of their
goods, moveable and immoveable, in favor of such persons as to them
shall seem good,
Page 15 U. S. 271
and their heirs, subjects of the said United States, whether
residing in France or elsewhere, may succeed them
ab
intestat, without being obliged to obtain letters of
naturalization. The subjects of the most Christian King shall enjoy
on their part in all the dominions of the said states an entire and
perfect reciprocity relative to the stipulations contained in the
present article."
Upon every principle of fair construction, this article gave to
the subjects of France a right to purchase and hold lands in the
United States.
It is unnecessary to inquire into the effect of this treaty
under the confederation, because before John Baptiste Chirac
emigrated to the United States, the confederation had yielded to
our present Constitution, and this treaty had become the supreme
law of the land.
Page 15 U. S. 272
The repeal of this treaty could not affect the real estate
acquired by John Baptiste Chirac, because he was then a naturalized
citizen, conformably to the act of Congress, and no longer required
the protection given by treaty.
John Baptiste Chirac having died seized in fee of the land in
controversy, his heirs at law being subjects of France, and there
being at that time no treaty in existence between the two nations,
did his land pass to these heirs, or did it become escheatable?
This question depends on the law of Maryland. The 4th section of
the act already mentioned enacts, among other things, that if any
subject of France who shall become a citizen of Maryland
"shall die intestate, the natural kindred of such decedent,
whether residing in France or elsewhere, shall inherit his or her
real estate in like manner as if such decedent and his kindred were
the citizens of this state."
An attempt has been made to avoid the effect of this claim in
the act by contending that it was passed for the sole purpose of
enforcing the treaty, and was repealed by implication when the
treaty was repealed.
The Court does not think so. The enactment of the law is
positive, and in its terms perpetual. Its provisions are not made
dependent on the treaty, and although the peculiar state of things
then existing might constitute the principal motive for the law,
the act remains in force from its words, however that state of
things may change.
But to this enacting clause is attached a proviso
Page 15 U. S. 273
that whenever any subject of France shall by virtue of this act
become seized in fee of any real estate, his or her estate,
"after the term of ten years be expired, shall vest in the state
unless the person seized of the same shall within that time either
come and settle in and become a citizen of this state or enfeoff
thereof some citizen of this or some other of the United States of
America."
The heirs of John Baptiste Chirac then, on his death, became
seized of his real estate in fee, liable to be defeated by the
nonperformance of the condition in the proviso above recited. The
time given by the act for the performance of this condition expired
in July, 1809, four months after the institution of this suit. It
is admitted that the condition has not been performed, but it is
contended, that the nonperformance is excused, because the heirs
have been prevented from performing it by the act of law and of the
party. The defendant in the court below has kept the heirs out of
possession, under the act of the State of Maryland, so that they
have been incapable of enfeoffing any American citizen, and, having
been thus prevented from performing one condition, they are excused
for not performing the other.
Whatever weight might be allowed to this argument were it
founded in fact, its effect cannot be admitted in this case. The
heirs were not disabled from enfeoffing an American citizen. They
might have entered and have executed a conveyance for the land.
Having failed to do so, their estate has terminated
Page 15 U. S. 274
unless it be supported in some other manner than by the act of
Maryland.
This brings the Court to a material question in the cause. While
the defendants in error were seized of an estate in fee simple,
determinable by their failure to perform the condition contained in
the act of 1780, another treaty was entered into between the United
States and France which provides for the rights of French subjects
claiming lands by inheritance in the United States. This treaty
enables the people of one country holding lands in the other to
dispose of the same by testament or otherwise, as they shall think
proper. It also enables them to inherit lands in the respective
countries without being obliged to obtain letters of
naturalization.
Had John Baptiste Chirac, the person from whom the land in
controversy descended, lived till this treaty became the law of the
land, all will admit that the provisions which have been stated
would, if unrestrained by other limitations, have vested the estate
of which he died seized in his heirs.
If no act had been passed on the subject and the appellees had
purchased lands lying in the United States, it is equally clear
that the stipulations referred to would have operated on these
lands so as to do away that liability to forfeiture to which the
real estates of aliens are exposed.
Has it the same or any effect on the estate of which the
appellees were seized when it was entered into?
