
    Smith, et al. vs. The State.
    By the sets Lf3 Confiscation, thtt equimble interests l)f Llrkhh siih’-'ets* ui lands in this state, ivere confute eaied without ofJh'C fouv'U or t-j.« irv, or other net done, and ai*hos such equitable interests were not. di«comvd until long*after the tieu* cy of puuw.
    At-veai. from a decree of tlie Court of Chancery. Bill filed in the name of Ihe state, at tbe instance and for the lase of Carrol! and MnccuHbin,
    
    Hanson, Chancellor, decided, that by the act of October’ 1780, eh. 45, “to sei/.e, confiscate and appropriate, all British property within this state,” and the act of the same session ch. 49, “to appoint commissioners to preserve confiscated British property,*’ the equthible interests of British subjects in lands were confiscated without office founds or entry or other act done, and although such equitable interests w ere net discovered until long after the treaiy of peace between. Great Britain and the United States, ¡ji>eí/A de
      
      cree of the chancellor, as reported in 6 Crunch, 286. ] From that decree the defendants appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan, Nicholson, and Gantt, J. by
    
    
      Johnson, (Attorney General,) for ihe Appellants;
    and by
    
      liidgely, for the Appellee.
   DECREE AFFIRMED.

The appellants brought a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the, United dales, where the decree of this court,, affirming that of the court of chancery, was affirmed. See 6 Cranch, 286.  