The these scrip, whether Amasa Jackson, the Georgia 1822. Brown V. Jackson. 1822. Brown V. Jackson. claimant to the United States. The Court is, therefore, of opinion, that this claim was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners, and that their award on the subject is final and conclusive. The next subject of complaint in the appellants' bill, is the award of the Commissioners, that the indemnity upon 957,600 acres, amounting to 130,425 dollars 12 cents, should be deducted from the amount claimed by the New-England Company, on account of certificates issued by that company to purchasers who had not paid their notes to the Georgia Mississippi Company. These scrip the Commissioners determined to be void, and that the parties claiming under them should lose their indemnity. The Georgia Company, thinking they had a lien on the lands sold by them to the New-England Company, to the extent of the same thus unpaid, appear, as well as the New-England Company, as claimants before the Commissioners, who being of opinion that the former were entitled to the indemnity, pro tanto, decreed accordingly. A decision of this question was also clearly within the power of the Commissioners. The act made no distinction between an equitable or a legal claimant. To satisfy the words of the act, it was sufficient that both parties were claimants, and if these claims were found to conflict with, and to be adverse to each other, as was the case here, the Commissioners were to adjudge, and finally to determine on them. On this point, also, the Court is of opinion that the decision of the Commissioners, as between the NewEngland and Georgia Company must be regarded as conclusive. Nor does this opinion in any degree conflict, as has been supposed, with our decision in 1822. Brown V. Jackson. The present decision not in that in Brown the case of Brown v. Gilman. It is true that the Court, in that case, did say, that the lands which had been granted to the New England Company were exempt from any lien of the Georgia Company, notwithstanding the non-payment of these consistent with notes, to which opinion it still adheres; it was not, v. Gilman. however, on that ground, or with any view of disturbing the decision of the Commissioners, that it decreed in favour of Mrs. Gilman. This decision proceeded on the ground, not of an error in the Commissioners, but of a wrong done to Mrs. Gilman by the New-England Company, in the distribution which they made of the indemnity awarded to them. This Court thought that the sum deducted by the Commissioners from the indemnity claimed by the New-England Company, was chargeable on the fund generally, and not individually on the share of Mrs. Gilman. Her share was exempted from bearing the whole of the loss, because, according to the laws of the association of the New-England Company, she had received a certificate which on its very face purported to be, and was regarded as complete evidence of title, whether the person from whom she had purchased had paid his note or not. After issuing to her a certificate in the form which had been devised, in order to render them more valuable, and to enable the holders the more easily to dispose of their interest, the Court thought that whatever the Commissioners might think proper to do, as between the two companies, the New-England Company was bound to let Mrs. Gilman in for a proportion of the indemnity awarded to them, notwith 1822. Brown V. Jackson. standing a failure of payment by any person under whom she claimed. If the Court be correct thus far, there is an end of every demand by the appellants on the respondent: for if the Commissioners had a right to make the deductions which they did from the indemnity claimed by the New-England Company, it can be of no importance to them how the stock, which has thus been deducted, has been disposed of. But even if the Commissioners had exceeded their authority, and improperly awarded the sums which they did to the Georgia Company, it would be difficult to afford the appellants any relief against the respondent. He has received nothing more than the sum awarded to him. for his services, as agent of the Georgia Company. Whether this sum were too small or too large, is a matter between him and that Company; but it cannot here be a proper inquiry out of what fund it was paid. If any persons could be liable to the appellants for a mistake of the Commissioners, it ought to be shown in whose favour the deduction from the indemnity claimed by the New-England Company was made, and not those to whom the stock awarded to them may have been transferred, in satisfaction of the debt of the Company. This would be giving what the Court would not be disposed to do, even if the proceedings of the Commissioners were not conclusive to the New-England Company, a lien on the stock awarded to the Georgia Company, into whosoever hands it may be passed. It is also stated in the bill, that 107,600 acres have been allowed to Jackson, which, even upon the prin ciples established by the Commissioners, were too pany. 1822. 247 Brown V. Jackson. this opinion! The Court, however, does not mean to be under- Limitation of stood as saying, that the appellants, or those who represent the New-England Mississippi Land Company, may not have a remedy against the Georgia Mississippi Land Company for a contribution towards the loss which the former has sustained by the decree in favour of Mrs. Gilman, or for other losses of a similar nature. In this respect, as far as the indemnity extended, which the latter received for the scrip which they held, by their agent, Jackson, they must be considered as coming in under the New-England |