
    The State vs. Chase.
    Appeal from £nne-,Arundel County Court. This was an action of assumpsit, brought against the state, for money had and received, and for sundry matters properly chargeable in account, The general issue was pleaded. At the trial it appeared in evidence, that undertheact ofApril 1783, ch. 35, Samuel Chase, the plaintiff, (now appellee,) was appointed agent and trustee, on the part of the state, to execute several trusts, &c. relative to the capital stock in the Bank of England belonging to the state, and to receive a transfer thereof, anil sell the same, &e. and for which he was allowed a commission of four per cent, on the pet sum by hi in received, in full satisfaction for his trouble. By the act of 1801, ch. 103, the minister of the United States in London was vested with authority to receive, in his own name, in behalf of the state, a transfer of the stock, and all dividends due; and that he should transfer to the plaiptiff four per centum in bank stock on (he amount which might be transferred, to him; and pay to the plaintiff the like per century. on the amount of any dividends due, which the minister might receive. Osgood Ilanbury and Co. being creditors of Z>. Bulany, he executed tothein a mortgage of his lands, which lands were confiscated by the state, andón application of Banbury and Co., to the stale for the payment of theq- debt, the act of 1786, ch 50, authorised the plaintiff to assign to them a portion of the bank stock, not exceeding £11,000 of the capital of the said stock. (See Barclay vs. Bussell, 3 Uescy, 424). On the 1st of May 1803, the stock claimed by the state amounted to £187,567 12 0; but in the course of negotiations, on account of claims, &c. it was reduced; an<l on the 14th of August 1804, William Pinkney, esquire,the then minister of the United States, received a transfer for £100,940 0 1, entire capital fiauk stock, £6,976 l 8, payy 5 c. annuities, ¿8,814 16 1, 5 p. c. annuities of 1797, and cash,paid to him £5,865 7 5, and he transferred to Ilanbury’s executors £19,910 bank stock, £1531 navy 5 p. c. £1825, 5 p. c. of 1797, and paid them in cash £1237, in satisfaction of their claim of £11,000 bank stock, which was directed by the state to be assigned in payment of the debt of IIanbury and Co. The said minister caused to be transferred, to tlie agent £4037 bank stock for his commission on the Entire capital of bank stock, retaining the commissions on the annuities and cash, to answer the sum of money received by the agent’s solicitors, by way of costs, and he caused to be transferred to the use of the state, £66,993 0 1 bank, Stock, <¿’5445 1 8, navy 5 p. c. £6,489 16 1, 5 p. c. of 1797» and paid in cash £3,918 7 5. Part of the cíairá of the plaintiff in this action was for his comaiissioh of 4 p, ft. on the annuities transferred and cash paid to Han-bury’s executors; but it was resisted by the attorney general on tire ground, that it was agreed by Mr. Pinkney, in order to obtain a transfer of the stock, that immediately »a its being made to him, he would transfer the sum o££lS»910 bank stock to Ilanbury'1 s executors; and on Ihe stock being transferred, he did transfer that amount to Ilanbury’s executors; and the court were called cn by by the attorney general to direct the jury, that the plaintiff was not entitled to a commission of 4 p. c. on the said stock so transferred to Hanbury’s executors. But the court, [Chase, Ch. J. and Harwood, A. J.] were of opinion, that if the jury should Hud the above fact, and should also find from the evidence, that the said transfer was made to Han-¿wry’s executors, to pay and satisfy a debt due from the state to Ilanbury, by mortgage from Dulany, on land confiscated by the state, that in such case the state received the beneficial use of the stock so transferred, and the plaintiff was entitled, according to his contract with the state, and the several acts of the legislature confirmatory thereof, to 4 p. c. commission on the said stock thus transferred by Mr. Pinkney. The court were also of opinion, that the liability of the state to pay the said debt, did not depend on the bank stock, and if it had not been obtained by suit or negotiation, the obligation of the state to pay the said debt, would have remained, as it arose from the act of confiscation, and was secured by the treaty of peace. That the said claim of Ilanbury had no connexion with the bank stock, nor was alien on the same; that the only subject of negotiation was the right of the state to the bank stock, and the means used to obtain it could not be considered as a part of the subject of negotiation. The attorney general excepted on the part of the state; and the verdict and judgment being for the plaintiff, this appeal was prosecuted on the part of the state.
    
      S C was appointed under ihe act of 17*3, ch 35, agent on the part of the state, to receive a transfer o i stock in the Bank of Erigland belonging; to the state, and he was allowed' a commission of 4 per cepl on the net sum to be by him received, ‘in full satisfaction ibr his trouble^ O H, having a claim agaiiv>t the state on account of land jnort£iip*edto liitn by JD D, which )mid was coiiiUeattnl by the state, the agent was by the act of 1786, ch, 50, uptliorued to assign to O II n portion of the bank stock, not exceeding’ ¿11,000, By tbe act óf 1*01; ch. 103, the mir/ister of the U S m London )vus vested with autfioiity to receive a’transfer of the stock and all dividends due, and to1 transfer to the ageht 4‘ per cent in bank'stoejc on the amount which might be transferred to him, and psfy to tlie spent tbe lifte/Str centum on the dividends received. Tlie minister receive d a' •transfer 'pi i|ie stock* and trausiet red' to O ll’tp tbe amount <lue ‘to 'him, and to ’th'e agent he transferred to the ¿mount of 4 per cent’ commission pn’thetíntire capital of the bank stock, HeM% tJiat the agenfwas entitled' to 4 per cent commission on- ihe ‘stock so transferred to the minister. ’ ; 1 ¡ | ; | : • ! i • • ; ! •
    
      The cause was argued before Buchanan, Gantt, anil Eaitle, J. by
    
      Johnson, (Attorney General,) for the State;
    and by
    
      Marlin, fur the Appellee,
    and by the Appellee m propria persona.
    
   The Court

agreed in opinion with the court below as expressed in the bill of exceptions.

Gantt, J. dissented.

JUDGMENT affirmed.  