
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    DEC. 1811.
    (Present — Judges John Fauchbreaud Grimke, Thomas Waties) Joseph Brevard, William Smith, and Abraham Nott, Esquires. The other Judge, Elihu Hall Bay, Esquire, was absent, by permission from the Legislature.)
    Love v. Hadden.
    Where the plaintiff claimed as heir at law, but failed to shew any title in himself, to authorise a verdict in his favor, a nonsuit was ordered.
    The treaties with Great Britain have for their object the security of British subjects in the disposition of their real property; and cannot have in view any privilege of aliens to succeed as heirs to the estates of American citizens. [Vide Ernas v. Franldin, 2 vol. 398.]
    Motion to set aside a nonsuit, ordered by Judge Bay, in the Court of Common Pleas for Abbeville district.
    The action was to try titles to a tract of land, originally granted to Sarah Fee. The plaintiff claimed as heir at law. It was proved that the land descended to one John Fee, the brother of the grantee, as heir at law, and that John Fee, who was in Charleston in the time of the American war, and looked upon as an American citizen, went off the State to parts unknown, and was not heard of afterwards,
    
      The fair legal presumption was, that John Fee was dead when the action was brought, in which case the plaintiff was next of kin, *° whom the land would descend as an inheritance, provided he was capable in law to lake the same. But it was objected at the trial, that the plaintiff was an alien, and incapable of taking as heir. It was proved that the plaintiff was the only son of Jane Love, who was the sister of John Fee, and was born in Ireland, prior to the American Revolution ; and was not a citizen of the United States at the death of John Fee.
    A nonsuit was ordered on the ground, that the plaintiff had not shewn aiiy title in himself, to authorise a verdict in his favor, but on the contrary, had, from his own shewing, made it appear that the land had escheated ; at any rate, that it had not descended to him. See the case of Ennas v. Franklin, (2 vol. 398,) decided in this court, in May, 1810. The case was submitted without argument.
    Yancey for the plaintiff. Bowie for the defendant.
   Curia.

This case is precisely similar to that of Ennas v. Frank, lin. The treaties with Great Britain do not apply. The treaty supposed to apply, must have had for its object the security of British subjects, in the disposition of their real property, and could not have had in view any privilege of aliens, or British subjects, succeeding as heirs to the estates of American citizens.

Motion refused.  