It has been argued that the treaty protects existing
Page 15 U. S. 275
estates, and gives to French subjects a capacity to dispose and
to inherit, but does not enlarge estates.
This is true. But the estate of the defendants in error requires
no enlargement. It is already a fee, although subject to be
defeated by the nonperformance of a condition. The question is,
does this treaty dispense with the condition or give a longer time
for its performance? The condition is that those who hold the
estate shall become citizens of the United States or shall enfeoff
a citizen within ten years. Does the treaty control or dispense
with this condition?
The direct object of this stipulation is to give French subjects
the rights of citizens so far as respects property, and to dispense
with the necessity of obtaining letters of naturalization. It does
away the incapacity of alienage, and places the defendants in error
in precisely the same situation with respect to lands as if they
had become citizens. It renders the performance of the condition a
useless formality, and seems to the Court to release the rights of
the state as entirely in this case as in the case of one who had
purchased, instead of taking by descent. The act of Maryland has no
particular reference to the case of Chirac, but is a general rule
of state policy prescribing the terms on which French subjects may
take and hold lands. This rule is changed by the treaty, and it
seems to the Court that the new rule applies to all cases, as well
to those where the lands have descended by virtue of the act as to
those where lands have been acquired
Page 15 U. S. 276
without its aid. The general power to dispose "without
limitation" which is given by the treaty controls the particular
power to enfeoff within ten years which is given by the act of
Maryland.
But the treaty proceeds to stipulate
"that in case the laws of either of the two states should
restrain strangers from the exercise of the rights of property with
respect to real estate, such real estate may be sold or otherwise
disposed of to citizens or inhabitants of the country where it may
be."
In many of the states, perhaps in all of them, the laws do
"restrain strangers from the exercise of the rights of property
with respect to real estate;" consequently this provision limits to
a certain extent the principles antecedently granted. What is the
extent of this limitation?
It will probably prevent a French subject from inheriting or
purchasing the estate of a French subject who is not also a citizen
of the United States, but it cannot affect the right of him who
takes or holds by virtue of the treaty so as to deprive him of the
power to do that for which this clause stipulates -- that is, "to
sell or otherwise dispose of the property to citizens or
inhabitants of this country." This general power to sell, according
to the principles of our law and, it is presumed, of that of
France, endures for life. A subject of France, then, who had
acquired lands by descent or devise (perhaps also by any other mode
of purchase) from a citizen of the United States would have a right
during life to sell or otherwise dispose of those lands if lying in
a state where lands purchased by an alien generally would
Page 15 U. S. 277
be immediately escheatable on account of alienage. The Court can
perceive no reason for restraining this construction in the
application of the treaty to the State of Maryland where the law,
instead of subjecting the estate to immediate forfeiture, protects
it for ten years. The treaty substitutes the term of life for the
term of ten years given by the act.
If, then, the treaty between the United States and France still
continued in force, the defendant would certainly be entitled to
recover the land for which this suit is instituted. But the treaty
is, by an article which has been added to it, limited to eight
years, which have long since expired. How does this circumstance
affect the case?
The treaty was framed with a view to its being perpetual.
Consequently its language is adapted to the state of things
contemplated by the parties, and no provision could be made for the
event of its expiring within a certain number of years. The Court
must decide on the effect of this added article in the case which
has occurred. It will be admitted that a right once vested does not
require for its preservation the continued existence of the power
by which it was acquired. If a treaty or any other law has
performed its office by giving a right, the expiration of the
treaty or law cannot extinguish that right. Let us, then, inquire
whether this temporary treaty gave rights which existed only for
eight years, or gave rights during eight years which survived
it.
The terms of this instrument leave no doubt on this subject. Its
whole effect is immediate. The instant
Page 15 U. S. 278
the descent is cast, the right of the party becomes as complete
as it can afterwards be made. The French subject who acquired lands
by descent the day before its expiration has precisely the same
rights under it as he who acquired them the day after its
formation. He is seized of the same estate, and has precisely the
same power during life to dispose of it. This limitation of the
compact between the two nations would act upon and change all its
stipulations if it could affect this case. But the Court is of
opinion that the treaty had its full effect the instant a right was
acquired under it, that it had nothing further to perform, and that
its expiration or continuance afterwards was unimportant.
Judgment affirmed.
