AN APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Judicature of Holland, Zealand and West-Friesland, To the KING of GREAT BRITAIN;  
Or The Case briefly stated between George Carew Esquire, Administrator of the Goods and Chattels of Sir William Courten Knight deceased, with his Will annexed, And The Heirs of Sir Jacob Cats, late Pensionaris of Holland and West-Friesland.  
Printed in the Year 1674.   

The Case between George Carew Esquire, Administrator of Sir William Courten, and The Heirs of Sir Jacob Cats, late Pensionaris of Holland.  
SIr Jacob Cats became bound in the City of London, unto Sir William Courten of London Knight, by a writing obligatory dated the 29 of July 1631. in the penalty of 3000. Pounds, conditioned for the payment of 2080. Pounds on the 12. of February following, according to the Custom of England.  
The money was not paid but continued at interest during Sir William Courten's life, who died in the Year 1636, indebted to several Persons seventy thousand Pounds Sterling and upwards, and leaves William Courten Esquire, his Son and Heir his sole Executor.  
William Courten the Executor having contracted many debts of his own, became insolvent, and absented himself in the Year 1643. from his Creditors, and also from the further administration of his Father's Estate; but before he left the Kingdom, Mr Jacob Pergens, a free Denizon of England inhabiting at Amsterdam, addressed himself to Mr. Courten for satisfaction of some money, due to him from Sir William Courten, and Mr. Courten himself as Pergens pretended.  
William Courten the Executor by a Letter of Attorney and Assignment, dated the 31. of October 1643, grants and transfers the said Bond of 3000. Pounds unto Mr. Pergens, with power to sue Sir Jacob Cats for the said debt and damages to his own use.  
In the Year 1645. Jacob Pergens summons Sir Jacob Cats (than Pensionaris of Holland) into the Provincial Court at the Hague, and declares against him for the said moneys; During the said controversy Sir Jacob Cats applies himself to the Commissioners concerning Bankrupts in England, who had a Commission (grounded upon the Statutes in such cases made and provided) to inquire after Mr. Courtens particular Estate for satisfaction of his own debts, but being advised that the Commissioners had no legal Authority to intermeddle with Sir William Courtens Estate, which was liable in another right for the payment of his own proper debts, Sir Jacob Cats declined from any further Treaty with them.  
Nevertheless the Commissioners by their writing Authentic, prohibited Sir Jacob Cats to pay any money to Jacob Pergens upon the said Bond. Then Pergens soon after obtained a Decree out of the Provincial Court, to cite and admonish to Commissioners in England, if they had any right or pretence to the said Bond or money due thereupon, they should institute the same before the said Provincial Court at a day certain, or be condemned in perpetual silence, whereupon the Commissioners appeared by their Advocate. Then Pergens by an insinuation prohibited Sir Jacob Cats from payment of any money to them or to any other, or to make any agreement with them; Yet notwithstanding (de bene esse) on the 18. of July 1653. Jacob Pergens procured an Assignment of the said Bond from the said Commissioners for 400. Pounds, to the end they might let their Process cease, whereby Pergens might proceed against Sir Jacob Cats, which he did accordingly.  
But pendente lite William Courten the Executor died intestate in Italy, whereby the action abated against Sir Jacob Cats, according to the known rule in Law: Quod actio personalis moritur cum persona.  
Afterwards upon the Kings most happy restauration, Letters of Administration of the Goods, and Chattels, Rights, Debts, and Credits of Sir William Courten with his Will annexed, were granted on the 14. of July 1660. to the said George Carew; yet notwithstanding Jacob Pergens (who had formerly by another fraudulent practice, gotten into his hands 85000 gilders from the East-India Company, upon pretended assignment from the said William Courten) prevailed with the Provincial Court on the 4. of November 1661. to give Sentence in the said cause against Sir Jacob Cats, and condemned him to pay the said money, due upon the said Bond, unto Jacob Pergens, and interest thereof at 8. per cent, soon after Sir Jacob Cats died, and his Heirs appealed from the said Sentence to the supreme Court of Judicature at the Hague.  
Then George Carew, in his quality as Administrator, intervened in the said cause, before the Lords of the said supreme Court, in the month of May 1662., where having by his Request in writing to their Lordships made known his right and property to the said money, concluded in his Demand that Pergens should be condemned to acquiess in the said cause, and deliver up the Bond, as having no right to the Money by the said Assignments from Mr. Courten, or the Commissioners, conformable to the Laws of England, where the debt was contracted and the Bond made, and also demanded that the Heirs of Sir Jacob Cats should be ordered to pay the Money, due upon the said Bond to the said George Carew, in his quality as Administrator of Sir William Courten, the same being an unadministred effect of Sir William Courten's Estate.  
Then the Advocates of both sides desired time to consult concerning the Laws of England in that point, and to inform the Court therein accordingly.  
The Case being drawn up, and agreed by the Advocats of both parties, several of the Judges in England gave their opinions upon the same, under their hands before a public Notary, which was transmitted to the supreme Court of Judicature of Holland: Wherein was affirmed that by the Law of England, the Bond of Sir Jacob Cats could not be granted or assigned to Mr. Pergens, either by the Executor or Commissioner. That after the death of William Courten (Executor in Auter droit) the action against Sir Jacob Cats abated, but when the Administration was granted to Carew, the said action was properly to be received by him as having the only right in Law to the said debt, the property being not changed by any Act of Mr. Courten or the Commissioners, but remained as assets liable to the Testators debts according to the nature and priority in Law, and the intervention of Carew in the said cause was a continuance of the said action, Carew having the right of prosecution to receive the same, allowing the said Pergens in equity his costs of suit.  
Then Pergens made a dilatory & impertinent exception, that he was a Burger of Amsterdam, although his dwellinghouse was in the Hague, and pretended he ought to be first impleaded before his Competent Judges there, and not in the Hague before the supreme Court of Judicature where the suit depended: whereupon the Court rejected Mr. carew's suit, and decreed that the Here van Carnisse, and the rest of the Heirs of Sir Jacob Cats, should pay the said Money to Pergens with mitigation of the Interest, and that Pergens should give them Caution to be saved harmless against Carew, which was respectively done to the apparent wrong of Mr. Carew, and several of his Majesty's good Subjects in England, that claim under Mr. carew's administration the effects of Sir William Courten's Estate unadministred.  
Wherefore they appeal to the King of Great Britain, for protection and means to recover their just rights, being of most dangerous consequence against the Law of property, to suffer Foreign Courts of Judicature to entrench upon the Laws of England, or to wrong the Judicature thereof. And the rather for that the Lords of the supreme Court at the Hague, were preadmonished by several learned Advocates there, as follows:  

1. That Mr. Carew being a Stranger, was to be admitted at his first instance by the instructions of their own Court.  
2. That the Court were positively obliged to give judgement according to the Law of England, where the Money was lent and the Bond was signed.  
3. That by the Laws of Nations all Courts of Justice were to give Sentences, in Cases of Contracts, according to the Law of the Country where such Contracts were made.  
4. That the supreme Court was the proper place of Judicature in this Case of Intervention, and that if they did not admit Mr. Carew prima instantia, they would do him an apparent injustice, and wrong both the Judicature of England, and of the United Netherlands; Yet the Pensionaris john de Witt being a Kinsman to Mr. Pergens his Wife, prevailed with some of the Lords of the supreme Court, to deny Mr. Carew that ordinary Justice, which ought to be administered to all Strangers, whereby he hath suffered to his damage 5000. Pounds Sterling and upwards.   
FINIS.